Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If they were precluded from providing info about the defendant's activities in the week prior to to the 16th of June then IMO that ruling was a judicial error.
I am trying to find the motion/hearing regarding that but have not been successful, yet
I do remember that the State said they would focus on her actions after June 16, 2008
I'm not sure this is what you are hunting for.
I found a motion in limine from the defense dated 12-21-10 to exclude evidence of the alleged history of Defendant's lying and stealing but don't know how to copy any of it over from a PDF format. I could not find when/if it was granted though.
Hope this can point you in the right direction.
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...nt has a History of Lying and or Stealing.pdf
I'm not sure this is what you are hunting for.
I found a motion in limine from the defense dated 12-21-10 to exclude evidence of the alleged history of Defendant's lying and stealing but don't know how to copy any of it over from a PDF format. I could not find when/if it was granted though.
Hope this can point you in the right direction.
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...nt has a History of Lying and or Stealing.pdf
Rushing jury selection.
Reading the prosecutor's book , you could tell that they anticipated JB to go with the accidental drowning story. I thing they should have better prepared to defend the point that it was not a drowning. According to what we heard from the "jury" they got hung up on the cause of death because the drowning somehow made sense to them. The prosecution should have gotten prepared to show that it was not an accident.
The prosecution vastly overestimated the jury. They thought the jury was like us and would be able to put the pieces together. And their annoyance with Baez, especially JA's, showed too much. The jury had no idea what Baez had put the prosecution through up until and even during the trial. Baez came off as the likable defense attorney and the prosecution came off as unlikable. Who knows, maybe that was Baez's strategy - wear down the prosecution so much that when it came time for trial, Baez could do his hokey stuff and get the jury on his side. I'm really starting to believe that now. I think the whole defense was acted out farce designed to help Casey get out of prison.Amen. This jury merited low expectations, a result of the rushed and otherwise odd selection process. I don't know if this jury had enough presence of mind to care about Baez or Ashton, really...but of course it was a farce, Casey's whole existence is a farce.
Also, the prosecution was damaged anyway since they couldn't prove the argument or how much Casey resented Caylee because her whole family was on her side, not Caylee's. They were totally in on her defense and freeing her from prison, which hurt the prosecution immensely. Also, trying to get other people to talk about it would have gone into hearsay territory, unfortunately. So they couldn't talk about the biggest motivation for Casey getting rid of Caylee, and that hurt the prosecution's case a lot. People understand hating a parent so much that a daughter or son would do something bad to hurt them - at least understand that that could be a strong motive for murder. They don't understand a daughter that seemingly had no responsibilities and whose daughter was well cared for wanting to get rid of her daughter. Proving Casey was a liar just wasn't enough. In order to show the resentment, the state would have to have been allowed to show prior and prejudicial evidence of Casey's lifestyle, and how that contrasted with involved motherhood. This barrier and the hearsay barrier are familiar to any attorney, and they needed to do a stellar job of finding and shaping testimonies to demonstrate KC's intentions in the face of these legal obstacles.
And I hate, hate, HATE that non of her stealing could be brought up either. I think there was a motion that it couldn't be brought up, or maybe it was because she had felonies stemming from her stealing. I can't remember, but I do remember it could not be brought up in court. That hurt the prosecution's case too.It definitely would have added some granularity to KC's character. But in true sociopath fashion, no one really knew all there was to know about KC except KC (although Websleuths pretty much mapped her out from top to bottom). With her parents lying for her, it would be difficult to find one witness who can link her teenagehood (during which we know there were issues), her stealing, her feelings about pregnancy and her intentions to be rid of Caylee. Ryan Paisley might have been helpful on that front. There was no doctor able to take this info and diagnose KC's personality disorder-which stealing, looseness and murder can be traced to-and testify to what kind of monster freak show she is and how her collective actions are a result of being a psychopath.
