Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[LolaMoon08]

If Cindy and George Anthony are declared hostile witnesses for trial, what does that actually mean? What actually happens if they are declared hostile witnesses? And do you think they will be declared hostile witnesses?

 

[LolaMoon08]

So far, we have not had any mention of the phone call Casey made to the Anthony home after she had been arrested.

I know that the State listed this phone call when they filed their witness/exhibits for the Defenses motion to suppress statements made to Cindy, George, Lee, Maya, Robyn, and Silvia. I know that we still have not finished this motion (tomorrow it will be wrapped up?), but was wondering if the defense doesn't even bring it up, does it automatically get admitted since the State obviously has plans to use it?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Would GA have been privy to anyone else's GJ testimony, or is each witness brought in separately?
If GA's statements at the hearings last week were different to what he told the GJ how would HHJP deal with that, since he presided over the GJ too..?

 

[Katprint]

Sua Sponte, I know I saw that post at some point and was considering it. I think probably this situation would not count for the public safety exception, but it is an interesting thought. One the SA has not mentioned AFAIK.

Maybe your post was removed because there was no question mark at the end lol.

IMO the "public safety" exception applies more in situations where there is a danger to the public at large rather than where there is merely a danger to a particular member of the public. The classic "loaded gun tossed over a fence" scenario, for example, vs. "my abusive exhusband has a gun."

However, I certainly don't blame the police investigators if they decided that Priority #1 was finding Caylee ASAP - especially since, statistically speaking, every additional hour she remained "missing" decreased the likelihood that she would be found alive - however and whatever they needed to do to accomplish that, and that making a case against Casey was a distant Priority #2.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

Would GA have been privy to anyone else's GJ testimony, or is each witness brought in separately?
If GA's statements at the hearings last week were different to what he told the GJ how would HHJP deal with that, since he presided over the GJ too..?

He would not have seen anyone else's testimony.

I believe the SA already asked for and was granted permission to get George's GJ testimony transcribed so it could be used at trial if he says something inconsistent.

So far, we have not had any mention of the phone call Casey made to the Anthony home after she had been arrested.

I know that the State listed this phone call when they filed their witness/exhibits for the Defenses motion to suppress statements made to Cindy, George, Lee, Maya, Robyn, and Silvia. I know that we still have not finished this motion (tomorrow it will be wrapped up?), but was wondering if the defense doesn't even bring it up, does it automatically get admitted since the State obviously has plans to use it?

Are you sure the defense listed this phone call in that motion? It really would make no sense, since there is no suggestion that LE pressured the family to talk to Casey this early on.

If Cindy and George Anthony are declared hostile witnesses for trial, what does that actually mean? What actually happens if they are declared hostile witnesses? And do you think they will be declared hostile witnesses?

It just means that the SA would be allowed to use leading questions if they call them as witnesses during the State's case. IMO it is no big deal. Personally, I prefer to NOT ask for people to be declared hostile witnesses. My favorite way of dealing with hostile witnesses is to use the OPPOSITE of leading questions, e.g., instead of saying, "And then you washed the pants, didn't you?" (leading question because it contains the answer you want) I would say, "And then I assume you placed the pants carefully in a plastic bag to preserve them for the police, correct?" No hostile witness declaration necessary for that, as long as you have a halfway intelligent judge who can understand the distinction. Then when the witness says "no," you can act shocked, "NO?? Wait, so what DID you do with the pants that smelled like death??"

jennyb! agreed!

In particular I was absolutely shocked that JB ended his examination of Yuri Melich with the words (I'm paraphrasing): "the smell of death was in the car, but you did not examine the car". whoa! ...WHY did JB bring that up?? Baez' mission during these hearings was to raise questions about the whole agents of the state thing and improper mirandizing. So, what did the smell in the car (and the fact that Melich didn't examine the car that night) have to do with these things? What am I missing? Please tell me, he had to have a reason to bring it up. (And I HAVE always wondered why they didn't examine that car that night!)...so it is an excellent question, just not one I would expect from the defense!) Help me understand!

JB was trying to show that the circumstances were such that Melich must have considered Casey a suspect in the disappearance of her daughter--and therefore when he took her to Universal it was to conduct an interrogation of a suspect, not to get information from the mother of a missing child--and therefore she should have been given her Miranda warnings first.

First of all..thank you AZ (and all other attorneys as well) for all you do here.

