KC defense team.What now?

[Wudge]

SNIP

Would this suffice for a Miranda warning? Or do you think that whole statement will be inadmissible.

No. It would not suffice.

If she was not given her Miranda warning prior to that interview, then information or admissions would almost assuredly be ruled inadmissible as evidence unless that same information is available from a non-infected source.

 

[daisy7]

I think it will be interesting to see what statements will be allowed in the trial, as most (if not all) are hearsay about what KC and even CA said. Legal eagles, can you respond?

TIA!

ETA: When was KC given the Miranda? And, if she was not given prior to her arrest on 7/16, was it required, since at that time she was just considered to be a POI??

 

[trac]

I think it will be interesting to see what statements will be allowed in the trial, as most (if not all) are hearsay about what KC and even CA said. Legal eagles, can you respond?

TIA!

ETA: When was KC given the Miranda? And, if she was not given prior to her arrest on 7/16, was it required, since at that time she was just considered to be a POI??

Casey was not read her rights at Universal because she was not a suspect - or I should say she wasn't formally a suspect - I believe she was driven home after that interview, then LE went back and she took them on the wild goose chase for where Zani lived - and she was taken home again - to have LE come back again and arrest her - that is when she was read her rights - it was only on child neglect at that time

It wouldn't matter if those interviews are admissable LE has plenty more they can work with - if the defense plans on staying with the Zani kidnap story, they are in a world of hurt because there is no evidence that this Zani existed.

I'll eat the book next to my computer if the defense can actually PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF ANY DOUBT that a Zani exists

 

[ecs5298]

No. It would not suffice.

If she was not given her Miranda warning prior to that interview, then information or admissions would almost assuredly be ruled inadmissible as evidence unless that same information is available from a non-infected source.

That's what I thought. I wonder if they Mirandized her the first night when they were at the house and if they did, would that suffice for subsequent questioning. I would have a hard time believing that a detective that has been doing the job for more than a day would forget to read a POI or suspect their Miranda rights before sitting down and interviewing them on tape. I would also wonder if they Mirandized her prior to starting the tape recorder and starting the interview. Is the Miranda statement usually included in the transcript of the interview?

 

[Wudge]

I think it will be interesting to see what statements will be allowed in the trial, as most (if not all) are hearsay about what KC and even CA said. Legal eagles, can you respond?

TIA!

SNIP

There are at least 24 exceptions to the hearsay rule. The logic behind the ever expanding number of exceptions has moved our system of jurisprudence to the brink of absurdity.

The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing is the notable latest exception and stems from a Wisconsin case that was supported by Wisconsin's Supreme Court. Fundamentally, the Court's ruling permitted a Judge to decide that the husband was guilty of murdering his wife ahead of the completion of the trial and, therefore, permitted hearsay testimony based on pre-judging the murder charge. Other state courts followed suit.

However, over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected "forfeiture by wrongdoing" unless the reason for the wrongdoing was to prevent the testimony from being given.

Hearsay is a giant rat hole.

 

[daisy7]

Casey was not read her rights at Universal because she was not a suspect - or I should say she wasn't formally a suspect - I believe she was driven home after that interview, then LE went back and she took them on the wild goose chase for where Zani lived - and she was taken home again - to have LE come back again and arrest her - that is when she was read her rights - it was only on child neglect at that time

It wouldn't matter if those interviews are admissable LE has plenty more they can work with - if the defense plans on staying with the Zani kidnap story, they are in a world of hurt because there is no evidence that this Zani existed.

I'll eat the book next to my computer if the defense can actually PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF ANY DOUBT that a Zani exists

IIRC, she was arrested almost immediately after the interview at Universal and didn't return home; instead she went straight to jail (and didn't pass Go!). What do you think about the hearsay stuff?

The defense doesn't need to prove that there was no Zanny, without a shadow of a doubt. They just need to prove that KC did not murder her daughter without reasonable doubt.

What book is next to your computer? LOL!

