After re-reading the motion for relative of victim to be excluded from sequestration, I have a question. Most of the caselaw cited refers to the potential for the accused being prejudiced and using that for guidance of sequestering the family during the trial...Are you aware of any cases that would support the family being excluded due to prejudice to the state? Also, are you aware of any cases where the family members seeking exclusion from sequestration are family of the accused AND victim? Most of the discussion I've seen on WS so far involves the potential prejudice to the state versus the accused and the cases submitted in the motion don't mention how this could impact the ruling. Either way, what is your opinion on how the judge will rule?
AFAIK there are no special rights for family members of the accused. The only special rights are for family members of the victim. In this case, of course, the As are both, but they are asking to be allowed to stay for the whole trial because they are family members of the victim. I've never seen a request like this one before, but I'm sure it must happen all the time, as lots of criminal cases involve family members on both sides.
No one cares if the State is "prejudiced" because the State doesn't have any constitutional rights lol.
So there will not be any "balancing" of prejudice to Casey vs. prejudice to the State. Also, the cases talking about prejudice against the accused are saying that it is generally HARMFUL to the accused to have the victim's family in court, whereas here the accused (presumably) supports the family's request to remain in the courtroom, so those cases will not be too helpful to HHJP. IMO HHJP can consider, however, the potential for prejudice to the administration of justice in this case--i.e., the potential for disruption, perjury, inappropriate influence on the jury, etc.
IMO he will exclude the As from trial, because they are acting more like family members of the accused than family members of the victim, they cannot follow the rules of courtroom decorum, they cannot keep their stories straight, and they are important witnesses.
Which begs the question- why would HHJP order that the A's be sequestered if it's such a casual arrangement? They will find a way around that pronto...
True, but he might as well give it a shot. Then when Cindy gets on the stand and says "like Lee said when you asked him that yesterday..." HHJP can hold her in contempt. In my dreams, at least.