Since KC did not testify at the Miranda hearing, it is virtually the LEOs word against JB/Cms allegations, right? In the previous case law, did the defendants give direct testimony about their rights being violated? I'm just curious how much weight is given in that situation, vs. one like we have here. We have testimony from CA/GA, proven liars in their testimony, and testimony from LEOs, virtually unchallenged except for the responding officer who says "yes she was handcuffed, but then let go." But no one heard directly from the defendant if she did, or did not, feel free to leave that night.

Whether or not Casey felt free to leave is totally irrelevant. The question is whether or not a "reasonable person" would have felt free to leave. No one needs to testify about that--it's up to the judge to decide after hearing all the facts about what happened that night.

Baez seemed pretty cocky about eliciting testimony that would be detrimental to Casey's case if heard by a jury. He appeared pretty confident it would go no further than that motion hearing.

I'm sorta apprehensive about this.

I don't think he elicited any testimony that would be detrimental to Casey's case that wouldn't have been mentioned at trial anyway. In fact, if Melich tries at trial to make it sound like Casey's story was very suspicious from the beginning, JB can use his testimony at this motion hearing against him.

On that theme, can CA or GA be impeached during trial using their sworn testimony at the recent motions hearing? Especially GA's "I would do anything, lie, cheat, steal, etc."

Thanks AZLawyer.

Yes. That is a wonderful little impeachment statement.

At trial, if, say, CA testifies to something that contradicts her previous sworn testimony, can the State impeach her as a witness?

Yes.

 

[LolaMoon08]

AZlawyer,

The defense didn't list it as part of their motion, but the State listed it as part of their exhibits when they filed their witness/exhibits list for the hearing, so I just assumed that it would be brought up?

 

[mobius99]

JB was trying to show that the circumstances were such that Melich must have considered Casey a suspect in the disappearance of her daughter--and therefore when he took her to Universal it was to conduct an interrogation of a suspect, not to get information from the mother of a missing child--and therefore she should have been given her Miranda warnings first.

So, are you saying he can have it both ways?! He's done nothing but cry foul since KC was arrested, arguing that LE focused on her to the exclusion of other suspects. Now he wants to argue that LE must have considered KC a suspect basically from the first moment he interviewed his lying-thieving-death-mobile-driving client.?!

 

[Turnadot]

First I want to once again thank all the lawyers who are kind enough to answer our never ending stream of questions. I've learnt so much from reading this thread, and it's very nice of you all to do this.

Now my question: KC is very animated while listening to witnesses; waving her hand, making faces, shaking her head, etc. I know she has a 5th amendment right not to speak, but could her antics at the defence table count as "testimony"?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer,

The defense didn't list it as part of their motion, but the State listed it as part of their exhibits when they filed their witness/exhibits list for the hearing, so I just assumed that it would be brought up?

Maybe the State listed the jail call home as an exhibit to show that LA was focused on trying to get info from Casey before he was allegedly became an "Agent of the State" lol.

JB was trying to show that the circumstances were such that Melich must have considered Casey a suspect in the disappearance of her daughter--and therefore when he took her to Universal it was to conduct an interrogation of a suspect, not to get information from the mother of a missing child--and therefore she should have been given her Miranda warnings first.

So, are you saying he can have it both ways?! He's done nothing but cry foul since KC was arrested, arguing that LE focused on her to the exclusion of other suspects. Now he wants to argue that LE must have considered KC a suspect basically from the first moment he interviewed his lying-thieving-death-mobile-driving client.?!

Well, kind of, yes. For purposes of this motion only. This is pretty common, really, that lawyers end up making somewhat contradictory arguments in different phases of the case.

First I want to once again thank all the lawyers who are kind enough to answer our never ending stream of questions. I've learnt so much from reading this thread, and it's very nice of you all to do this.

Now my question: KC is very animated while listening to witnesses; waving her hand, making faces, shaking her head, etc. I know she has a 5th amendment right not to speak, but could her antics at the defence table count as "testimony"?

Yes, in the sense that HHJP is likely to put a stop to it and point out that she is not entitled to "testify" in this manner while also asserting her 5th Amendment rights. But he isn't going to let the SA put her on the stand and cross-examine her just because she's making facial expressions.

