Casey's Reaction to Found Remains was Video Taped

[faefrost]

I’m envisioning a situation in which Casey is positioned in front of a television; the television is very close to her; powered on; and tuned in to the developing coverage of the remains discovery. I’m envisioning a situation in which she had no choice but to watch and listen to the coverage the entire time she was sitting in the room she was taken to by jail staff. We don’t know the exact circumstances surrounding how she came to be in that room and watching the coverage— we don’t know who was there, who was not there, who said what, how long she was there, if she could leave, etc.

But, as I personally process the limited information we have received about the alleged event and its taping, I personally envision a situation which — to me— resonates as a deviation from the standard operations within the jail. The event, as I see it, seems to have been engineered for the purpose of eliciting an incriminating response from Casey Anthony. As with all matters of perspective and opinion, I can understand and respect how someone else might be visualizing and contemplating the situation differently than I do.

As for the 6th amendment issue, I think there’s an argument to be made and I don’t think I’m incorrect. You see things differently and I respect that. There’s more than one way to envision and contemplate a fact pattern and there’s more than one way to interpret the law. I think it’s reasonably likely that Baez will prevail in this motion— I might be wrong. You think Baez is going to lose— you might be right.

I agree with you re: the procedure Baez should have undertaken re: suppression. However, as you pointed out, Baez generally fails to follow the appropriate procedure— i.e. Filing a counterclaim against ZFG when he should have filed a motion to dismiss. Etc. etc.

Also I don’t “claim to be a lawyer” --
I have a BA in political science and psychology. I have a JD from an ABA accredited law school. I have passed the Bar Exam in the state where I attended law school. I do not currently practice law in any state, nor have I ever individually represented clients— nor have I ever claimed to be currently practicing law or representing clients. Years ago I worked as a paralegal and I’ve also worked within the legal/court system in a non-advocate capacity. I am currently working on a graduate degree in clinical/forensic psychology. I do not feel that I’ve misrepresented myself within these forums, nor do I make express claims in my signature or posts. If you are interested in knowing more about me personally, please PM me.

It does not matter if it is a non standard operation that was performed to observe a response from the inmate. She has the right to remain silent. She has the right not to respond. As long as LE was not directly questioning her they are well within their boundries. Just as anything she says to a fellow inmate may be used, regardless of whether she has invoked her lawyer. Any statements or actions she volunteers are fair game for the prosecutors. reacting to what she sees on a TV is fair game. As long as LE did not march her into a room sit her down and force her to watch something while questioning her they are still well inside the lines of permissable observation.

Further, she is incarcerated. Her rights to privacy have been surrendered to the state. There is no HIPPA right. HIPPA is an offshoot of privacy. About the only times that HIPPA would still apply would be direct comunications between the patient and health care personel.

 

[LinasK]

It does not matter if it is a non standard operation that was performed to observe a response from the inmate. She has the right to remain silent. She has the right not to respond. As long as LE was not directly questioning her they are well within their boundries. Just as anything she says to a fellow inmate may be used, regardless of whether she has invoked her lawyer. Any statements or actions she volunteers are fair game for the prosecutors. reacting to what she sees on a TV is fair game. As long as LE did not march her into a room sit her down and force her to watch something while questioning her they are still well inside the lines of permissable observation.

Further, she is incarcerated. Her rights to privacy have been surrendered to the state. There is no HIPPA right. HIPPA is an offshoot of privacy. About the only times that HIPPA would still apply would be direct comunications between the patient and health care
personel.

Thank-you for laying this issue to rest!:clap::clap::clap: There are many who will not accept this answer and continue to beat a dead horse.

 

[FootballMom]

Thank-you for laying this issue to rest!:clap::clap::clap: There are many who will not accept this answer and continue to beat a dead horse.

I'm one of those that you speak of.... I am going to attempt to steer clear of general semantics while I respectfully disagree: 1.) Prisoner’s do not relinquish all civil liberties (prior to or after conviction); 2.) The Right to Privacy is valid (prior to or after conviction); 3.) Whether or not KC was taped receiving treatment from medical personnel remains to be seen. We (including JB) still do not know the exact circumstances surrounding the timing, reasons, or placement of the video.

