Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

[chefmom]

Victims! Plural!

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

BBM

You can say that again! I have followed this case daily since day 31 and I'm exhausted! I find myself getting irritable at the antics people pull, as though this were about something OTHER than the brutal murder of a 2 year old baby! Yet I read daily, hoping and praying that justice will come soon for a child that was thrown out like so much trash.

 

[Scamperoo]

"]MikiMonkey_photo/_thb_MG_Throw_Under_The_Bus.gif[/IMG][/URL]

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

Thank you LG, Yummy my favorite thwartcake with a cherry on top...

 

[Caligram]

No way, unh unh!! CA and GA have become "world-wide infamous people" since the murder of their precious grandaughter, "whatzhername". They have posed as the grieving grandparents of a "missing" child, and collected money to aid in their search for "'missing" children. Perhaps CA and GA will someday wish they had remained as "whatzhername"s grandparents, the "whatztheirnames". Perhaps, CA and GA will be facing some legal charges pertaining their fraudulent acts once ICA has been sentenced. Perhaps there will be additional justice sought for a beautiful innocent murdered child named Caylee Marie.

IMO

 

[strach304]

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

Looking at the big picture take into account there is HHJP, CM, and even Judge Eaton now thrown into the mix. Does it seem to anyone else that JB is in training for his DP qualification? He has to go through the actual trial to qualify if I recall correctly. A plea will not cut it. I have just always seen the prosecutors as disgusted that JB was involved in such a high scale case because he is clearly not qualified and they desperately want a fair trial. They have made that clear so many times during his shenanigans. I think that is why JA, LDB, and HHJP are sometimes friendly, maybe even greatful for CM. ICA's parents have had more qualified, experienced lawyers representing them for free. HHJP and CM seem well acquainted and if you go back and think about it, it was he who had HHJS recused. HHJP sat on the GJ and was already familiar with the case and saw the need to take over (oversee). CM's previous comments before joining defense also seem to indicate these experienced legal professionals saw the need to take over. The way HHJP and CM interact I wouldn't be surprised if JP didn't kind of chide CM into it over coffee. The whole meaning behind CM's "cause it's fun" explanation for taking this case when asked. His public personality shown when with JB (arrogance) and in depos is not the real man we have heard spoken so highly of. It's a facade. It's all about professionals making sure her rights and that includes all Americans are protected and she gets a fair trial for the conviction they know is coming imo. Each one served their purpose and can hold their heads high. AL tried to get the DP off the table, it didn't happen. They needed LKB's expertise for the forensics. Both cited the same reasons for leaving. CM brought AF on board because they need her for the penalty phase and is much more feasible as she is local. These people have children and grandchildren just like most of us. I've seen CM get along too well with JA and LDB when JB isn't around and JA is another one easy to read. This is my theory, consider it and tell me what you think. :waitasec:

ETA: We know the circumstances of HHJS's recusal and I'm not saying it was a set-up necessarily but I think even HHJS would agree that HHJP is more qualified for the more complex aspects regarding appellate issues and the rulings for the motions on evidence the state wants in. Everyone will be more comfortable about it. JS has said he has never given the DP either so that's also more of a win for the state. HHJP will actually enforce it if the jury so elects.

 

[mitzi]

That's not from Wesh, it's actually in the Anthony's motion written that way.

The motion is only a few pages, but it looks like they copied an entire law journal and attached it to make it 92 pages.

Bold mine.

The Anthonys now have attorneys that practise overkill just like their daughter, who adds extra information, not needed, for every statement she makes. Just plain word salad.

 

[krisskross]

Looking at the big picture take into account there is HHJP, CM, and even Judge Eaton now thrown into the mix. Does it seem to anyone else that JB is in training for his DP qualification? He has to go through the actual trial to qualify if I recall correctly. A plea will not cut it. I have just always seen the prosecutors as disgusted that JB was involved in such a high scale case because he is clearly not qualified and they desperately want a fair trial. They have made that clear so many times during his shenanigans. I think that is why JA, LDB, and HHJP are sometimes friendly, maybe even greatful for CM. ICA's parents have had more qualified, experienced lawyers representing them for free. HHJP and CM seem well acquainted and if you go back and think about it, it was he who had HHJS recused. HHJP sat on the GJ and was already familiar with the case and saw the need to take over (oversee). CM's previous comments before joining defense also seem to indicate these experienced legal professionals saw the need to take over. The way HHJP and CM interact I wouldn't be surprised if JP didn't kind of chide CM into it over coffee. The whole meaning behind CM's "cause it's fun" explanation for taking this case when asked. His public personality shown when with JB (arrogance) and in depos is not the real man we have heard spoken so highly of. It's a facade. It's all about professionals making sure her rights and that includes all Americans are protected and she gets a fair trial for the conviction they know is coming imo. Each one served their purpose and can hold their heads high. AL tried to get the DP off the table, it didn't happen. They needed LKB's expertise for the forensics. Both cited the same reasons for leaving. CM brought AF on board because they need her for the penalty phase and is much more feasible as she is local. These people have children and grandchildren just like most of us. I've seen CM get along too well with JA and LDB when JB isn't around and JA is another one easy to read. This is my theory, consider it and tell me what you think. :waitasec:

ETA: We know the circumstances of HHJS's recusal and I'm not saying it was a set-up necessarily but I think even HHJS would agree that HHJP is more qualified for the more complex aspects regarding appellate issues and the rulings for the motions on evidence the state wants in. Everyone will be more comfortable about it. JS has said he has never given the DP either so that's also more of a win for the state. HHJP will actually enforce it if the jury so elects.

