Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

[MissJames]

I didn't realize that the Anthonys behavior could be the basis for a mistrial! Based on that, I've changed my mind and think the Anthonys should be sequestered from the courtroom based on their behavior thus far. It would be far too simple for them to purposely cause a commotion and have the proceedings declared a mistrial.

Imagine the video ammunition from past hearings they have given the SA to fight this motion. Their lawyer must just cringe,knowing what's coming.

 

[LinasK]

Reading the Lawyer thread, if the A's are asked something by the defense, that could cause an outburst.....It WILL NOT cause a mistrial.

Yeah, but what if they yell out or gesture something while sitting in the audience??? That's my fear!

 

[Quiche]

They are very animated people, let's just say that. They call attention to themselves. Isn't that a gallery no no?

 

[Noddy]

Yeah, but what if they yell out or gesture something while sitting in the audience??? That's my fear!

Yeah, that's my fear too. I know this particular case happened in Canada but the former prosecutor of a woman who was accused of murdering her daughter caused a second mistrial by making faces.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/a...ge-faces-causes-mistrial-in-child-murder-case

 

[LolaMoon08]

It's maddening. The A's only claim "kin of the victim" when it suits them. What really have they done for caylee except work like hell to get her murderer off. I mean really? It's maddening they only want to he there to help their daughter not the victim. They could care less if caylee receives any justice.

Caylee is just a distant memory to them ....

It is extremely maddening! You are 100% correct! Caylee is only a victim in their eyes when it benefits them. And you know that they really mean that Casey is the victim and that they should be allowed to sit there and support her during this trial. They are not there to support Caylee or see justice for Caylee. They have said it themselves... they said "Justice for Caylee will be Justice for Casey." In the same breath they said that it will only be a fair jury if the jury that is selected looks at all the evidence and finds Casey not guilty.

My concern about George and Cindy being in the gallery goes much deeper than them having "colored" testimony... we all know if they are not allowed in the courtroom during the trial... they are just going to watch it on the internet... the laws do not apply to them.

My concern is them distracting other witnesses while they are testifying and distracting the jury while other witnesses are testifying. George and Cindy, as evidence by their behavior during the hearings in March, are going to do everything in their power to try and influence the jury with their behavior... it's almost like they are testifying from the gallery... trying to sway the jury/judge by saying... "No, that is not what happened" or "That is a lie" etc...

When YM was on the stand during the early March hearings, Cindy and George really showed how they plan to act once this trial starts. At one point, when YM stated that he never told GA that Casey wouldn't be returning home, George's face got extremely red and he was shaking his head in disgust. Numerous times both Cindy and George shook their heads saying "No! No! That is not true." At one point Cindy even threw her hands up in the air.

YM and LE can handle things like that... but a jury should not be distracted by George and Cindy testifying OVER witnesses. My main concern is for Casey's former friends, Roy Kronk, or even Cindy's former co-workers. They are not used to testifying at murder trials... they are going to be nervous as it is and do NOT need to look over into that gallery and see the dirty looks by Cindy and George or basically being called a liar from across the room.

When they are finished testifying... which won't be until the State is completely finished with them and the defense is completely finished with them... I say let them watch the trial the same way all of us are going to have to watch it!

They are not there to witness Justice for Caylee... the only real victim in this whole ordeal! They are there to distract and try to influence the jury! KEEP THEM OUT!

:snooty::denied:

 

[chefmom]

It is extremely maddening! You are 100% correct! Caylee is only a victim in their eyes when it benefits them. And you know that they really mean that Casey is the victim and that they should be allowed to sit there and support her during this trial. They are not there to support Caylee or see justice for Caylee. They have said it themselves... they said "Justice for Caylee will be Justice for Casey." In the same breath they said that it will only be a fair jury if the jury that is selected looks at all the evidence and finds Casey not guilty.

My concern about George and Cindy being in the gallery goes much deeper than them having "colored" testimony... we all know if they are not allowed in the courtroom during the trial... they are just going to watch it on the internet... the laws do not apply to them.

My concern is them distracting other witnesses while they are testifying and distracting the jury while other witnesses are testifying. George and Cindy, as evidence by their behavior during the hearings in March, are going to do everything in their power to try and influence the jury with their behavior... it's almost like they are testifying from the gallery... trying to sway the jury/judge by saying... "No, that is not what happened" or "That is a lie" etc...