If she was taken to the clinic not at her request, but because she was about to receive “bad news” and was informed of that “bad news” via television news casts instead of her attorney or clergy my hunch is that JB could argue that her 8th Amendment Rights (cruel & unusual punishment) were violated and quite obviously much to the dismay of many.... he might possibly win. But of course we can all hope that he does not argue that which of course leaves the fear of ineffective counsel... yada, yada, yada, yada....

I will say this again for the record… I am NOT on Team KC, I am NOT on Team JB… I am simply pointing out certain rights and how they may affect possible outcomes. :twocents:

I think the horse might still have a few signs of life, I guess I should find a bigger stick.... :angel:

 

[BonKai]

And yet, her observation of a possible find at JBP, the location she claims she last saw her daughter alive, garnered nothing but disinterested notice.

Exactly!

 

[LinasK]

I'm one of those that you speak of.... I am going to attempt to steer clear of general semantics while I respectfully disagree: 1.) Prisoner’s do not relinquish all civil liberties (prior to or after conviction); 2.) The Right to Privacy is valid (prior to or after conviction); 3.) Whether or not KC was taped receiving treatment from medical personnel remains to be seen. We (including JB) still do not know the exact circumstances surrounding the timing, reasons, or placement of the video.

If she was taken to the clinic not at her request, but because she was about to receive “bad news” and was informed of that “bad news” via television news casts instead of her attorney or clergy my hunch is that JB could argue that her 8th Amendment Rights (cruel & unusual punishment) were violated and quite obviously much to the dismay of many.... he might possibly win. But of course we can all hope that he does not argue that which of course leaves the fear of ineffective counsel... yada, yada, yada, yada....

I will say this again for the record… I am NOT on Team KC, I am NOT on Team JB… I am simply pointing out certain rights and how they may affect possible outcomes. :twocents:

I think the horse might still have a few signs of life, I guess I should find a bigger stick.... :angel:

8th amendment is NOT HIPPA. I have never suspected that Casey's HIPPA rights were violated, and I worked in Healthcare for 13 years in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health.

 

[Chezhire]

Good post - I've thought the whole thing odd -- I thought this is what they pay Chaplains for??? Agreed - why perform the "standard procedure" before it was established who the remains belonged to???

Chaplains aren't used unless the prisoner, Casey, asks for one, and standard procedure = letting her keep abreast of the developments on news regarding the case against her, just as they took her to a room to let her watch the findings when JBP was being searched and things were being found.

 

[Chezhire]

15 houses away from her home? I would be hysterical too if a two year old child's bones were found that close by. And I would assume it was probably a family member if one had gone missing.

The video is not important. It can be taken either way.

Not when compared with the fact that she allegedly showed no emotion/no response to the findings of bones bellieved to be human at JBP, also a locale I deem to be close enough to home that it should have prompted a response from an "innocent" Casey.
The comparison between Casey's reactions to the news reports that bones were found will be HIGHLY relevant and damaging to her defense, too.

 

[Chezhire]

I'm curious if she was taken to the med unit when the search was going on at JB park? And, we all know nothing was found there. However, remains were found 15 houses away which is what the big hoopla was all about. Nothing was found at the park.

The older threads contain information supporting the fact that Casey was taken to see television coverage of the bones being found at JBP as the finds were being televised, i.e., in real time.
In regards to the above comment that "[a]nd, as we all know nothing was found there...," the relevant fact is that as the finds were being made and televised, Casey watched, and on BOTH occasions when Casey was watching the finds live no one could tell whether or not the bones belonged to Caylee, and she showed no emotion whatsoever re: JBP. Therefore, the fact that the finds were LATER determined NOT to be Caylee is irrelevant to the present discussion, which is all about the difference between Casey's reactions, in real time, as the findings of bones are reported on television.

