Evidence

[impatientredhead]

All of the parties on the tapes are available to be put on the stand and be cross examined so I would not expect to see any of these tapes inside the courtroom unless they are needed to show that one of these parties is lying. The shopping spree tapes will never make it in prior to a conviction on those charges. It would be prejudicial and to say she is stealing on them has not been proven.

Prosecution should have enough witnesses and testimony to not need to go to these tapes or media tapes to show any of the lies. Keep in mind she has been charged with lying to an officer, they will show her sworn statements, put on witnesses that like Yuri who won't be led during cross and have no conflict of interest, who will show the jury point by point that Casey lied endlessly during the investigation, that she was unhelpful and unemotional.

Could the other tapes be use, probably, but they aren't needed.

 

[Gaia713]

It's admissible if relevant. Not all will be considered relevant.

Probative vs. prejudicial. Judge's call. However, they can be used to back up statements by witnesses who deny that they said such and such.

 

[Coley]

If they would have taken a play of out KC book to not open their mouth they could have helped when it came to being on the stand and possibly if any charges come against them. With them talking like the have has probably opened the doors for charges to be considered against them for obstruction.

 

[Coley]

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...

I think I typed it wrong. I corrected it. Sorry, sometimes my fingers type something totally different than what the mind is thinking.

 

[Gaia713]

Well me along with most of the world would like hear justification on where KC put Caylee and what she did to her.

JB is something else. As time goes by it is very apparent that he does not understand a case of this magnitude. He has already stated that they were going to ask for more time so what does it matter. KC is now on the states time not hers.

It's the death of a child - I think it's automatic death penalty in FL simply because of that

 

[Gaia713]

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

Not to mention the ABSENSE of Caylee during those shopping sprees - there's no Caylee in that cart or holding on to mommy's hand. WHERE IS CAYLEE???????

 

[MiraclesHappen]

This would come into play if CA & GA were called to the stand. More along the lines of credibility or characteristic witness.

ETA: It's not hearsay. It was a recorded interview. If it weren't on video and not with the FBI then that would be hearsay.

What is significance of FBI and hearsay?

Don't you believe video can present a hearsay problem?

Just wondering...

 

[Coley]

All of the parties on the tapes are available to be put on the stand and be cross examined so I would not expect to see any of these tapes inside the courtroom unless they are needed to show that one of these parties is lying. The shopping spree tapes will never make it in prior to a conviction on those charges. It would be prejudicial and to say she is stealing on them has not been proven.

Prosecution should have enough witnesses and testimony to not need to go to these tapes or media tapes to show any of the lies. Keep in mind she has been charged with lying to an officer, they will show her sworn statements, put on witnesses that like Yuri who won't be led during cross and have no conflict of interest, who will show the jury point by point that Casey lied endlessly during the investigation, that she was unhelpful and unemotional.

Could the other tapes be use, probably, but they aren't needed.

She stole money to purchase the items on the tape. They might even show them to reinforce that she wasn't searching or being concerned that her daughter was missing.

IMO, some of the tapes will be played. Now JB will argue for them not to be but he is going to argue that the sky is blue.

 

[Coley]

What is significance of FBI and hearsay?

Don't you believe video can present a hearsay problem?

Just wondering...

No. Why would you think with it being on tape and recorded that it would be a problem?

I guess I'm kind of torn between what is hearsay and what is not.

 

[Gaia713]

No. Why would you think with it being on tape and recorded that it would be a problem?

I guess I'm kind of torn between what is hearsay and what is not.

Hearsay is when George says that Cindy said something. Cindy can be questioned so George should not be allowed to say what Cindy said to him. The tapes can disprove any lies that might be said on the stand by the lying Anthonys. Cindy is particularly susceptible to having her tapes shown moo

 

[Coley]

Hearsay is when George says that Cindy said something. Cindy can be questioned so George should not be allowed to say what Cindy said to him. The tapes can disprove any lies that might be said on the stand by the lying Anthonys. Cindy is particularly susceptible to having her tapes shown moo

Right. I think that was in response to MH for me when I said the FBI tapes aren't hearsay.

