I'm sure he didn't want to know the real truth but I think he did his client a big disservice here. The mom being proven to lie something potentially very damaging isn't something you want the jury going out on.
I know jury can't hold not testifying against ICA but I do wonder if they were irked she didn't. Lots of questions. Family went up 1000x to the slaughter and I wonder if they will judge her for not opening her to the same exposure even though the scenario is clearly different. Do you think juries make defendants pay for not going on stand even when they shouldn't? TY.
Yes, IMO jurors hold it against defendants when they don't testify, especially if the opening statement suggested that they would testify.
Has the defense created reasonable doubt? - Page 16 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Originally Posted by LolaMoon08 View Post
You do know that the jury is going to get evidence that was not actually discussed in the State's CIC?? An example off the top of my head is Casey's photobucket pictures. You know, like the one with the little girl looking up at a teddybear with the noose around it's neck? Saying something like "Why do people kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong" not verbatim of course. Something like that.
Is what this post says true?
Yes, the photobucket file was stipulated into evidence IIRC, so the jury will be able to see it. The SA may point out things from the stipulated evidence in closing argument.
this is prolly a very stupid question... If Cindy's testimony is impeached..does it effect in any way all or any of the evidence that was introduced while she was testifying? would evidence stay part of the record ..and her testimony would be taken off the record..how does this work.? TIA ie 911 call jailhouse tapes
Her testimony has already been impeached several times, and it doesn't have any effect whatsoever except that the jury might decide not to believe her.
Do you think the SA should have asked for the jury to visit the place where Caylee was found? Do you think it would make a difference in their decision? Or, if the jurors asked to visit this spot, would they be allowed to?
No, I don't think it would have made any difference, and I don't think they would have been allowed to visit. There is nothing about a visit to that location that would help them decide if Casey killed Caylee.
1.) The Prosecution have been objecting to questions from the Defense trying to illicit answers that would suggest that the state's investigation was incomplete, incompetent, etc. However, I was watching WESH re-run from a few days ago and Richard Hornsby was saying that reasonable doubt can be elicited from the State's failure to exclude certain theories/evidence. Which one is correct?
2.) Can the Defense refer to the drowning theory in closing and argue that the Prosecution's evidence does not exclude the possibility of Caylee drowning and that this is, therefore, reasonable doubt?
They are both correct. JB can raise the state's failure to follow up on a theory, but he can't suggest things for which he has no evidence.
Yes, the defense can argue that the evidence is consistent with accidental drowning.
Deliberations can possibly start Saturday afternoon.
If so will the jury deliberate straight through the holiday week end or will it be an option?
If they reach a speedy verdict, could they be done by the 4th? If not, will they have the 4th for a holiday. My apology if this has already been asked.
I'm sure HHJP will give the jury the
option of working through the weekend. They could definitely be done by the 4th.
The afternoon session today was a bit hard for me to follow, but if I am correct (and please correct me if I am not) most everything will be completed, besides closings, will be completed before/on the 4th of July. But the defense is waiting for more paperwork from CA's former employer that might take until the following week, and the information they are seeking is about a single day.
In your opinions (verified lawyers) could this be a way to "buy time" for a deal for ICA? I.E we have all the time in the world...how long do you have...hoping to wear down the SA to something? IDK, it just seems to me to be a grab for time.
What are your opinions on this 'new information' being sought (verified lawyers)?
Hmmm, I missed that about the information not being ready until next week. What did HHJP say about that??
I don't think the SA would cave in to a lowball deal just because the trial might take another week. They have enough alternates to get through. OTOH, my recollection is that the alternate list was better for the defense than the main juror list, so the defense might be hoping to get some of the main jurors out by dragging things out. .... On the other other hand
, they didn't drag out the defense case that much. ... Forget it. I have no clue.
How long do you think closings will take on both sides. JB seems to really want deliberations to start next week not over the weekend. Do you think he fears they will rush to get out and that could hurt DT more? Any chance we see a last minute deal? TY.
I believe both parties gave HHJP time estimates. I think they will finish closings in one full day.
It's possible that JB is concerned that the jury will "rush to judgment" to get done before the holiday weekend is over.
I don't think we'll see a last-minute deal, no. But this case is always full of surprises!
Do you think the "smelling of the can" debate was really a bit of reverse psychology on the part of the prosecution? It seems it would be a big gamble to allow the jurors to smell the can. So many things could go wrong, such as the smell is not that strong, maybe no smell is there or maybe it does smell like garbage. (Thinking back to OJ and The Glove - good idea in someone's mind but did not turn out like the PT thought).
I am thinking maybe LDB and JA didn't want to make the OJ/Glove mistake, and if they fought against it, JB would have wanted the jurors to take the smell taste. So instead LDB and JA fought for it, knowing that JB WOULD fight against it.
Could it be that LDB and JA "lost" that battle, but really "won" the battle (so to speak)?
Interesting thought. I assume JA and LDB know what the can smells like (but maybe not, if it's really well sealed). But why would the smell have dissipated from a well-sealed can? Without having smelled the can ourselves, this is one of those things we can't really know. It certainly
seemed like JA was fighting hard to allow the smell test.