When YM was on the stand during the early March hearings, Cindy and George really showed how they plan to act once this trial starts. At one point, when YM stated that he never told GA that Casey wouldn't be returning home, George's face got extremely red and he was shaking his head in disgust. Numerous times both Cindy and George shook their heads saying "No! No! That is not true." At one point Cindy even threw her hands up in the air.

YM and LE can handle things like that... but a jury should not be distracted by George and Cindy testifying OVER witnesses. My main concern is for Casey's former friends, Roy Kronk, or even Cindy's former co-workers. They are not used to testifying at murder trials... they are going to be nervous as it is and do NOT need to look over into that gallery and see the dirty looks by Cindy and George or basically being called a liar from across the room.

When they are finished testifying... which won't be until the State is completely finished with them and the defense is completely finished with them... I say let them watch the trial the same way all of us are going to have to watch it!

They are not there to witness Justice for Caylee... the only real victim in this whole ordeal! They are there to distract and try to influence the jury! KEEP THEM OUT!

:snooty::denied:

ITA! No way should they be allowed in! The fact that they want to be tells me they plan to show their rears! If they didn't, they wouldn't want to hear all of the sordid details. jmo

 

[strach304]

The Anthony's should not be allowed in the court except to testify. I DO think they should hear what their daughter did. So, after they testify they should be able to see and hear the trial without being in the court room. The Anthony's should not be allowed to testify if NOT on the stand and they will try. If we're aware of this the state and Judge Perry do too. Caylee's rights need to be protected, her family hasn't and won't.

Teresq

Ever since this issue first came up I thought that the media overflow room would be a good solution. I too want them to hear everything. However, I really do believe they could see a video of ICA in the act and put their own slant on it. Now seeing that the media overflow room will probably be packed I don't suppose that's reasonable. You can bet we would once again be subjected to Cindy's media interviews and her take on the evidence presented. :banghead:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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.

 

[beach]

Can you please expand on that? I am very curious why people think that? If an outburst can cause a mistrial, then why would not every court in the USA ban everyone from being there?

I must be in left field. I think their behavior would be favorable to the prosecution. :waitasec: Hostile, nasty, etc...

They are wildcards and too unpredictible. Early on when Judge Strickland was still presiding over this case, Cindy actually stood up in the gallery and interrupted the precedings - or I should say she tried to, I guess. Anyway, she stood up and addressed Judge Strickland from the gallery...asking him something along the lines of "uhmmm, excuse me...Can I say something here, please?" Judge Strickland simply replied, "NO." She acted like the courtroom was a classroom or something.

I wouldn't put it past Cindy Anthony even a little bit to shout something out from the gallery that the jury is not allowed to have knowledge of just to cause a mistrial. And yes, I mean do it on purpose. Just to get a do-over. In fact, I don't put it past George either anymore. I really believe either one of them will do anything to cause a mistrial if given the chance.

eta: They would get thrown out, but it would be too late. They wouldn't care at that point. Once again, the means would justify the ends. That is their family mantra.

 

[strach304]

Thanks for starting this thread, as it's an interesting set of circumstances with George and Cindy as grandparents of the victim and parents of the alleged murderer.

In most cases someone who is a witness must stay out of the courtroom until after they testify. This motion appears to be requesting that they be allowed to be in the courtroom throughout the trial proceedings, from beginning to end.

If the state is going to present their case in any sort of chronological order, I would expect them to begin with the events of July 15, 2008, with George and Cindy picking up Casey's car at the impound yard, finding Casey and bringing her home, and Cindy's frantic call to 911 reporting Caylee missing. If this is the case, I would expect George and Cindy to be among the first witnesses called to testify.

We all know that George and Cindy will lie and say anything to try to make Casey's actions appear innocent.

I'm confident that LDB and JA will be able to elicit the testimony of the events of July 15, 2008 from George and Cindy, and will try to shut them down from going off on any long winded explanations.

After watching their testimony during the "agents of the state" hearing, George is the one I think will be the first to be barred from the courtroom. He's angry at the world and volatile. His testimony at that hearing was reminiscent of his testimony during the depositions taken by John Morgan and Keith Mitnik for the civil case.

