Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[BChand]

He should read the whole transcript. However, the test is not whether Casey (an unreasonable person IMO) thought she was in custody, but whether a reasonable person would have thought she was in custody (not "under arrest," which is different from being "in custody").

Oh really? hmmm Thanks very much for answering.

 

[chefmom]

Today during the hearing, CM gave an extremely, and imo purposeful, skewed recanting of the events and facts. I don't want to say he outright lied, but he absolutely gave testimony that was not accurate. I find it hard to believe that as a member of the DT he isn't more versed on the facts of this case. My question is, Can he get away with such half-truthing of the facts at trial? LDB had to start her testimony out by bringing to HHJP's attention that the DT seemed confused on the facts. TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

Today during the hearing, CM gave an extremely, and imo purposeful, skewed recanting of the events and facts. I don't want to say he outright lied, but he absolutely gave testimony that was not accurate. I find it hard to believe that as a member of the DT he isn't more versed on the facts of this case. My question is, Can he get away with such half-truthing of the facts at trial? LDB had to start her testimony out by bringing to HHJP's attention that the DT seemed confused on the facts. TIA!

As far as the timing of the handcuffing, etc., keep in mind he was sleeping through part of that testimony. The rest of it IMO was just "spin." The witnesses gave conflicting testimony, and he is entitled to pick and choose which testimony to highlight during his argument.

 

[chefmom]

People keep telling me this. I would love to hear exactly what he said. I can't listen to the tape as my husband is watching anime next to me.

Here's what he said.

CM-"In the event that you, uh, deny any, or all, I guess, uh, I hope not, of our motions, that doesn't mean the end of it. The, the, the content of the statements, and/or recordings, and/or video recordings would still be subject to additional, uh, objections such as relevancy or 403 evaluations and so forth and we would have to somehow deal with later."

This is transcribed from what he stated at the beginning of today's hearing. I think this is what they are referring to.





http://www.wftv.com/news/27104437/detail.html

Starting around the 3:00 mark of part one.

 

[LolaMoon08]

People keep telling me this. I would love to hear exactly what he said. I can't listen to the tape as my husband is watching anime next to me.

Cheney Mason said nothing about an appeal.

Cheney Mason: "In the event that you deny any and all - I guess - I hope not - of our motions... that doesn't mean the end of it. The content of the statements, and or, recordings, or video recordings would be subject to additional objections of relevency."

I took this to mean that if the Judge denies their motions, they would still be objecting to Casey's statements, but they wouldn't all be lumped up in the same motions and instead treated as individual motions for each statements they want tossed out?

ETA: Oops, Chef beat me to it and did a much better job!!

 

[Nonni Brenda]

Did Mason call Casey a child????

 

[AZlawyer]

Here's what he said.

CM-"In the event that you, uh, deny any, or all, I guess, uh, I hope not, of our motions, that doesn't mean the end of it. The, the, the content of the statements, and/or recordings, and/or video recordings would still be subject to additional, uh, objections such as relevancy or 403 evaluations and so forth and we would have to somehow deal with later."

This is transcribed from what he stated at the beginning of today's hearing. I think this is what they are referring to.

http://www.wftv.com/news/27104437/detail.html

Starting around the 3:00 mark of part one.

Cheney Mason said nothing about an appeal.

Cheney Mason: "In the event that you deny any and all - I guess - I hope not - of our motions... that doesn't mean the end of it. The content of the statements, and or, recordings, or video recordings would be subject to additional objections of relevency."

I took this to mean that if the Judge denies their motions, they would still be objecting to Casey's statements, but they wouldn't all be lumped up in the same motions and instead treated as individual motions for each statements they want tossed out?

ETA: Oops, Chef beat me to it and did a much better job!!

OK, yes, he was not talking about an appeal, just saying that they might have more objections to these statements that are unconnected with the Miranda rights motion.

Did Mason call Casey a child????

Yep.