 

[Kat]

ecs5298, I remember Baez questioning YM during a hearing. It is on video but I can't find it. IIRC, in that video, YM describes that a witness told him about bruising on Caylee's arms and legs.

I remember that Baez is questioning over and over about mirandizing KC. I can't find that video but someone else probably can find it. I wonder would the indictment have a timeline of when she was mirandized.

 

[daisy7]

There are at least 24 exceptions to the hearsay rule. The logic behind the ever expanding number of exceptions has moved our system of jurisprudence to the brink of absurdity.

The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing is the notable latest exception and stems from a Wisconsin case that was supported by Wisconsin's Supreme Court. Fundamentally, the Court's ruling permitted a Judge to decide that the husband was guilty of murdering his wife ahead of the completion of the trial and, therefore, permitted hearsay testimony based on pre-judging the murder charge. Other state courts followed suit.

However, over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected "forfeiture by wrongdoing" unless the reason for the wrongdoing was to prevent the testimony from being given.

Hearsay is a giant rat hole.

I checked out the FL statutes earlier regarding hearsay, but don't entirely understand them (trust lawyers to make anything more confusing than it has to be

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...TM&Title=->2008->Ch0090->Section 803#0090.803

Just looking at the trial and not any future appeals, what does this mean about hearsay being allowed at her trial?

BTW: Wudge, are you an attorney, and if so, in which state?

TIA!

 

[Wudge]

I checked out the FL statutes earlier regarding hearsay, but don't entirely understand them (trust lawyers to make anything more confusing than it has to be

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...TM&Title=->2008->Ch0090->Section 803#0090.803

Just looking at the trial and not any future appeals, what does this mean about hearsay being allowed at her trial?

BTW: Wudge, are you an attorney, and if so, in which state?

TIA!

In my 15 years of posting online, I've never divulged personals. I'm smart enough to be an attorney, but I'm not dumb enough to admit it.

 

[concentric]

Maybe in her worped mind she placed it after the death to confirm kidnapp your know duct tape and all part of kidnap scenario
just a thought

Yes, I think she did stage it, as above. IMO, KC really thought of herself as some type of dramatic figure, a wannabe Soap actress.

Too bad, she couldn't have followed her dreams, instead of killing Caylee.

 

[trac]

IIRC, she was arrested almost immediately after the interview at Universal and didn't return home; instead she went straight to jail (and didn't pass Go!). What do you think about the hearsay stuff?

The defense doesn't need to prove that there was no Zanny, without a shadow of a doubt. They just need to prove that KC did not murder her daughter without reasonable doubt.

What book is next to your computer? LOL!

I don't know, I could have sworn LE took her home, LE did some digging, went back and she went out with them again and then they arrested her- I think it's in the first document dump, I just don't have time to read it again right now -

Well, for a jury to believe that there was even a smidgen of truth to Casey's story - that Zani the imaginary nanny is a real person, the defense has to do something because the prosecution can prove there wasn't anyone - YET since we have not seen everything there is we don't know do we??? We have to wait until trial

I have over 100,000 books in this house - LOL but next to me I have some paperbacks and videos - yet the room I work in has at least 2000 books that I readily work with daily - I'm erring on the side that I won't get any paper cuts when it comes to the defense and their theory LOL

 

[Kat]

The arrest affidavit gives the time and date of the first arrest as: 7/16/2008 @ 16:33:00 (4:30 PM civilian time). http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/07-17-08_Caylee--Ch.Aff...pdf

Unfortunately, this copy does not have information entered as to the miranda warning and who issued that warning.

 

[Kat]

Okay I found the tape I was thinking of, and I was wrong. Not so unusual. The questions were by Baez were about KC invoking her right to council. Only one question was about miranda.