Strach.......... I think Cheney Mason is a what you see what you get kind of guy. He is imo arrogance personified and from his antics during the last year has imo clearly demonstrated that he is as prepared as Baez to play dirty and bait the other side.

So how did he become involved in this case?. Well I would be utterly shocked if a presiding Judge chided him into it over coffee. Judges must demonstrate neutrality above all else. The merest hint of not being totally neutral resulted in a great Judge agreeing to recuse himself from this case. :waitasec:

I think Mason joined this defense team because 1. he is anti death penalty and on his doorstep was as high profile a DP case as they come. 2. his ego was significantly stroked by Jose Baez who admitted in open court (03/18/10 indigency hearing and Mason's debut) that he, Baez invited him to join the team. 3. moo he hates the sunshine laws and 4. he hates the JAC even more. :floorlaugh: And back in March 2010 they were still a team. Lyon and Baden were still very much involved. For several months it seems Mason just showed up.

MHOO :seeya:

 

[cloud9]

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...)

Hi! :seeya:

Call me crazy (you won't be the first, LOL) but a plea just can not happen!!! I simply can't have it!!! :floorlaugh:
Why not? Because Caylee went through the whole thing to the very end. Therefore, ICA should have to do the same! She needs to sit and see and hear it all, whether it bothers her or not!!! JMO

 

[Macushla]

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.

BBM: I think they should be barred from the courtroom during the whole trial, even after their testimony. Why? Because they could easily disrupt the courtroom if they are allowed to sit in after they testify. If they appear as witnesses during the first week of trial, and are released by the state afterwards, they can spend the next however many days it takes the State to finish their case in chief, sitting in the gallery and making it clear to everyone, including the jury, how they feel about whomever is testifying. Look how they reacted to Det. Melich. They would do the same thing to any OCSO witness, etc. Their ability to cause enough problems to warrant a mistrial, does not end when they are done testifying. They will do as much damage as they can, right to the bitter end.

 

[nachomama]

Oh heck.. I say let 'em in the Courtroom... BUT... with a paper bag over their heads ( so nobody can see their facial expressions ) and Duct Tape over their mouths ( to stem any and all verbal outbursts, which are sure to come )

 

[Gaia713]

One of the reasons the Anthony's attorney gave is that they were next of kin to the victim. They are NOT next of kin to the victim (Caylee). They are next of kin to the accused. BIG difference and none of the cases that were cited in the motion referred to GRANDPARENTS. I don't think they'll be let in until AFTER they testify. moo

 

[Amil]

I hope Judge Perry denies this motion and cites the Anthony's demonstrated disrespect for courtroom decorum by referencing the John Morgan videotapes and WFTV's videos of past courtroom behavior, but especially the John Morgan tapes. I agree that the Anthony's are not Caylee's next of kin. They are next of kin to their daughter. They can't even say Caylee Marie except when they mistakenly call ICA Caylee.

 

[eaglemom]

The problem is it isn't just listening to other witnesses changing their testimony. It is even AFTER they testify they can't control their behavior.

I have seen plenty of victim's families at trials - obviously each one is a new and horriffic event for each family and each one is a seperate case - comparison is next to impossible. Rules of the courtroom are the same for each, however, courtroom spectators (including family members of accused and victims) are asked to not display excessive emotions. Except when verdicts are read, I have to say that I have NEVER seen more excessive displays of emotion as those displayed by CA and GA during these past hearings.

Really the testimony has been nothing in comparison to what families are forced to listen to in say the Channon Christian/Chris Newsom trials. If they can't control themselves during testimony on dog handlers and what happened when they were interviewed on the evening they called 911 - what are they going to do when there is actual testimony from ICA's friends, etc.? IMO it won't be pretty.

MOO

 

[Solace]

There is no way that Judge Perry will let them sit in through the entire trial - never happen. Firstly, they are testifying; secondly, as Perry said, (not verbatim) he does not want their testimony influenced by what they hear (and he inplied that it already had been subject to question (that is what I got anyway) and it is not fair to others who are testifying and are subject to sequestering (because their testimony could influence what the Anthony's might say).

It is just all around never going to happen. Where do these people get the nerve. SEriously! Who do they think they are. I could not believe George had the audacity to say to Linda DB "I don't know why you are going in this direction) and I will challenge you. Are they from a different planet? And How about Cindy saying "yes I did to Linda Drane-Burdick - It's incredible how stupid they come off. It will never happen.

As far as their smirks and grimaces and George's "unbelieveable" and facial expressions, I want to see it. And as soon as they start it, Perry will end it.

