Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

[LambChop]

I'm not sure which hearing it was, but recently the Judge did say that he couldn't order people/witnesses not to talk to the press. I do remember him saying that.

Right. And haven't the A's been on the SA's witness list from day one and the first thing they did was head for the media to give statements and interviews.

 

[Solace]

And haven't the A's already done a lot of damage to some of these same witnesses who were friends of KC already. InSession is saying the A's may be giving interviews during the trial. So what will they be doing? Calling all the witnesses liars. The A's will suffer through this but let them suffer in silence. jmo

For sure, Lee Anthony has said Amy H. is into heroin. Cindy said she was into "bad things" and said the detectives told her to stay away. Lee Anthony said he was told by Dominic Casey that Amy H, Ricardo and Tony were all into heroin; when Lee was asked by Linda DB if he ever checked it out, he said no. LDB asked Lee "did you know Amy came from money. he said no.

Amy was asked by Baez if she had ever been arrested and she said no (her latest depo).

This is Amy who took Cindy to KC and if it were not for her that night, Cindy would not have found her (at least not that night), but it didn't matter. She slandered her anyway.

 

[Mendara]

She was definitely being disrespectful calling her by her first name and it was intentional. She would never say but Belvin, I am trying to explain, would she? She was being disrespectful.

I thinks she just deosn't know how to pronounce her last name and is too lazy to figure it out. MO

 

[faefrost]

Ugh! I do so hate when I have to defend the A's. Yes they are horrible horrible people. and yes they probably cannot be trusted to behave in public. But whether or not they are horrible people is not and should not be the basis on whether or how much they are excluded from the trial for the murderer of their granddaughter. The request to be exempt from sequestration is not an unreasonable request, and the court does need to give it due consideration.

BUT

In the end the court must preserve the integrity of the defendants trial. So given the huge volume of testimony the A's will have to be giving in this case, they must remain at least partially sequestered to avoid any jeopardy of the defendants rights or the trial process. There would be no possibility of reversible error in erring to keep the A's out. There is such a chance in allowing them in. It's all that simple. It does not matter what names CA calls LDB or how loudly she screams or how horrible an excuse for humanity either of them are.

On some level the SA's are hoping that GA and particularly CA come in and behave as they normally do. Because in the end that serves them. Yes CA is a horrid heinous person that you instantly take a dislike to. But even given that, in the end she attempted to do the right thing. She was looking for her granddaughter. She called the police. These are things that the childs mother of the year failed to do. CA illustrates the diference in court between "someone we really don't like" and "pure evil". Guess which one CA is and which one the defendant is?

 

[Solace]

Ugh! I do so hate when I have to defend the A's. Yes they are horrible horrible people. and yes they probably cannot be trusted to behave in public. But whether or not they are horrible people is not and should not be the basis on whether or how much they are excluded from the trial for the murderer of their granddaughter. The request to be exempt from sequestration is not an unreasonable request, and the court does need to give it due consideration.

BUT

In the end the court must preserve the integrity of the defendants trial. So given the huge volume of testimony the A's will have to be giving in this case, they must remain at least partially sequestered to avoid any jeopardy of the defendants rights or the trial process. There would be no possibility of reversible error in erring to keep the A's out. There is such a chance in allowing them in. It's all that simple. It does not matter what names CA calls LDB or how loudly she screams or how horrible an excuse for humanity either of them are.

On some level the SA's are hoping that GA and particularly CA come in and behave as they normally do. Because in the end that serves them. Yes CA is a horrid heinous purpose that you instantly take a dislike to. But even given that, in the end she attempted to do the right thing. She was looking for her granddaughter. She called the police. These are things that the childs mother of the year failed to do. CA illustrates the diference in court between "someone we really don't like" and "pure evil". Guess which one CA is and which one the defendant is?

FaeFrost,

I am not their biggest fan either, but I know that they have a right to be in the courtroom and they should be there. Their rights cannot be taken from them because they are not liked. I am not going to go down a whole other subject here, but many have fought for this and other rights. It needs to be - they should be there.