Cindy's body language during the pretrial hearings, showing that she disagreed with the testimony presented by the state, with her facial expressions and drawing/writing on a legal pad, will not likely to be tolerated at the trial. This might get her barred from the courtroom.

I think it might be a good idea for the judge to allow George and Cindy in the courtroom. Let the rules be known and the first time either George and/or Cindy ignore those rules and overstep their bounds, bar them from the courtroom. Then the blame will be on their shoulders that they were ousted for breaking the rules.

Scott Peterson's father never pulled this crap or anyone in Laci's family and they all testified for the state at different times. What makes them so special? SP's fathers testimony was early on, brief and he was a hot head with the Prosecutors. I really don't think GA will make it.

 

[strach304]

They are wildcards and too unpredictible. Early on when Judge Strickland was still presiding over this case, Cindy actually stood up in the gallery and interrupted the precedings - or I should say she tried to, I guess. Anyway, she stood up and addressed Judge Strickland from the gallery...asking him something along the lines of "uhmmm, excuse me...Can I say something here, please?" Judge Strickland simply replied, "NO." She acted like the courtroom was a classroom or something.

I wouldn't put it past Cindy Anthony even a little bit to shout something out from the gallery that the jury is not allowed to have knowledge of just to cause a mistrial. And yes, I mean do it on purpose. Just to get a do-over. In fact, I don't put it past George either anymore. I really believe either one of them will do anything to cause a mistrial if given the chance.

eta: They would get thrown out, but it would be too late. They wouldn't care at that point. Once again, the means would justify the ends. That is their family mantra.

Great post!!! :tyou:

 

[kaRN]

I'd be willing to bet that ICA doesn't want them in the courtroom anyway. So won't it be interesting when both the DT and SAO argue against this motion.

 

[LolaMoon08]

They are wildcards and too unpredictible. Early on when Judge Strickland was still presiding over this case, Cindy actually stood up in the gallery and interrupted the precedings - or I should say she tried to, I guess. Anyway, she stood up and addressed Judge Strickland from the gallery...asking him something along the lines of "uhmmm, excuse me...Can I say something here, please?" Judge Strickland simply replied, "NO." She acted like the courtroom was a classroom or something.
I wouldn't put it past Cindy Anthony even a little bit to shout something out from the gallery that the jury is not allowed to have knowledge of just to cause a mistrial. And yes, I mean do it on purpose. Just to get a do-over. In fact, I don't put it past George either anymore. I really believe either one of them will do anything to cause a mistrial if given the chance.

eta: They would get thrown out, but it would be too late. They wouldn't care at that point. Once again, the means would justify the ends. That is their family mantra.

BBM - I completely forgot about that!! That was during the "gag order" hearing! Thanks for reminding me about that!

From some of the reports people have written from inside the courtroom, Cindy has even tried to get JB's attention from the gallery. She should not be allowed to do this and it is only going to get worse when other people, especially Casey's former friends, testify.

Nothing good can come from Cindy or George being in that courtroom during other peoples testimony. Nothing! And I agree that I would not put it past them to try and do something to cause a mistrial. :banghead:

 

[Softail]

I guess I am just being naive. I just don't see how y'all are giving the A's so much power to cause a mistrial? :waitasec:

Comments, outbursts, when they are in court for being a witness they could do these things. I would assume that their lawyers have told them how to behave, and they have had "training" just as Casey has.

I don't believe that A) Judge Perry will allow nonsense; they will be declared "hostile" witnesses, or worse, held in contempt, B) Whatever they say or "outburst" will cause a mistrial? :waitasec:

The fact of the matter is that both will testify. As any other witness. I am not grasping how y'all are coming to the conclusion that if they are present, it will cause a mistrial? :waitasec:

If that were the case, then why do we not have mis-trials throughout the country? Every defendent tell their family... make an outburst! We will have a mistrial!

Sorry guys, If I am missing something. I just don't get it. :banghead:

Please enlighten me!

 

[Softail]

Yeah, but what if they yell out or gesture something while sitting in the audience??? That's my fear!

Then the person would be ejected! That could happen in any court at any time. This case is no different. People could do that in ANY case. How do judges handle it? I guarantee they don't declare a mistrial!

Come on guys! Y'all are letting Casey be "special"

Knock it off!