They aren't hearsay, right?

 

[Titan]

<<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>>

Good observation and I'd bet you're right.

Couldn't they use the vidoe of her shopping to confirm how she was behaving with Caylee missing?

 

[Coley]

Couldn't they use the vidoe of her shopping to confirm how she was behaving with Caylee missing?

Not necessarily behaving (she has always been like this) but that she never purchased anything for Caylee and wasn't out doing her own investigation.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Not necessarily behaving (she has always been like this) but that she never purchased anything for Caylee and wasn't out doing her own investigation.

Yes she has always been like this.

However, one would expect her state of mind, having a kidnapped child, would direct her into some sort of behavior that was different than the usual.

Her demeanor here is shocking and certainly damning. Pretty underwear??? Oh puleeeze, Casey.

It is clear evidence she does not care.

If JB feels that it is too prejudicial that's too bad. Not everything that looks really bad rises to the level of legally defined trial prejudice.

If the prosecutors have to omit the fact she did not pay, the shopping tapes are still horrible. The nonpayment part is like the cherry on top of the frosting on the conviction cake.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

All of the parties on the tapes are available to be put on the stand and be cross examined so I would not expect to see any of these tapes inside the courtroom unless they are needed to show that one of these parties is lying. The shopping spree tapes will never make it in prior to a conviction on those charges. It would be prejudicial and to say she is stealing on them has not been proven.

Prosecution should have enough witnesses and testimony to not need to go to these tapes or media tapes to show any of the lies. Keep in mind she has been charged with lying to an officer, they will show her sworn statements, put on witnesses that like Yuri who won't be led during cross and have no conflict of interest, who will show the jury point by point that Casey lied endlessly during the investigation, that she was unhelpful and unemotional.

Could the other tapes be use, probably, but they aren't needed.

Casey is not available to be called as a witness by prosecution, as you already know.

As evidence of her behavior on a specific date, these tapes should be admissible on state of mind alone. All evidence of theft can be purged from the portions presented at trial.
If Baez wants to put on rebuttal to show she was more concerned than her shopping conduct indicates, that's his choice.

 

[Fandy]

Yes she has always been like this.

However, one would expect her state of mind, having a kidnapped child, would direct her into some sort of behavior that was different than the usual.

Her demeanor here is shocking and certainly damning. Pretty underwear??? Oh puleeeze, Casey.

It is clear evidence she does not care.

If JB feels that it is too prejudicial that's too bad. Not everything that looks really bad rises to the level of legally defined trial prejudice.

If the prosecutors have to omit the fact she did not pay, the shopping tapes are still horrible. The nonpayment part is like the cherry on top of the frosting on the conviction cake.

pretty underwear, fashionable sunglasses, a case of paper towels, the blue hoodie she wore when first arrested, no diapers, no juice or tot-child items/toys that one would buy at Target. bought with stolen $$. Oh yeah, she is under real duress, I can see it when she smirks on tape after being arrested..( why do I get the impression she liked her Perp walk"?)

many thanks to all the knowledgeable posters in this thread, I appreciate the explanations and discussion without having to ask the questions..:blowkiss:

 

[ThoughtElf]

Thanks for all of the great legal input. It really helps.

Let me toss a question out there a bit differently:

If you were prosecuting KC, what would you specifically fight for to be admissible (aside from the obvious forensics)?

 

[Coley]

Thanks for all of the great legal input. It really helps.

Let me toss a question out there a bit differently:

If you were prosecuting KC, what would you specifically fight for to be admissible (aside from the obvious forensics)?

I don't think there is really anything at this point that wouldn't not be admissible. Are you meaning if JB tried to make something inadmissible?

 

[Fandy]

All those party-pics of her dancing the night away several nights in a row....

 

[manatee]

Thanks for all of the great legal input. It really helps.

Let me toss a question out there a bit differently:

If you were prosecuting KC, what would you specifically fight for to be admissible (aside from the obvious forensics)?

I would fight for all of it, if I could.
Also, when is the evidenciary hearing scheduled for?