Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

[lauriej]

BILL SHEAFFER: Analysis Of Casey's Parents' Motion

http://www.wftv.com/video/27679132/index.html

 

[dog.gone.cute]

..wow-----their motion to be excluded from sequestration ---92 pages!

respectfully snipped :


92 pages ?

Well ... when you tell as many "inconsistencies" as the A's have, I guess it would take your lawyer 90 + pages to explain ...

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - I have wondered this myself. What's to prevent ANY of the witnesses from logging in online or watching TV? I admit I have not actually read the fundamentals of the rules of sequestration, so i'm asking without checking it out first, but I know they're not going to put the witnesses away in a hotel room and throw away the key, so I guess I just don't really get it. Is it an 'on your honor' sort of thing?

Yes, it is on the honor system.

 

[Malini2001]

This has probably been asked before, but I haven't seen it.

Bob Sheaffer says "You really don't want them present in the courtroom so that the prosecutor can raise the issue of their testimony possibly being tainted by what they've heard, thus discrediting what good they may have to say," he explained."

So the Anthonys can't be in the courtroom as spectators. But they would be able to watch the trial at home or on their computer? Because they are witnesses, does that mean they have to spend every day at the court house or would they just be there on the days they are to testify?

I really like Bob Shaeffer. He doesn't beat around the bush.

This is why I don't get the reasoning for sequestration. They don't have to be physically in the courtroom to hear other testimony and change their own. They could watch it online just like we do. That's why I am wondering if they will be allowed in......and HHJP can just throw them out at the 1st inappropriate outburst from them.

 

[MAMABEAR]

the general rule is to lay out your case chronologically so it's easier to follow & also to start your case strong. If i were trying this case i would start with the 911 call "damn body in the car" and ms. Nonchalant who claims she was doing her own investigation. 911 operator can authenticate the call. Then i would go back and start in march with her web searches and go chronologically from there. If possible, i would leave the anthony's testimony for last & hopefully get their story in first from the fbi interviews. You just know they are not going to be able to contain themselves and are going to be providing their own little circus in the gallery.

dont fergit--in that 911 call u can hear ica say "i dont want to talk to them". I would put that in also

 

[atthelake]

Page 2, section 5:

"As relatives of the victim, Caylee Anthony, and pursuant to Article I, Section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution, Cindy Anthony and George Anthony are entitled to attend all proceedings as relatives to the victims."

a) Why inconsistently omit her middle name here?
b) relatives TO, not OF?
c) the victimS ??? Plural?

There are tons and tons of typos. But ok, I'll let it go.

Not sure c) is a typo ...in their mind... - as they see CASEY as a victim also! Fredian or on purpose that they then would be "relatives to the victims"

 

[Gma Kat]

This is why I don't get the reasoning for sequestration. They don't have to be physically in the courtroom to hear other testimony and change their own. They could watch it online just like we do. That's why I am wondering if they will be allowed in......and HHJP can just throw them out at the 1st inappropriate outburst from them.

It sets a precedense for other trials if the A's are allowed in......not all trials will be televised or have live streaming......JMO

and you know the A's don't know the first thing about HONOR............

 

[MaryAnn]

I so hope for Caylee's sake they aren't allowed in. I wouldn't put anything past CA & GA. GA throwing himself on the sword, etc, etc etc... Those two could cause any case to go to a Mistrial..

 

[MAMABEAR]

the first thing that jumped out at me was they called ica caylee. The second is on page 8 where they bolded "next of kin of homicide victims". So they'll call it a homicide so they can be in the courtroom, but not a homicide if ica had anything to do with it?

maybe just misconscrewed. Lol

 

[logicalgirl]

So here is a thought....

As the lone man (woman) standing who still strongly believes that KC is going to change her plea (as part of last minute plea deal) at the beginning of the trial...

I can't help but wonder if this motion was not prepared and submitted at the direction of CA so that she is sitting front and center as KC makes one of her last court appearances?

Can't believe IF this is going to happen, that CA would stand for not being present to show her "support" of her daughter....

Was CA present in the courtroom at the opening of the fraud trial when KC changed her plea

(and is for another thread, but for clarification, I still think the defense is trying to get SA to agree to plea negotiation for involuntary manslaughter under "accident theory" but SA is not budging....but defense may cave to 2nd degree to prevent trial from happening..imo...)

Don't be too sure you are standing there by yourself......a couple more pieces of evidence in and I cannot not see how the DT would not try for a plea...