I am looking forward to it.

 

[Solace]

I thinks she just deosn't know how to pronounce her last name and is too lazy to figure it out. MO

She knows how to pronounce it Drane and Burdick - not so hard.

She was being rude and condescending because she did not like that Linda called her on a lie.

However, I think that Cindy believes she gain some foothold with that one; I took Ashton's I'm not going into that now as I may and probably will go into it at trial.

 

[Sooner Fan#1]

Are they even allowed to give interviews when they are not completely finished testifying?? The way I understand it is that the State has them on their witness list and the State will present their case in chief first... Then the Defense, who have the Anthony's listed as witnesses, are going to present their case in chief... then the State can call the Anthony's back as rebuttal... and then the defense can call them back once again...

IF Judge Perry orders that they are to remain out of the courtroom until the State and the Defense has excused them... the Anthony's are told that they are not to watch any of the court proceedings on television or the internet... so how can they go on television to discuss other peoples testimony??

I suppose HHJP could put a gag order restricting them from discussing testimonies, but the jury will be sequestered and will not receive news reports. They, will just be blowing in the wind... It could be a big problem IF and that's a big if, there is a mistrial and there is a do-over. This is MOO

 

[Novice Seeker]

You made some really good points in here JJ....what I bolded in particular. We are gonna have to start a pool as to who blows-up either on the stand or in the audience first! I still am thinking there will be no scene created.....that they will play the poor pitiful grieving grandparents who are clinging on to hope that their daughter is innocent. Their testimony will be from beaten down, grief destroyed grandparents. CA will glance at the jury through her tears while burying her head in her hands during difficult testimony......BUT.......... :hand: maybe THAT constitutes a scene???? :back:

I could be wrong........

its my :twocents: and I'll be happy to poor you all a drinky-poo from Gma's cupboard if so. :martini::toastred::toast:

My bet is George will blow first because, IMO, he is living with anger( at ICA, Cindy and himself) betrayal, and grief. Whereas with Cindy, IMO, she reacts with anger(how dare you) rightous(so help MY GOD) and contempt. Sure Cindy has shed tears and declared how horrible this has been for her. BUT, Cindy manipulates it as a tool to gain sympathy and to portray the SA's as bad guys for picking on her. IMO

Can I have a drink now??:innocent:

 

[Gnatcatcher]

FaeFrost,

I am not their biggest fan either, but I know that they have a right to be in the courtroom and they should be there. Their rights cannot be taken from them because they are not liked. I am not going to go down a whole other subject here, but many have fought for this and other rights. It needs to be - they should be there.

I am looking forward to it.

If it is ruled that they must obey the rules of sequestration, it will have absolutely nothing to do with their rights being taken away from them because they're not liked, I'm sure.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Ugh! I do so hate when I have to defend the A's. Yes they are horrible horrible people. and yes they probably cannot be trusted to behave in public. But whether or not they are horrible people is not and should not be the basis on whether or how much they are excluded from the trial for the murderer of their granddaughter. The request to be exempt from sequestration is not an unreasonable request, and the court does need to give it due consideration.

BUT

In the end the court must preserve the integrity of the defendants trial. So given the huge volume of testimony the A's will have to be giving in this case, they must remain at least partially sequestered to avoid any jeopardy of the defendants rights or the trial process. There would be no possibility of reversible error in erring to keep the A's out. There is such a chance in allowing them in. It's all that simple. It does not matter what names CA calls LDB or how loudly she screams or how horrible an excuse for humanity either of them are.

On some level the SA's are hoping that GA and particularly CA come in and behave as they normally do. Because in the end that serves them. Yes CA is a horrid heinous person that you instantly take a dislike to. But even given that, in the end she attempted to do the right thing. She was looking for her granddaughter. She called the police. These are things that the childs mother of the year failed to do. CA illustrates the diference in court between "someone we really don't like" and "pure evil". Guess which one CA is and which one the defendant is?

