Evidence

[Coley]

I believe the only impact the shopping tapes will have are for the petty crimes. If anything about these tapes will be brought up will only be about KC not purchasing anything for Caylee during these times. Just to show that Caylee was no longer alive.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Could they be used to impeach their testimony?

Because that would be AWESOME!

Same question on media interviews.

If they are spewing prior inconsistent statements, (and you already know that's what will happen) I don't see why they wouldn't be used to impeach them.

 

[trac]

I'm not an Attorney, but.....

The only videos I'm concerned about being inadmissable are the shopping videos. Baez will argue the shopping videos have nothing to do with Caylee's disappearance and will only serve to prejudice the Jury against his client.

Actually those videos and that case can be admissable - even tho the lawyers will argue it's not - it happened while Caylee was missing - showing her theiving and purchasing nothing for Caylee at all during that month shows her lifestyle during that month when she was so worried and stealing from everyone to search from Caylee - when in fact she was stealing but buying beer for her friends and clothes for herself

 

[Jolynna]

I believe the only impact the shopping tapes will have are for the petty crimes. If anything about these tapes will be brought up will only be about KC not purchasing anything for Caylee during these times. Just to show that Caylee was no longer alive.

Also Casey says for 31 days she searched and conducted her own investigation and was looking for Zani and Caylee.

The tapes show her buying camisoles, bras and beer and NOT searching.

 

[Coley]

IMO, the only thing so far in this case that will not be admissible is the lie detector test that a few of KC friends have taken. Other than that I believe LE & the SA office has done a pretty damn good job as far as what will be able to be used in court.

 

[manatee]

No as of right now. They are only the prosecutions witness'. There are only 3 named witness' from the defense and they are the ones reviewing evidence.

sorry. I meant to say prosecution witnesses. so again, the prosecution will call them and as a question on the stand and if they say something different then show the videos?

 

[manatee]

I believe the only impact the shopping tapes will have are for the petty crimes. If anything about these tapes will be brought up will only be about KC not purchasing anything for Caylee during these times. Just to show that Caylee was no longer alive.

good one!

 

[Jolynna]

Actually those videos and that case can be admissable - even tho the lawyers will argue it's not - it happened while Caylee was missing - showing her theiving and purchasing nothing for Caylee at all during that month shows her lifestyle during that month when she was so worried and stealing from everyone to search from Caylee - when in fact she was stealing but buying beer for her friends and clothes for herself

Exactly. Casey says she was desperate and that she stole to rescue Caylee.

The videos impeach that story. Instead of using the money to save Caylee, the videos show Casey happily buying push-up bras and beer.

 

[manatee]

If they are spewing prior inconsistent statements, (and you already know that's what will happen) I don't see why they wouldn't be used to impeach them.

but again, if the prosecution wants to discredit or have them purjure (sp?) themselves...why call them on the stand?

 

[MiraclesHappen]

IMO, the only thing so far in this case that will not be admissible is the lie detector test that a few of KC friends have taken. Other than that I believe LE & the SA office has done a pretty damn good job as far as what will be able to be used in court.

If the proper groundwork were laid, and the proper parties were to stipulate to admissibility, the lie detector results could be introduced into evidence.

There isn't an absolute bar to them; it can be done.

 

[Coley]

sorry. I meant to say prosecution witnesses. so again, the prosecution will call them and as a question on the stand and if they say something different then show the videos?

Yes, to show they have no credibility. If they are used a character witness' then they can show that they lie and mislead LE.

 

[manatee]

Actually those videos and that case can be admissable - even tho the lawyers will argue it's not - it happened while Caylee was missing - showing her theiving and purchasing nothing for Caylee at all during that month shows her lifestyle during that month when she was so worried and stealing from everyone to search from Caylee - when in fact she was stealing but buying beer for her friends and clothes for herself

Good points!

 

[Coley]

If the proper groundwork were laid, and the proper parties were to stipulate to admissibility, the lie detector results could be introduced into evidence.

There isn't an absolute bar to them; it can be done.

Right, but before anything they are not admissible in court until the judge rules whether to allow them.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

but again, if the prosecution wants to discredit or have them purjure (sp?) themselves...why call them on the stand?

Because so much of what they say and do points to the guilty status of Casey. They are already doing great (for the prosecution).

 

[manatee]

Does anyone knwo when the evidenciary hearing is scheduled for?

 

[indicat]

I'm not an Attorney, but.....

The only videos I'm concerned about being inadmissable are the shopping videos. Baez will argue the shopping videos have nothing to do with Caylee's disappearance and will only serve to prejudice the Jury against his client.

I worry about that too, but it does go to her state of mind and what she was up to during the period she was "looking for her daughter". She has alluded to the fact that she would steal to get her daughter back and in the video from the jail house it sounds like she is saying she stole Amy's checks because she had to because of what was going on. So I wonder if the things she purchased might be able to be brought in to disprove what she is saying, if she claims this at trial.

 

[magnolia]

yes, that's right! those are going to be troublesome as well. the prosecution would have to prove that they go to show mentat state or something to that effect.

Yep, A balancing test may come in to the picture on the admissibility of the shopping videos. The value of the evidence will need to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.

The "State of Fla. vs. Casey Anthony" is going to be very interesting.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Yes, to show they have no credibility. Then they will be used a character witness' to show that they lie and mislead LE.

Whose character witness would they be?

 

[Coley]

Whose character witness would they be?

They wouldn't be anyone's now. They will just show that they are not being forthcoming about anything so they will discredit anything they say during the trial if called to the stand.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

They wouldn't be anyone's now. They will just show that they are not being forthcoming about anything so they will discredit anything they say during the trial if called to the stand.

I don't see them as character witnesses. I was only asking because you posted they'd be character witnesses.

Maybe I read it wrong...