JB and CM ought to be taking action when she behaves this way. When my clients "act out," I get embarrassed in the same way a mother gets embarrassed when her toddler has a tantrum at the grocery store. And I react pretty much the same way I reacted when I had a toddler: "You cut it out RIGHT NOW; we are in PUBLIC and this is NOT OK."

 

[Macushla]

An additional question as to KC's expressions and animation at the hearings. After watching her at hearings for the last few months, do you think she is going to be able to maintain her composure throughout the trial. Will her attorney's allow or even encourage her to do 'busy work', writing, reading, etc. or will they want her to pay attention to what is going on? Along those lines, do you think the jury will react negatively to her if she does do the busy work and seems to ignore what is going on?

 

[SleuthTheTruth]

AZlawyer, will you do me a favor and wrap your arms around yourself and give yourself a BIG HUG from me. You are so smart, knowledgeable, intelligent, wise and quite frankly, fantastic. This 56 year old, wife/mother/grandmother has learned so much, just reading here with all the great questions and your knowledge of the law. While I mostly lurk, because WS has so much info to read, by the time I log in and get started reading I’m bumped off. This thread is the first place I come to, because, you have taken the time, to explain your answers to our questions so we understand the process of the law. Thank you for what you do here. You ARE a great asset to WS. I Love This Place!

 

[mobius99]

AZ, if KC were your client would you advise her to cut her hair?

Do you think the defense is consciously aware that her appearance is dramatically different now as opposed to when she was arrested?

IOW, do they hope it subconsciously signals a message to the jury; ie this is how "long" our client is willing to endure incarceration to have her day in court and prove her innocence.

Or is this much ado about nothing?

 

[AZlawyer]

An additional question as to KC's expressions and animation at the hearings. After watching her at hearings for the last few months, do you think she is going to be able to maintain her composure throughout the trial. Will her attorney's allow or even encourage her to do 'busy work', writing, reading, etc. or will they want her to pay attention to what is going on? Along those lines, do you think the jury will react negatively to her if she does do the busy work and seems to ignore what is going on?

No, I don't think she will be able to maintain her composure. In fact, I think she is purposely trying to "testify" through her actions, i.e., she is trying to act like she thinks an innocent mother is supposed to act. She thinks an innocent mother would not be able to comply with the judge's direction not to react, so she goes ahead and fakes those reactions. In addition, IMO she is having some involuntary reactions as well (chiefly anger).

IMO she will have to be admonished by HHJP during trial more than once (but likely outside the hearing of the jury and therefore possibly outside the hearing of the media and WSers ).

It would be best for her defense if she can appear to be paying attention (not doodling) and SUPPRESSING reactions or just silently crying at appropriate times, but I don't think she is that good of an actress. This "I'm a paralegal" crap will IMO alienate the jury. It looks like she's trying to help put on a defense, rather than desperately hoping someone will just tell the truth. (Of course, even if she could muster the appropriate emotional appearance, the jury would be wondering "if she wants someone to tell the truth, why not just take the stand?" :waitasec

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, if KC were your client would you advise her to cut her hair?

Do you think the defense is consciously aware that her appearance is dramatically different now as opposed to when she was arrested?

IOW, do they hope it subconsciously signals a message to the jury; ie this is how "long" our client is willing to endure incarceration to have her day in court and prove her innocence.

Or is this much ado about nothing?

Yes. I think she looks too much like a witch (or an inmate) now instead of like a young mother. Maybe if she did the ponytail it would be OK.

I think her defense team is clueless about such things, as demonstrated by the fact that they have about a 90% FAIL rate on picking clothes for her.

 

[LolaMoon08]

After listening to the closing arguements presented by both sides, how do you think Judge Perry will rule?

Will the written statement come in?

Will the audio of Yuri Melich's interview with Casey Anthony, in the Anthony home, come in?

Will the interview at Universal come in? (I know that you hope that it won't come in, but I would like to know if you think Judge Perry will allow it to come in?).

From what I understood from Cheney Mason today, before he began his closing statement, was that IF Judge Perry ruled against the defenses motion to suppress Casey's statements, that there would be additional motions filed in order to get statements, individually, thrown out. Jail visitation. Phone calls. And so on. Is that how you understood it?

 

[AZlawyer]

After listening to the closing arguements presented by both sides, how do you think Judge Perry will rule?

Will the written statement come in?

Will the audio of Yuri Melich's interview with Casey Anthony, in the Anthony home, come in?