 

[Chezhire]

:clap:

It does not matter if it is a non standard operation that was performed to observe a response from the inmate. She has the right to remain silent. She has the right not to respond. As long as LE was not directly questioning her they are well within their boundries. Just as anything she says to a fellow inmate may be used, regardless of whether she has invoked her lawyer. Any statements or actions she volunteers are fair game for the prosecutors. reacting to what she sees on a TV is fair game. As long as LE did not march her into a room sit her down and force her to watch something while questioning her they are still well inside the lines of permissable observation.

Further, she is incarcerated. Her rights to privacy have been surrendered to the state. There is no HIPPA right. HIPPA is an offshoot of privacy. About the only times that HIPPA would still apply would be direct comunications between the patient and health care personel.

Exactly - and she also had the "right" to turn her head, refuse to watch, or go to sleep, etc. Which she did not.
For purposes of argument, I can hear the SA: "She CHOSE to watch the television and she CHOSE to respond in a public manner instead of keeping a straight face and remaining calm."

 

[Oakley]

Not when compared with the fact that she allegedly showed no emotion/no response to the findings of bones bellieved to be human at JBP, also a locale I deem to be close enough to home that it should have prompted a response from an "innocent" Casey.
The comparison between Casey's reactions to the news reports that bones were found will be HIGHLY relevant and damaging to her defense, too.

Thanks for your professional input, Chezhire. ITA.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... 1.) Prisoner’s do not relinquish all civil liberties (prior to or after conviction); 2.) The Right to Privacy is valid (prior to or after conviction..."

Bolded emphasis by me.
Link for your supporting legal authority for the bolded portion, please? I ask because all of the case law that I'm familiar with stands for the opposite of what you're saying. Please feel free to throw up some case research cites' links, as we subscribe to them all at my law offices.

SNIPPED: "... If she was taken to the clinic not at her request, but because she was about to receive “bad news” and was informed of that “bad news” via television news casts instead of her attorney or clergy my hunch is that JB could argue that her 8th Amendment Rights (cruel & unusual punishment) were violated and quite obviously much to the dismay of many.... he might possibly win. ..."

Again, link for your supporting legal authority for saying this? Again, I ask because all of the case law that I'm familiar with stands for the opposite of what you're saying.

Please feel free to throw up some case research cites' links, as we subscribe to them all at my law offices.
TIA!

 

[Chezhire]

Thanks for your professional input, Chezhire. ITA.

You're very welcome.

 

[Chezhire]

8th amendment is NOT HIPPA. I have never suspected that Casey's HIPPA rights were violated, and I worked in Healthcare for 13 years in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health.

Great and astute observation, LinasK.
Good to get input from one with as lengthy a medical background as yours. Also good to see that those who practice/practiced in the health care field and those of us who practice law are on the same page in this thread.

 

[Sissy1355]

Does anyone know if Biaz has picked up the tape yet?

 

[FootballMom]

8th amendment is NOT HIPPA. I have never suspected that Casey's HIPPA rights were violated, and I worked in Healthcare for 13 years in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health.

It is HIPAA.... not HIPPA..... The Right to Privacy is part of HIPAA, I never said that it was part of the 8th Amendment.

 

[FootballMom]

Bolded emphasis by me.
Link for your supporting legal authority for the bolded portion, please? I ask because all of the case law that I'm familiar with stands for the opposite of what you're saying. Please feel free to throw up some case research cites' links, as we subscribe to them all at my law offices.

Again, link for your supporting legal authority for saying this? Again, I ask because all of the case law that I'm familiar with stands for the opposite of what you're saying.

Please feel free to throw up some case research cites' links, as we subscribe to them all at my law offices.
TIA!

Since you are well connected at your office I won't inundate you with explicit references….

1.) Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86
2.) Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309 and of course HIPAA (Right to Privacy)
3.) "Cruel and Unusual" is not clearly defined by the 8th Amendment, it remains subjective and at the liberty of the “evolving standards test”.

