Can the defense continue to question every single witness as to why no one seemed to notice that ICA was 'mentally ill'? The defense dropped the two psychologists from their witness list. Is he not really claiming she is 'mentally ill' or is there a difference in claiming it and asking everyone why they didn't notice? Does that make sense?
He's not really claiming she was diagnosable with anything, just that she was mentally....off. It is OK to ask people if they noticed it.
I am curious as to why when Lee Anthony was testifying he was not allowed to repeat anything he heard Cindy Anthony say in the room/house the night they discovered Caylee missing. In court it was considered "here-say." Today I am watching coverage and Leonard Tutora from Universal Studios is repeating his recollection of what both Detetective Melich and Casey Anthony said while they tried to determine if she was an employee at Universal Studios. I am unclear as to why some testimony is considered "here-say" when it appears each instance I have referred to was heard first hand?
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, unless it falls within any one of about 30 exclusions and exceptions.
If Lee was repeating things Cindy said to show they were true, that would be inadmissible hearsay. If Leonard T was repeating things Melich and Casey said to explain what happened (how they got all the way to the end of the hallway), then that is not hearsay because he is not suggesting that the things they said were true. (E.g.: Melich: Who is your boss? (This is not the kind of statement that can be true or false.) Casey: Tom Manley. (Leonard T. would not be suggesting that this was a true statement--quite the opposite.))
At some point in an investigation police/LE think Hmmm I think this is foul play. I think I might have a crime here that has been committed. I think this person is a possible suspect. The Police eventually do arrest the suspect. It is my understanding that AT THE TIME a person is arrested they are read their Miranda Rights. What is the states thinking behind Casey was not read her Miranda Rights soon enough? Are police required to read a person their Miranda Rights before they are arresting a person?
There were numerous briefs and arguments in court on this issue months back. To summarize, in order for the State to be able to use your statements against you down the road, the police must read your Miranda rights if you are (1) "in custody" (which often happens long before what most people consider an "arrest"), and (2) being questioned. HHJP determined that she was not "in custody" when she was questioned, so Miranda warnings were unnecessary.
Can the SA bring in the mental health experts who examined Casey that Jose Baez released from the defense witness list, be brought in to testify on behalf of the prosecution? If so, do you believe the SA will call them? (Sorry if this has been asked and answered.) Thank you!
They could, I suppose. I have no idea what their opinions are or whether the SA listed them as witnesses.
Your opin on LA jail house tapes pertaining to JB. Is everything allowed here? Just afraid of any appeal. Thank you again .
You mean the part where LA and Casey talk about JB? I wouldn't worry about it. It is no big deal. Irrelevant, obviously, but JB didn't ask for any redactions in time for them to be done, and it isn't prejudicial enough to be a problem on appeal.
One further note should JB have made a stipulation to not allow jurors to hear this part about him, otherwise he has no recourse?
He should have objected and moved for redaction of the tape.
I heard that the state is paying ICA defense, how is this possible and is it even true? He is not a public defender, so I am confused...thanks
No one is paying JB any more. The State is paying Casey's COSTS (not attorneys' fees), because she has been found to be indigent (poor).
I think it's dangerous for the SA to continue to let Baez call all the people that KC made up as "imaginary" people. He's even got the witnesses calling them that. They are not imaginary - they are lies. Using the term imaginary to me puts KC too close to mental illness and could be used to prove the effects of her supposed sexual abuse. Do the lawyers here agree and if so, how can someone get the hint to the SA? I think when they put on the defense, the term "imaginary" is going to be used big time and in a devastating way.
The SA is not "letting" JB use this word. He is choosing to use the word, and there is nothing wrong with it--it is a good strategy on his part. The SA is totally aware of this strategy and will undoubtedly make the same point you are making in closing argument.