Will the interview at Universal come in? (I know that you hope that it won't come in, but I would like to know if you think Judge Perry will allow it to come in?).

From what I understood from Cheney Mason today, before he began his closing statement, was that IF Judge Perry ruled against the defenses motion to suppress Casey's statements, that there would be additional motions filed in order to get statements, individually, thrown out. Jail visitation. Phone calls. And so on. Is that how you understood it?

If the written statement was before the handcuffing, as someone told me it was, it should come in.

I think the statement with Yuri at the house will probably come in, and that decision will probably be upheld on appeal.

I think Linda made some fabulous arguments re: the Universal statement, and CM did a terrible job, but nevertheless I think HHJP will listen to the whole tape and will keep it out. I agree with Linda that KC likely was not "in custody" walking into the building, but I think she was "in custody" when the door closed and they started asking her why she was lying.

I didn't get to watch the hearing live, so I don't know what CM said except what people posted, which was totally unclear to me. Maybe because CM himself was being totally unclear lol.

 

[Turnadot]

AZlawyer, I value your opinion so much and rushed into this thread to ask your thoughts about today, but someone beat me to it.



Sorry, no question, just want you to know your insights are worth their weight in gold.

 

[Nore]

I am probably wrong in writing this but I am angry.
Unless someone was guilty of statuatory rape,
KC. is NOT a child.Talk about grasping at straws.
.......:maddening:.:banghead::maddening:

 

[LolaMoon08]

Maybe the State listed the jail call home as an exhibit to show that LA was focused on trying to get info from Casey before he was allegedly became an "Agent of the State" lol."

I think LDB did a fine job of explaining to us all why she included the call Casey made from the jail to the Anthony home in the list of exhibits, no? :floorlaugh: To prove that Casey, herself, even thought she had been arrested on a (LDB said it better than I ever could) whim. :floorlaugh:

Do you think LDB got her point across? How shocked do you think Judge Perry was when that came out of her mouth? Do Judge's usually get shocked when this type of language is used... without any (and I mean I didn't see it coming) warning? It was like BOOM! How effective was this statement, do you think?

 

[Bittiness39]

Awesome answers as always, AZlawyer!

I was able to read the thread today...and enjoyed everyone's commentary, since I can't watch the hearings at work. TY to all of the WS'ers who were able to explain what both CM and LDB were saying.

I know this is out of left field...I KNOW (lol) but could the Defense be trying as a last ditch effort to get ICA to see the seriousness of her situation...not only the seriousness...but the likelihood (very likely imo) that she will be convicted?

Watching her sitting at the Defense table, it appears that while CM and JB seem to be at least acknowledging her writings and rabid and very obvious underlinings...that ICA DOES NOT in anyway appear to be close to (nor do I believe has been for a long time since her initial incarceration) accepting a plea, should one be engineered.

I know a lot of us had hoped that ICA would "see" the light and accept some modicrum of responsibility...but watching her parents on the stand in and in the gallery it appears that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Part of me still wonders, if the chief reason (apart from JB's skirmishes with the prosecution and rather supercilious tone with police early on in "offering" to "assist" in the search for Caylee with his client, ICA) that there has not been a plea even close to being in the works, is that the "child" (CM's words, not mine) ICA, is still sticking by her ZFG story...and refuses to budge.

When I watch the hearings online it jumps out at me, that while the Defense is brilliantly keeping her occupied with legal pads and pens because that is all they can do (apart from asking for her to be handcuffed to the table and blindfolded), ICA seems to be stuck in the past, continuing to assert her original version of events. The rude and disrespectful way she addresses her own counsel...as though she wants them to make these points she is writing as though she clearly doesn't understand this is a hearing and not trial, and no, the Defense cannot bring up the "other" story about how ZFG and Sam shoved her in JBPark and stole Caylee from her and gave her a script to follow...

It seems like the Defense is trying to drive home to her, the foolishness of following the ZFG Defense...and that every time she writes and underlines vigorously, the DT, is just looking at her notes, going, "OK whatever" and moving right along...I just also have to wonder if perhaps when she appeals...she will blame JB and CM for not listening to her...for not asking the stuff she is so brilliantly writing down and for not using the "brilliant" ZFG stole Caylee story that she thought up...

Sorry...that was a lot of garbage...it is just my sense of it is...ICA is adamant about her version of events and appears from her behavior to be nowhere near accepting any sort of plea. JMO.