I want every facet of Cindy's personality shown to this jury and the only way they can get it is if she is there. She out and out lied about the dryer sheets and her daughter thanked her.

How about when KC rolled her eyes when George said she was handcuffed for about an hour in the police car. It is hard to believe how mentally challenged they all are. KC = George was lying for you there, get with it. This is when the lying starts again.

IMO

 

[Aedrys]

One of the reasons the Anthony's attorney gave is that they were next of kin to the victim. They are NOT next of kin to the victim (Caylee). They are next of kin to the accused. BIG difference and none of the cases that were cited in the motion referred to GRANDPARENTS. I don't think they'll be let in until AFTER they testify. moo

You know, it's a time like this that I wish if Caylee's father were alive, he'd come out of hiding and say "Wait a minute, I am the next of kin of Caylee, not you CA and GA." How lucky for them that he's supposedly dead. The gall and nerve of them is just unbelievable. I hope he votes to keep them out. The jury will get enough just seeing them on the stand. LDB makes them so mad, they won't be able to fake it for long on the stand. The real them will come out in all it's hateful, egotistical, disgusting glory for the jury to see, no doubt. Honestly, I want to them to know and let it eat them up how much this trial is NOT about THEM! Keeping them out of the courtroom would definitely send them that message loud and clear.

 

[Ms.Heather]

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

I listened to these calls yesterday, and even worse than "I don't want to talk to them".... she actually says "I have nothing to talk to them about!" When CA tried to give her the phone, and CA replies... Answer their questions!

 

[Solace]

I want them in the courtroom. But does this mean they cannot listen to the opening statements? Anyone, anyone?

 

[Softail]

I want them in the courtroom. But does this mean they cannot listen to the opening statements? Anyone, anyone?

I did at first too! I wanted them to have hear and see everything, that "the boss" did, in public. I also thought they would do no good to Casey, as the jury would clearly see how they are. But, as so many pointed out to me, they could and probably would try to cause a mistrial. We don't want that, so now I hope they aren't allowed in.

I do think they will watch it anyway. Just as anyone else could.

 

[joypath]

:twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents:


I've bitten my tongue more times than I care to admit over this topic SO..............the felon and current inmate, accused OCJ resident :loser:caseymarieanthony :loserdoesn't even deserve spacing and caps!) is the only KNOWN direct "blood" relative to the innocent victim, CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY. It's the opinion of a few wise "characters" :rockerOUR SAs & LEs) who are familiar with this case AND who infiltrate my office and staff with bothersome technical questions regarding our own cases, (while constantly interfering with MY observing it online!), that the GRAND (in their own minds, SUPERLATIVE "grandest in the land") PARENTS are using the document of "ownership" of the remains of Caylee as thus making them NOW her LEGAL, BINDING and ULTIMATE "next of KIN". As stated by these geniuses in legal affairs (the SA gang and even a few ethical Defense jockeys :woohoo:who floated into the conversation...yeah, it's an eclectic morgue!).......everything depends upon HOW and WHAT was written by the Esquires in the primary document (turning over Caylee's remains/or et al.) and the current petitions and of course, the petitions that are SURE TO FOLLOW! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

IMVERYHO: NO WAY should they be treated differently than ANY other testifying witness BECAUSE they have already deviated from information presented UNDER OATH. I do cite the recent example of William Petit, M.D. who was not only a victim but also a survivor of a brutal crime (Cheshire,Ct triple homicide 2007) YET permitted to remain in the courtroom AFTER his testimony because HIS "STORY" aka DETAILED ACCOUNT of the experiences he lived & witnessed NEVER CHANGED with ANY RETELLING!

 

[Solace]

I did at first too! I wanted them to have hear and see everything, that "the boss" did, in public. I also thought they would do no good to Casey, as the jury would clearly see how they are. But, as so many pointed out to me, they could and probably would try to cause a mistrial. We don't want that, so now I hope they aren't allowed in.

I do think they will watch it anyway. Just as anyone else could.

I don't think they can cause a mistrial or anything else; they are going to be deferential or Perry will make sure they are outed and held in another room until they are to testify. He is not playing any games with his courtroom and he has a whole lot more respect for the Constitution and the Law than he does for the Anthony's disrespecting his courtroom. Not going to happen.

Plus, they have a right to be there when they are finished testifying. And they should be allowed to sit in the courtroom.

 

[Gaia713]

I want them in the courtroom. But does this mean they cannot listen to the opening statements? Anyone, anyone?

Usual procedure is that witnesses cannot be in the courtroom until AFTER they testify. I, personally, don't want them "tailoring" their testimony to regute the prosecution and "save" their daughter. Ordinarily witnesses are not in the courtroom during the opening statements. AND, more importantly, opening statements AND closing statements are NOT testimony. They are usually theories by the lawyers. People think that lawyres are under oath when they speak and they are not. They can lie, etc all they want. It's a field day for defense lawyers who lack ethics. I have heard Baez say we will know when he gives his opening statement what happeneed and why Casey behaved the way she did. But his opening statement is not testimony and the jury will be told that in their instructions when they go to give their verdict.