The question I have is would CJBP accept that plea? Must ask AZLawyer...

 

[logicalgirl]

This is why I don't get the reasoning for sequestration. They don't have to be physically in the courtroom to hear other testimony and change their own. They could watch it online just like we do. That's why I am wondering if they will be allowed in......and HHJP can just throw them out at the 1st inappropriate outburst from them.

I have the same question but in reverse - why would he let them in based on their changing their testimony as they have in the past, and their proven inability to maintain courtroom decorum? It's not like they are missing anything by watching it on a TV screen somewhere.....why would CJBP take that chance?

 

[logicalgirl]

"][/QUOTE][/URL][/QUOTE]

Hey Scamperoo!!! You did it!! You are the best at finding the smilies - thank you!!! Have a thwartcake to celebrate! My treat!!!:cupcake:

 

[hannahsnana]

Don't be too sure you are standing there by yourself......a couple more pieces of evidence in and I cannot not see how the DT would not try for a plea...

The question I have is would CJBP accept that plea? Must ask AZLawyer...

The only thing is, though, even though we know it would be the wise thing to do, would Casey ever agree? Also, I can't see JB's ego letting him give up his nationwide TV face time.

 

[Tiki]

Regarding the question of whether the Anthonys are next of kin to Caylee.

According to Dr. G., the Medical Examiner (who would know the law regarding possession of remains) ICA was next of kin and the remains would have to be signed over to CA and GA.

From the day the remains were announced as Caylee's:

"The remains will be given to the next of kin, which is her mother, Casey Anthony. She could sign the remains over to her parents, Garavaglia said."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-caylee-anthony-body-dna-121908,0,1859200.story


.

 

[logicalgirl]

The only thing is, though, even though we know it would be the wise thing to do, would Casey ever agree? Also, I can't see JB's ego letting him give up his nationwide TV face time.

Cause he's not comfortable with having quite this much egg on his face that he's going to receive when he gets to the actual trial? He's going to have to give up posturing and theorizing and bring it. And the question is - what does he have to bring? He's gotten stepped on with every piece of evidence he turns to.

 

[Tulessa]

Wouldn't surprise me either....I was surprised that George and Lee didn't have Marie as their middle name.

There went my peach tea!! :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[NocturnalLady]

BBM in red...very interesting!

Victims! Plural!

I'm gonna lose my mind. This trial can't happen soon enough!

 

[Leila]

This is why I don't get the reasoning for sequestration. They don't have to be physically in the courtroom to hear other testimony and change their own. They could watch it online just like we do. That's why I am wondering if they will be allowed in......and HHJP can just throw them out at the 1st inappropriate outburst from them.

When I first heard of this motion, that was pretty much my initial reaction.............let them be in the courtroom and upon the first inappropriate outburst from them, kick them out of the courtroom. My point of view was to let them bear the responsibility of being kicked out of the courtroom.

But after reading some of the responses in this thread and learning that an outburst by someone in the galley could be the basis for a mistrial, I've completely changed my mind on this issue!

If an outburst from Cindy or George included evidence not allowed by the judge, this could be considered prejudicial to the defense and it would be cited as a reason to declare a mistrial.

I remember that in her letters to Robin Adams, Casey told her that JB had told her there would be a mistrial. I have to wonder if the defense is banking on something happening that could cause a mistrial?

I would rather see caution exercised in this case. I don't think the court should wait until something happens, but take the necessary steps to preclude it from happening.

The law is specific on this subject. Witnesses cannot be in the courtroom until after they testify and are discharged from further testimony. The Anthonys are asking for an exception to the rule.

I don't feel the Anthonys should be allowed in the courtroom and hope the judge denies this motion.

 

[countzero]

Betcha Shirley takes great offense to this motion. And Rick too. Oh heck, add the rest of the family who cannot stand CA or GA but had love for Caylee.

 

[chefmom]

Cause he's not comfortable with having quite this much egg on his face that he's going to receive when he gets to the actual trial? He's going to have to give up posturing and theorizing and bring it. And the question is - what does he have to bring? He's gotten stepped on with every piece of evidence he turns to.

Yes! And, we must also remember that at one point he had some pretty big names standing next to him in the courtroom. LKB, AL, HL, LK. These were true names in the legal field. JB, not so much. All of these people have now drifted to the wayside, and the DT is left with JB and CM. If they are smart they will plead with KC to plea this thing out. moo