Please, can you tell me how the verdict is read?
I seem to recall a trial conclusion where they went through all the things the person was accused of. Do they begin at the bottom of the list with the lesser charges? If so, once they come to "aggravated manslaughter" if they say guilty does this mean the jury has decided on that but not the murder? Or do they continue to read?
Hope this makes sense. I am wanting to get a perfectly clear understanding of how this part will go before I watch it.
They will go through each charge, probably starting with murder, and announce guilty or not guilty on each charge (or guilty on a lesser-included offense of that charge) until they get to the bottom of the list.
I just read that the defense has filed 06/13/2011 Motion for Certificate of Out of State Witness
06/13/2011 Certificate of Summons for Material Witnesses
Indicate Anthonys defense wants to call multiple scientists from the Body Farm.
My questions are, how can the DT do this if the SAO hasn'at had a chance to depose these witnesses? is this normal for a DT to wait until the SAO presents their case to the jury before deciding how they will handle the defense?
First of all, maybe the SA did depose them (or had the chance). There were a heck of a lot of depositions and I haven't looked at the whole list. Second, these are the State's witnesses, right? Why would the State need to depose them? They could just pick up the phone and talk to them! Third, there is nothing to indicate that the defense team did not decide to call these witnesses until now, is there? I assumed they were just slow on making the arrangements to get the witnesses to appear.
Can the Jury ask for testimony from the trial to read what different witnesses have said? Also, are they allowed to review pictures, and other evidence, during deliberations?
Thanks....
They can ask for transcripts, but probably will have to rely on their notes. They will be allowed to look at the evidence.
Leonard Padilla is on JVM and trying to say George will get on the stand for the defense and will fall on the sword for Casey even though he has already denied everything. Padilla has no credibility and I don't believe this will happen, but my question is can the defense even ask him questions about molestation and finding Caylee's body since it has already been asked and answered in the state's case?
They can probably ask him one more time.
Regarding the case of Florida vs Huck- if the Supreme court has already decided that ' There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a persons eyes and mouth shut after death' - why can this principle not be applied to Caylee's case? They seem to rely on previous decisions, precedents, to guide their decision making,so why will this not apply? Or, will it?
If JB/CM raise the theory that she taped her after death can the SA bring this ruling up?
The statement in the Huck case was dicta, not really a "ruling"--in other words, the statement does not preclude someone from coming up with a new argument (that wasn't raised in the Huck case) about why duct tape might be applied after death. But the defense in this case does not seem to be arguing that the duct tape was applied after death, but rather that it was not applied to Caylee's face at all.
I have been wondering, obviously the defense wants to put RC on the stand to try and prove an affair, etc.
Can the SA object due to relavance. RC has absolutely nothing to due with the case, and anything she was told seems to be heresay.
Can the DT get her testimony in somehow??
The defense argues that it is relevant because it shows that GA was not looking for Caylee, which shows that he knew she was dead.
If George had really admitted to RC that "it was an accident that snowballed out of control," that would probably come in under the exception to the hearsay rule for admissions against interest. But IIRC he said something more like he THOUGHT it was an accident that had snowballed out of control, which IMO is not admissible.
They seem to have "committed" to wrapping up in a half day tomorrow. Who do they call an how do they tie it all together? I get the bug guy did a real good job showing she wasn't in the trunk then she was and then she wasn't... I don't see the plant dude adding much. The latent print lady saying there were no prints didn't really fill in any holes. It has to be something like buying acetone at HD. At a minimum they have to show ICA had possession of her car.. Sorry don't mean to be so narrative but seems to me all the talking heads and folks here all have the same question. when and how will they focus on those few days?
They have already had witnesses testify that Casey had possession of the car. The plant guy will be called, I assume, but I think the SA has already done a great job of showing that Caylee's body was in that spot for 6 months or so.
If she was on video buying ingredients for chloroform at HD, I think we would have known that a long time ago, and there would have been a plea deal!
Sure hope this hasn't been asked before...Jose Baez states in his opening statement Caylee died as the result of an accident in the family pool. At any time during the past three years that Casey has been incarcerated, did she admit this to any authoritative personnel? (Not sure who you admit things to once you are in jail.) If she did admit that Caylee accidentally drowned, as JB states, who decides/decided that she would still stand trial for murder?