I am not saying that these would be a "slam dunk" but they are arguable.... especially since we do not know the facts surrounding her tape (why, when, how, exactly where, etc.).

 

[FootballMom]

Great and astute observation, LinasK.
Good to get input from one with as lengthy a medical background as yours. Also good to see that those who practice/practiced in the health care field and those of us who practice law are on the same page in this thread.

Not everyone.... some might do both...

 

[Chezhire]

Since you are well connected at your office I won't inundate you with explicit references….

1.) Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86
2.) Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309 and of course HIPAA (Right to Privacy)
3.) "Cruel and Unusual" is not clearly defined by the 8th Amendment, it remains subjective and at the liberty of the “evolving standards test”.

I am not saying that these would be a "slam dunk" but they are arguable.... especially since we do not know the facts surrounding her tape (why, when, how, exactly where, etc.).

Neither of these cases even come near the factual scenario that Casey's case presents,
nor do they stand for the legal premise for which you cite same.

Trop vs. Dulles, here, for those of you WSers with access to Westlaw,
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/defaul...Set&RLT=CLID_FQRLT28232101753&TF=756&TC=1&n=1
did not even discuss or mention the issue/question of the 8th Amendment in the context of the question of what privacy rights, if any, does a prisoner have while imprisoned and awaiting trial. It's legal holding/premise for which it stands is as follows: "statute authorizing expatriation of person who is convicted by military court martial of desertion from United States Army in wartime and is given a dishonorable discharge, even though no attempt is made to give allegiance to a foreign power, is beyond the war powers of Congress."

Similarly NOT ON POINT, Doe vs. Dellie, here, for those of you WSers with access to Westlaw:
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/defaul...6&RLT=CLID_FQRLT2629254151753&TF=756&TC=1&n=1
did not even discuss or mention the issue/question of the 8th Amendment in the context of the question of what privacy rights, if any, does a prisoner have while imprisoned and awaiting trial. It involved an inmate whose medical condition was not maintained as a secret - again, nothing we're discussing on this thread.

Citing in globo to HIPAA isn't helpful either. We've all read it. :doh: Could you be more specific, please?

Any other, more specific, cites? please innundate me.

 

[debs]

*snipped*

If she was taken to the clinic not at her request, but because she was about to receive “bad news” and was informed of that “bad news” via television news casts instead of her attorney or clergy my hunch is that JB could argue that her 8th Amendment Rights (cruel & unusual punishment) were violated and quite obviously much to the dismay of many.... he might possibly win. But of course we can all hope that he does not argue that which of course leaves the fear of ineffective counsel... yada, yada, yada, yada....

I will say this again for the record… I am NOT on Team KC, I am NOT on Team JB… I am simply pointing out certain rights and how they may affect possible outcomes. :twocents:

I think the horse might still have a few signs of life, I guess I should find a bigger stick.... :angel:

I'm not certain why it is cruel or unusual to take a prisoner to an area in the jail where, if on the hearing of news which could be horribly distressing to her (that there were remains, actual remains identified AS remains by LE officials 1600 feet from her own home back yard) she could be tended to as quickly as possible instead of wasting time hauling her from any other section of the jail TO the sick bay. Turns out, news WAS horrible for her, she WAS in an area they could administer immediate treatment, and she IS a prisoner in a jail where cameras are on her in nearly every corner of every room in there. I don't see how cruel and unusual would enter this at all.

 

[Chezhire]

I'm not certain why it is cruel or unusual to take a prisoner to an area in the jail where, if on the hearing of news which could be horribly distressing to her (that there were remains, actual remains identified AS remains by LE officials 1600 feet from her own home back yard) she could be tended to as quickly as possible instead of wasting time hauling her from any other section of the jail TO the sick bay. Turns out, news WAS horrible for her, she WAS in an area they could administer immediate treatment, and she IS a prisoner in a jail where cameras are on her in nearly every corner of every room in there. I don't see how cruel and unusual would enter this at all.

(psst... you're right...it isn't :doh: )