Given their propensity to openly lie in an attempt to throw the case for the defense, they must be sequestered. Their attendance will only serve the purpose of letting them spin more nonsense and lies based on what has been said so far. Let's not forget the vile "dryer sheets and febreze" lies. It will be more of the same. And they can watch online or on tv. This isn't the 1800's and they don't need to be there imo.

 

[LambChop]

FaeFrost,

I am not their biggest fan either, but I know that they have a right to be in the courtroom and they should be there. Their rights cannot be taken from them because they are not liked. I am not going to go down a whole other subject here, but many have fought for this and other rights. It needs to be - they should be there.

I am looking forward to it.

I'm not sure they have any rights more so than anyone else. They are witnesses for the State and they have to abide by the same rules as everyone else who is a witness. The judge has the "right" to tell them they can be in the courtroom before their final testimony. The A's don't get to decide. The judge will do what he feels is in the best interest of the court, which ironically will probably be in the best interest of the A's. jmo

 

[I Din Doot]

HHJBP says he does not watch TV but he must have heard thru the grapevine what a wonderful show GA/CA put on for Mr Morgan. If they were anywhere close to normal, grieving Grandparents I'd jump up and holler for them to get in to the fry CA show.
For now, I'll eat some crow if HHJBP allows any chance for them to do a rerun of their previous show. Once bitten, twice shy !!

 

[shgrbkr]

I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I have extensive courtroom experience in every state, but I DO know that at least in Kentucky, anyone on a witness list, regardless of which side they are testifying on, is not allowed to be in the courtroom prior to their testimony, and are consistently kept out if they might be re-called to the witness stand. That said, what could possibly keep the A family from recording it on TiVo or DVR and looking at it that night? I just don't see how they will be kept totally in the dark about what is being said in the trial and based on past behavior of GA and CA, I personally don't believe they can be trusted to not adjust their testimony. How odd that their behavior is similar to KC spinning lie after lie, believing that others would just take her at her word and not call her out on it. KC discovered it's just not that easy, as when she took LE clear over to Universal, into a building, down a hallway before realizing it just wasn't going to be as easy as lying to her friends and family.

Assuming KC is convicted, they most certainly will be allowed in during the entire sentencing phase.

 

[Peepers McPeep]

Witnesses will peel off so many layers, things their daughter has done, it's going to make an onion cry...
I hope this is what it takes for them to find an end to the madness, and admit culpability.
I would request a privacy screen from the jury, just to protect the jury integrity, not for the benefit of the Anthony's.. having already abused their own....
I forsee twitching, and huffing, kneejerking themselves into fits..
Fun for us...

 

[faefrost]

HHJBP says he does not watch TV but he must have heard thru the grapevine what a wonderful show GA/CA put on for Mr Morgan. If they were anywhere close to normal, grieving Grandparents I'd jump up and holler for them to get in to the fry CA show.
For now, I'll eat some crow if HHJBP allows any chance for them to do a rerun of their previous show. Once bitten, twice shy !!

Remember HHJP "does hi sown research". If he did not know before this, he will know it as soon as he starts his research on the A's motion.

 

[zoey]

Witnesses will peel off so many layers, things their daughter has done, it's going to make an onion cry...
I hope this is what it takes for them to find an end to the madness, and admit culpability.
I would request a privacy screen from the jury, just to protect the jury integrity, not for the benefit of the Anthony's.. having already abused their own....
I forsee twitching, and huffing, kneejerking themselves into fits..
Fun for us...

BBM
They never well...not amount of anything will make them face the truth...They will never accept the truth---that their daughter murdered their grandchild....NEVER WILL HAPPEN...that would reflect bad parenting on their behalf and they can't do it....they will find another party to blame----it's all about the blame game and how everyone is against them....

(iirc didn't ted bundys mom still clung to the belief that he didn't murder anyone????)

 

[jon_burrows]

If it is ruled that they must obey the rules of sequestration, it will have absolutely nothing to do with their rights being taken away from them because they're not liked, I'm sure.

You hit the nail on head!

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

They want the judge to allow them in for the entire trial.