 

[LinasK]

I guess I am just being naive. I just don't see how y'all are giving the A's so much power to cause a mistrial? :waitasec:

Comments, outbursts, when they are in court for being a witness they could do these things. I would assume that their lawyers have told them how to behave, and they have had "training" just as Casey has.

I don't believe that A) Judge Perry will allow nonsense; they will be declared "hostile" witnesses, or worse, held in contempt, B) Whatever they say or "outburst" will cause a mistrial? :waitasec:

The fact of the matter is that both will testify. As any other witness. I am not grasping how y'all are coming to the conclusion that if they are present, it will cause a mistrial? :waitasec:

If that were the case, then why do we not have mis-trials throughout the country? Every defendent tell their family... make an outburst! We will have a mistrial!

Sorry guys, If I am missing something. I just don't get it. :banghead:

Please enlighten me!

By yelling out something the jury wasn't supposed to hear or gesturing from the gallery, or distracting the jury.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

BBM - I completely forgot about that!! That was during the "gag order" hearing! Thanks for reminding me about that!

From some of the reports people have written from inside the courtroom, Cindy has even tried to get JB's attention from the gallery. She should not be allowed to do this and it is only going to get worse when other people, especially Casey's former friends, testify.

Nothing good can come from Cindy or George being in that courtroom during other peoples testimony. Nothing! And I agree that I would not put it past them to try and do something to cause a mistrial. :banghead:

I believe CA was trying to tattle on JA for leading a witness or something - she was telling the bailiff this if I remember correctly. She is a petty troublemaker looking for her "revenge" any way she can get it.

 

[Leila]

It is extremely maddening! You are 100% correct! Caylee is only a victim in their eyes when it benefits them. And you know that they really mean that Casey is the victim and that they should be allowed to sit there and support her during this trial. They are not there to support Caylee or see justice for Caylee. They have said it themselves... they said "Justice for Caylee will be Justice for Casey." In the same breath they said that it will only be a fair jury if the jury that is selected looks at all the evidence and finds Casey not guilty.

My concern about George and Cindy being in the gallery goes much deeper than them having "colored" testimony... we all know if they are not allowed in the courtroom during the trial... they are just going to watch it on the internet... the laws do not apply to them.

My concern is them distracting other witnesses while they are testifying and distracting the jury while other witnesses are testifying. George and Cindy, as evidence by their behavior during the hearings in March, are going to do everything in their power to try and influence the jury with their behavior... it's almost like they are testifying from the gallery... trying to sway the jury/judge by saying... "No, that is not what happened" or "That is a lie" etc...

When YM was on the stand during the early March hearings, Cindy and George really showed how they plan to act once this trial starts. At one point, when YM stated that he never told GA that Casey wouldn't be returning home, George's face got extremely red and he was shaking his head in disgust. Numerous times both Cindy and George shook their heads saying "No! No! That is not true." At one point Cindy even threw her hands up in the air.

YM and LE can handle things like that... but a jury should not be distracted by George and Cindy testifying OVER witnesses. My main concern is for Casey's former friends, Roy Kronk, or even Cindy's former co-workers. They are not used to testifying at murder trials... they are going to be nervous as it is and do NOT need to look over into that gallery and see the dirty looks by Cindy and George or basically being called a liar from across the room.

When they are finished testifying... which won't be until the State is completely finished with them and the defense is completely finished with them... I say let them watch the trial the same way all of us are going to have to watch it!

They are not there to witness Justice for Caylee... the only real victim in this whole ordeal! They are there to distract and try to influence the jury! KEEP THEM OUT!

:snooty::denied:

Since this trial will be streamed via the Internet and covered by the news media, there's no reason why George and Cindy have to be right there in the courtroom where their behavior could impact the witnesses and the members of the jury.

George and Cindy can very well watch the proceedings from their home. The only thing they'd be missing is the chance to disrupt the trial.

 

[Softail]

By yelling out something the jury wasn't supposed to hear or gesturing from the gallery, or distracting the jury.

But the judge would instruct the jury to disregard.

Yes they heard it, but could not consider it in deliberation.

 

[beach]

Softail, I'm sorry. That is just my understanding and belief. I don't know how to explain it any better. Maybe you're right. I'm not a lawyer.