Basically, the prosecution was in a no win situation, and then didn't present the case in a way that the jury could clearly understand and connect the dots. I hate to admit that, but I do think it's true. Since they overestimated the intelligence of the jury, the jury, I believe, was overwhelmed, and that's why they didn't consider any of the evidence. They would have been in a far better position if they never promised a 6 week trial and laid every bit of everything out there for this jury, no matter how long it took. To associate the length of the case with money was another ugly issue, especially considering the amount of time and money WASTED in the three years leading up to the trial.
Plus, I've seen people lying about or bringing up abuse over the years as a sympathy ploy. More people are willing to believe that someone was abused and therefore not responsible for what they did or how they reacted than someone who wasn't abused and killed a child. I mean heck, she's living off of people that believe she was molested. It's just sick, but I think all the jury focused on was the abuse, and that easily let them absolve her any wrongdoing in Caylee's death even though there was no evidence whatsoever that she had ever been abused.
I do think that HHJP and jury selection may have played a role, but I think it is more minor role than what I've talked about above. I don't seem either of them as big of a factor as the prosecution, the things they weren't allowed to bring in, Baez playing the nice attorney up against the big and bad prosecution, and the jury being an unintelligent and more willing to sympathize because of unproven abuse than convict Casey of murdering her child. I think any jury might have been overwhelmed and HHJP was in a lot of hard spots and was getting a lot of pressure about this case. I'm sure he would do a lot of things differently now, though. With 84% Floridians in an Orlando Sentinel poll stating KC was guilty of premeditated murder, I would argue that the jury selection was critical, that JB gained a massive head start there. The state likely did miscalculate this jury, because their general sense of things was that a large majority of people thought the murderer was a murderer, and this jury would be no exception. Logistically, any jury has to be won over, and the experienced state attorneys know that all jurors should come with a stamp of impartiality. But, impartiality and ignorance are far different things.
It makes me sad to admit all of this after I defended Ashton and the prosecution so vigorously, and even tried to defend HHJP, but I can't deny it anymore. And I just want to throw things when I think about the prosecution missing "foolproof suffocation" searches.
While there were errors all around, the BIGGEST mistake made (apparently twelve times over) is that the jurors' parents, or perhaps their school system, failed to teach them BASIC COMMON SENSE:
-why would someone cover-up a common household accident in Florida via claiming something WORSE than that accident (that's like covering-up an income tax mistake by inventing a bank robbery, or covering-up a flat tire by telling an elaborate story about drinking and driving!)
-why would duct tape EVER be on the mouth of an accidentally-drowned child??? Anyone?!? Jurors??????????
-Joyous party pics after "accidental" death of child = smoking gun. Yes, we all grieve differently, but not THAT differently.
-The fact that not only did Casey clearly party after the death of her child, but she chose to do so in the exact manner (nightclubbing) she'd never be able to do WITH a child. What a coincidence, right jurors?!?
-The jailhouse tapes where Casey says "what a waste." There is no mental defect strong enough to make someone interpret those tapes as anything but clear evidence of someone who does. not. care. about their supposedly recently-deceased child.:banghead:
You may be right of course, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me in the least if FCA did suffocate Caylee to death with the duct tape. Any mother heartless enough to murder her own baby daughter isn't going to suddenly be 'caring' on how she accomplishes that task.As far as the duct tape comment you made lets just for fun entertain the idea that yeah maybe Caylee drowned and FCA panicked and came up with the kid nap plot rather quick ( I really believe she drove around with Caylee for a day and a half then backed into the driveway and bagged her up then drove around with her like that til the 24th gas can incident with her Dad) I feel like if its true then wudnt she just use 1 piece of tape to cover her mouth? The fact that there were 3 overlapping each other to me means it was put there so that it cudnt be pulled off..If she was dead already and she wanted to make it like a kidnapping then 1 piece wudve been sufficient but what do I know
Chloroform should have been left out ...
Going for the Death Penalty.