As a juror I would have to think about if she never admitted Caylee drowned prior to JB's opening statement, why would a person sit in jail for 3 years if she had accidentally drowned and wait for my attorney to claim this in court?? As a juror, am I allowed to use my common sense thoughts like that in voting her guilty as charged?
No, Casey did not admit this to anyone. And if she had, she would still stand trial for murder, because saying "I didn't kill her!" hardly ever gets you off a charge of murder.
Yes, the jurors will certainly ask themselves this question. The whole point of the jury system is to have common sense evaluations of claims presented in court.
It has been seen via livestream during jury selection and again during the murder trial that a couple of members from the defense team showing Casey something on their cell phones. Can they show her her texts from family members or any online content related to her case while in court?
Showing her texts would probably violate jail rules but I doubt anyone would care. Showing her online content would be fine but I doubt they have time to be fooling around with that.
I'm foolishly, but helplessly, hung up on Dr. Haskell's amusing complaint on the witness stand that JB still owes him money for the deposition JB took from him on October 22, 2010.*
That was 8 months ago! I assume JAC agreed to pay Dr. Haskell's charge for giving a depo, and if this is correct, then I'm very curious to know this: Does JAC mail the checks directly to the individual who is owed the money? OR, does JAC mail the checks to the attorney, who is then supposed to pay the individuals who are owed the money?
If the answer is the latter, then I'll bet I can guess what happened to Dr. Haskell's payment and why he hasn't received it after 8 months. If the answer is the former, I've been unjustly skeptical of JB's financial integrity.
Thanks for your help, dear attorneys, in settling this unsettling issue. :waitasec:
*October 22, 2010 is the date listed in our records for the Defense Depo of Dr. Haskell. See post 389, at this link:
http://http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6227875&highlight=DEFENSE+DEPOSITION+HASKELL#post6227875
I don't know the JAC procedure. I suspect checks are sent to the attorney just because it would be easier to use the attorney as the middleman for all expense distributions. Also, JB seemed embarrassed that he hadn't paid. I think if it wasn't his fault, he would have said so.
Two questions...
1. Why was "Diary of Days" not entered as evidence?
2. How on earth does the use of duct tape indicate kidnapping? Don't kidnappers attempt to keep their victims alive in exchange for money? Where is the ransom note? The request for money or something else? I just don't get the whole duct tape = kidnapping chite.
: )
The diary doesn't prove anything, unfortunately, because it appears not to have been written in 2008.
Three pieces of duct tape going into the hair and covering the airways doesn't sound like a kidnapping, unless the victim was killed because the ransom wasn't paid. One piece of duct tape over the mouth sounds a little more like a kidnapping. It's pretty obvious there wasn't a kidnapping here, and as you can see the defense team has dropped that idea.
I understand the defense atty is obligated to defend the client they represent..but I am disturbed by the lengths they have gone through in this case, attempting to destroy close family members, AND I have just read the "golden thread" method here that would more implicate Lee rather than GA....
My question for the atty's here is:
Are Defense attorneys shielded from various defamation suits for destroying innocent individual's reputation, ability to have a reputation, life etc. due to the tactic they have constructed with their client collectively under the "atty client" veil?
Thank you in advance.
They are protected from defamation--not because of the attorney/client privilege but because of the litigation privilege.
Snipped & BBM:
Yeah, I don't get that either. even tho they couldn't date the ink, the fact that it was not manufactured until 2004 & was dated '03, combined with the subject matter on the very next page...why was it either not used or not allowed?
__________________________
My question, lol:
:waitasec: I don't understand why the cell phone pings won't be necessary for the SAO to bring in. The tower hits proving she was going in the A home when she knew her parents weren't there.. her constant (obsessive?) texting/talking and then the hours silence long the day Caylee died...I had some other point, but have forgotten it while writing, lol. (I have got to stop working so late & then coming here to "wind down" :crazy: .) Sorry if I'm just slow on the uptake & TIA...being too tired makes me stoopid sometimes. :innocent:
Re: the diary--it is confusing why it is dated '03 when it was clearly written later. But the best evidence is that it was written in '05/'06--I can't remember which. So it isn't much help.
The cell pings only show she was within a certain radius from certain places (2 or 3 miles maybe), not that she was in an exact spot. And there were lots of "phone silence" times--one has to wonder whether her constant phone activity used up the battery pretty regularly.