 

[MissJames]

In the Drew Peterson case in Illinois the judge ruled against the Prosecution about hearsay evidence.The trial was postponed until the Prosecution could get a ruling from a higher court,IIRC. Could this be what CM meant ? Was he implying that an unfavorable ruling for the defense would mean postponing the trial?
As time goes on memories fade and witnesses scatter,which would be to ICA's advantage.

 

[bananarama]

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?

Well, now we know exactly why it was listed on the State's list! :rocker:

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

LDB mentioned yesterday, custodial interference and ICA was not entitled to miranda rights and ICA was there freely and voluntarily, LE was in a race against time and they were already 32 days behind. (My wish came true, I was soooo hoping someone would have stated this and my new hero, LDB DID)...

I can't find any case law on the above custodial interference but it makes sense that LE wouldn't want to "SCARE" the mother of an allegdly missing child into obtaining an attorney but ICA did just that! LDB also mentions it was Mr. Baez who stopped all communicaitons with LE and LE need for credible information on Caylee's whereabouts took priority...the Anthony's, GA reached out to LE many times trying to find Caylee Marie...so, I guess my question would be, custodial interference is quite different from a obstruction charge which would nix miranda and this is the reason LE didn't put an obstuction of justice or hindering an investigation, they might have been hoping a little time in jail and ICA would give them credible info on Caylee but of course we know now, nothing could have helped find an alive Caylee...so sad...JMHO


Justice for Caylee

 

[beach]

Grandparents are next of kin when the mother is the murderer. Sorry, did I say murderer? I meant alleged murderer. 'Beach? Does this count as name-calling? :innocent:

:slap:

 

[kjpaw]

If the Universal interview is thrown out will they still be able to get in through the detectives that ICA took detectives there to find the mystery phone that contained ZFG's number?

 

[Aedrys]

My question goes to the nonargument skills of Baez and Mason. A competent attorney might be able to make a valid, good argument for the Miranda Rights problem. However, CM and Baez's arguments are just flat out invalid, preposterous, and just plain bad. Does HHJP strictly have to go by law here, or do the arguments themselves weigh on his ruling? I guess what I am asking is, let's say he decided to keep the Universal Interview in. If it did come up later on appeal, could he point to their really bad argument and say they didn't do their burden to meet the motion? Or does he have to wade through the crap of the defense's argument, no matter how bad it is, and rule strictly on law? I just don't understand how the defense thinks they can win this motion with the truly repugnant, bad argument they put forward on the Miranda Rights issue. If seems to be if they were competent, they might have put forward an argument that would actually work in ICA's favor, and they didn't.

 

[AZlawyer]

In the Drew Peterson case in Illinois the judge ruled against the Prosecution about hearsay evidence.The trial was postponed until the Prosecution could get a ruling from a higher court,IIRC. Could this be what CM meant ? Was he implying that an unfavorable ruling for the defense would mean postponing the trial?
As time goes on memories fade and witnesses scatter,which would be to ICA's advantage.

In Florida, according to R. Hornsby, the State has much broader rights than the defense to appeal prior to a final judgment (this is called an "interlocutory" appeal). Here's the rule I assume he's referring to: http://floridarulesofappellateprocedure.com/rules/2009/08/rule-9140-appeal-proceedings-i.php. Maybe it's the same in Illinois.

LDB mentioned yesterday, custodial interference and ICA was not entitled to miranda rights and ICA was there freely and voluntarily, LE was in a race against time and they were already 32 days behind. (My wish came true, I was soooo hoping someone would have stated this and my new hero, LDB DID)...

I can't find any case law on the above custodial interference but it makes sense that LE wouldn't want to "SCARE" the mother of an allegdly missing child into obtaining an attorney but ICA did just that! LDB also mentions it was Mr. Baez who stopped all communicaitons with LE and LE need for credible information on Caylee's whereabouts took priority...the Anthony's, GA reached out to LE many times trying to find Caylee Marie...so, I guess my question would be, custodial interference is quite different from a obstruction charge which would nix miranda and this is the reason LE didn't put an obstuction of justice or hindering an investigation, they might have been hoping a little time in jail and ICA would give them credible info on Caylee but of course we know now, nothing could have helped find an alive Caylee...so sad...JMHO


Justice for Caylee

I'm confused by the question, I'm afraid. KC certainly wasn't suspected of custodial interference--she had sole custody of Caylee--and in any event there's no crime that would "nix" Miranda. I didn't get to see the video of the hearing, so maybe I missed something?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the Universal interview is thrown out will they still be able to get in through the detectives that ICA took detectives there to find the mystery phone that contained ZFG's number?