But if anyone wants to listen and give me a perspective on where Baez was going with his line of questioning in regards to invoking her rights...please feel free to indulge me

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=7039465&version=1&locale=EN-US

 

[cyberborg]

And this fact will resonate the loudest with all 12 jurors at the deliberation table. It would have been easier for any doubting juror to acquit KC of murder charges (at least) if only KC had at least reported baby Caylee was missing/dead/gone, but she never did. Cindy called 911 not KC, and even then KC can be heard on the call asking CA to give her "just one more day" which strikes me as an attempt to flee. Sure, the defense team doesn't HAVE to explain why KC never reported Caylee missing to anyone, but imo they can do nothing more to prepare for this case than cross their fingers if they don't.

Great point. There are 4 things that hurt KC, 1., not ever calling 911, 2., asking for one more day, 3., not telling anyone who actually exists and, 4., the web of lies that painted normality in those 31 days.

KC asking for one more day is very damning -- what for??? KC claims she does not know where Caylee is. KC admitted grasping at straws in any fake 'search' for Caylee. Why did KC need one more day?

So even if there is a claim that KC was scared to admit Caylee was missing, scared to call 911 or LE -- once the secret was out and the parents knew -- why appeal for one more day before the authorities are brought in to help?

That and the fact the only people KC claims to have told Caylee was missing in those 31 days were both fictitious characters -- JH and JL -- so how do you search if it is a secret and everyone you do talk to you suggest everything is normal and -- Caylee is with the same Nanny and associates you now claim actually kidnapped her. You paint everything as normal. Even KC is often with Zanny during that time.

Hmmmmmm. How do you defend the events of those 31 days?

 

[Carrington]

Why even bother with a trial. Just let a judge make the decision.
:gavel:
Enough is Enough.
IMO

 

[LCoastMom]

Correct counselor. Juries can take after-the-fact behavior into account but only as corroborative evidence. However, that was not the point. The point was and remains that you won't find expert testimony in the field of "how people should behave after they have allegedly committed a crime".

As for Darlie Routier, she is in my top ten list of likely wrongful convictions as is Scott Peterson. Jurors clearly took her post-death birthday event at the cemetary behavior into account. Some jurors allegedly considered it the best evidence.

Thank you for this, I was appalled when I read the behind the scenes details and the continued requests for a new trial to know that this young woman was convicted to begin with. It seemed to me, everything that could possibly be done wrong in an investigation is exemplified here. To know a mother can be brutally attacked, lose her precious babies and then be sent to jail for their murder is a travesty that no words can describe. I know my opinion is not a popular one, but it is, what it is.

But Scott Peterson? Really? Can you explain? Can we meet up on the appropriate thread to discuss? I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[trac]

There is a Scott Peterson forum

Thank you for this, I was appalled when I read the behind the scenes details and the continued requests for a new trial to know that this young woman was convicted to begin with. It seemed to me, everything that could possibly be done wrong in an investigation is exemplified here. To know a mother can be brutally attacked, lose her precious babies and then be sent to jail for their murder is a travesty that no words can describe. I know my opinion is not a popular one, but it is, what it is.

But Scott Peterson? Really? Can you explain? Can we meet up on the appropriate thread to discuss? I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[texaslb218]

And a Darlie forum..

Darlie and Scott defenders make my ears bleed.

I have read you before, Wudge. I understand that you are not defending these two, but are critical of the judicial process they went through.

IMO, they are both guilty. Sorry for the OT.

 

[Wudge]

Thank you for this, I was appalled when I read the behind the scenes details and the continued requests for a new trial to know that this young woman was convicted to begin with. It seemed to me, everything that could possibly be done wrong in an investigation is exemplified here. To know a mother can be brutally attacked, lose her precious babies and then be sent to jail for their murder is a travesty that no words can describe. I know my opinion is not a popular one, but it is, what it is.

But Scott Peterson? Really? Can you explain? Can we meet up on the appropriate thread to discuss? I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts on this.

Insufficient evidence to support the charge. You can find thread #30 in the "Parking Lot".

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/scott-peterson/TC7F3IOR6GAA6IQH1

 

[Wudge]

Why even bother with a trial. Just let a judge make the decision.
:gavel:
Enough is Enough.
IMO

I believe it would be wise for the defense to request a bench trial. Though I suspect prosecutors would not agree to one.