Out to Dr. Bethany Marshal, psychoanalyst and author of "Dealbreakers."

You know, I don`t find their request uncommon. They want to be there. Their granddaughter was murdered. Their daughter is on trial for her life and they want to be in the courtroom. However, it does violate the rules of sequestration.

Weigh, in Bethany.

BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST, AUTHOR OF "DEALBREAKERS": Well, of course it violate it is rules and what I`m seeing is that as long as Caylee was alive their primary loyalty was to the granddaughter. They were realistic about their daughter. They knew she was a pathological liar, they knew she was not maternally connected to her own child but once Caylee disappeared and it was clear that she was deceased and not coming back, their loyalty shifted to their child.

And that maternal and paternal instinct to protect one`s child at all costs is going to shade what they say in that courtroom. And also to the potential jurors it`s going to tell them that these parents sort of feel arrogant and above the law, and they`re not going to like that too much when the whole story starts to unfold.

GRACE: To the lawyers, Anne Bremner and Peter Odom, just give me a yes/no. I know it`s very hard for a lawyer to do.

To you, Anne Bremner, do you think Cindy and George Anthony are going to be allowed to sit in the trial for all the testimony? Remember, they`re witnesses for the state. And you can`t force the state to call them, say, at the beginning so then they can sit in.

BREMNER: Right.

GRACE: The state is going to call them, I believe, according to an elaborate plan that they have made out. We all do it when we go to trial. We stage our witnesses in the way we need to for the evidence to come in the way we want it to. It`s not just strategic. Sometimes you got to bring them in at a certain order.

For instance, if you want to show George and Cindy Anthony items from the burial scene that match items from their home, you`ve got to have in the crime scene tech first that found the items at the crime scene. Otherwise, you can`t show them to another witness until they`ve been admitted into evidence.

So you can`t force the state to put George and Cindy on first so they can then sit there and listen to the rest of the trial. So what do you think is going to happen, Anne?

BREMNER: They`re not going to be allowed to stay in, no.

GRACE: I don`t understand. What`s your question? I mean, what`s your answer? Are you saying the judge will allow them to come in --

BREMNER: I think the judge won`t -- well, Nancy. You asked for a yes/no. And I thought I did the no. But the judge will not allow them to stay. That`s what I predict.

GRACE: I think you may be right. What about it? What about it, Peter Odom?

ODOM: No, I agree with Anne. The judge would only violate this rule against sequestration for the utmost justification. The grandparents` emotional connection to the defendant and the victim will not be sufficient justification. Their testimony is too important, too much is at stake in this trial. They will be sequestered.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1104/28/ng.01.html

At least others see what we see...CA/GA now rally behind the one who sits accused...They use the 'victim' card only to benefit them!

I too make a prediction, they will be sequestered until they are released as witnesses..The SA's know better than to have them sit there and potentially change their testimony, once again...only this time, the SA's will delve deeper into their inconsistant statements, in the jurors presence...and might just be deemed hostile witnesses...JMHO

They should be given no special treatment...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[LambChop]

The fact that they are witnesses overrides there right to be there as next of kin. Defense desiding to put them on their witness list could keep them out until they are finished testifying. If they were truly interested in justice for their daughter and Caylee, they should understand why this would be done. jmo

 

[AZlawyer]

The fact that they are witnesses overrides there right to be there as next of kin. Defense desiding to put them on their witness list could keep them out until they are finished testifying. If they were truly interested in justice for their daughter and Caylee, they should understand why this would be done. jmo

Well, unfortunately, their rights as next of kin (if HHJP decides they are next of kin) would override the fact that the are witnesses, because their rights as next of kin are constitutional (Florida Const.), while the rule of witness sequestration is just a court rule.

So if HHJP wants to keep them out, he needs to either (1) find that they are NOT "next of kin" (and there's no clear controlling authority on that point so he's free to make that decision), or (2) find that CASEY's constitutional right to, e.g., a fair trial with no mistrial and untainted witnesses, would be impaired by letting them stay.