Hopefully. It depends on whether HHJP thinks she was "in custody" when she made the statement about the missing phone.

My question goes to the nonargument skills of Baez and Mason. A competent attorney might be able to make a valid, good argument for the Miranda Rights problem. However, CM and Baez's arguments are just flat out invalid, preposterous, and just plain bad. Does HHJP strictly have to go by law here, or do the arguments themselves weigh on his ruling? I guess what I am asking is, let's say he decided to keep the Universal Interview in. If it did come up later on appeal, could he point to their really bad argument and say they didn't do their burden to meet the motion? Or does he have to wade through the crap of the defense's argument, no matter how bad it is, and rule strictly on law? I just don't understand how the defense thinks they can win this motion with the truly repugnant, bad argument they put forward on the Miranda Rights issue. If seems to be if they were competent, they might have put forward an argument that would actually work in ICA's favor, and they didn't.

HHJP has to follow the law (and BTW is not allowed to comment on or explain anything if it comes up later on appeal).

 

[Katprint]

<respectfully snipped>

Grandparents are next of kin when the mother is the murderer. Sorry, did I say murderer? I meant alleged murderer. 'Beach? Does this count as name-calling? :innocent:

I presume you also meant to say "and when the father is unknown / does not know he is the father / is otherwise missing from the picture." Because of course Caylee's father would be her heir, before Caylee's grandparents.

I'm kind of hoping that Caylee's father does step up at some point, and files a lawsuit for wrongful death against Casey to get a money judgment against her to stop her from continuing to make money from having murdered Caylee. Then, just like OJ, if she writes a book about what happened or sells more Caylee videos/photos or otherwise tries to cash in further, he could step in and seize that money. He may be able to hinder the Anthonys' continued exploitation of Caylee's pictures and videos as well.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[LambChop]

Can the A's go a national tv program and discuss their testimony for the upcoming trial? Or are they suppose to be not discussing these matters with the media, such as SA lied, I never said that, etc.?

 

[Jomo]

Can KC be excluded from attending future hearings or even the trial if she does not stop gesturing in the courtroom?

(p.s. - I so appreciate the great questions and answers here!)

 

[MissJames]

What is a judge doing during the time between a hearing and his ruling? I know they have other business,LOL,but as far as a particular ruling, what do they typically do to make a decision? Can they review video/audio of the hearing or evidence? Researching case law?or just thinking it over?

 

[AZlawyer]

I presume you also meant to say "and when the father is unknown / does not know he is the father / is otherwise missing from the picture." Because of course Caylee's father would be her heir, before Caylee's grandparents.

I'm kind of hoping that Caylee's father does step up at some point, and files a lawsuit for wrongful death against Casey to get a money judgment against her to stop her from continuing to make money from having murdered Caylee. Then, just like OJ, if she writes a book about what happened or sells more Caylee videos/photos or otherwise tries to cash in further, he could step in and seize that money. He may be able to hinder the Anthonys' continued exploitation of Caylee's pictures and videos as well.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Perhaps you were unaware that Casey was a virgin when she became pregnant? :innocent:

That would be fantastic if the father stepped forward. Surely there must be a smallish group of men who are aware that they had intercourse with her in the fall of 2004? :waitasec: The fact that we have heard nothing from him supports the "married or dead" theory.

Can the A's go a national tv program and discuss their testimony for the upcoming trial? Or are they suppose to be not discussing these matters with the media, such as SA lied, I never said that, etc.?

Sure, they can talk to anyone they want, although I fail to see how they think it helps Casey when they do that.