Motion In Limine To Exclude Mental Health Experts

[Hell's Belle]

I should also point out that certain of Casey's out-of-court statements could also be admitted as "spontaneous statements," "excited utterances," "then-existing mental or emotional conditions," or "statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment" [which would probably NOT include a forensic examination, because it is likely that the statements being made would not be "against interest."]. Same link, sections 1, 2, and 3: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC803.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0090-%3ESection%20803#0090.803

Just to clarify, the two defense experts were performing forensic examinations AFAICT.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think Danziger was the original one who was ordered by HHJS to evaluate her. I thought someone found Weitz on a visitor log but I could be wrong.

ETA: Maybe I am wrong about Weitz. It looks like she has had psychologist visits as listed by Think Tank but I don't see Weitz:

Psychologists Dr. Jeffery Danziger; Dr. Alan Berns; Dr. William Weitz; Dr. Harry Kro - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Strawberry - I think many posters jumped to that diagnosis and conclusion because Dr. W. Weitz specializes in PTSD. Dr. Danzinger is a forensic psychologist. He has been around from the early days - I believe Dr. Weitz is a later addition, which led to our own "PTSD diagnosis".

 

[krisskross]

The definition of hearsay is complex and has a number of exceptions. Out-of-court statements of a PARTY that are "admissions against interest" are an exception to the hearsay rule in Florida, read down to 18(a): http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC803.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0090-%3ESection%20803#0090.803 .

In the case of this exception relating to an "admission against interest," the "unavailability of the declarant"--Casey Anthony (if she chooses not to take the stand she is "unavailable")--is "immaterial" under the terms of the rule. So it does not matter that she could not be cross-examined about the out-of-court statements. Hence the big fight about the 911 tapes (for example).

Hi Hell's Belle
Thanks for responding.

I understand there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. But who's saying in this instance, Casey told these doctors anything that could be construed as predudicial to her. Isn't potential predudice what constitutes an "admission against interest". :waitasec:

Ofcourse, I'm just assuming whatever she told them was by way of excusing her behaviour during the 31 days.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Casey Anthony is a "party" to this case because she is the defendant.

If she chooses not to testify she is "unavailable."

If she says something out of court that tends to harm her in the case (an "admission"):

her statement is admissible at the trial as evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule, even if she doesn't testify at the trial.

Did that help?

Yes, thankyou.

 

[Chiquita71]

Oh Brother! The defense wants these experts to answer hypothetical questions, based on a hypothetical person.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27530793/detail.html

Friday should be very interesting. :yes:

RespectfullyQuoted Softail :cool2:
BBM

:tyou: for that link.

Ag. Okay. So, the defense wants two experts to get on the stand and with a hypothetical situation(involving a hypothetical person)give reason/excuse for all the evidence the State has falling under the criteria of "consciousness of guilt." The defense wants their experts to give the jury mental/medical reasons why she...

didn't report her daughter missing for 31 days.
got the bella vita tattoo.
stole money from family and friends.
passed bad checks at Target.
and at the bank.
Led LE on a wild goose chase to Universal Studios.
Lied to LE.
(etc.)

And, if I understand correctly if the defense is using experts then the State wants to have their experts look at Casey. In the motion the defense cites Hickson saying, "the court held that allowing a defendant to present such testimony would preclude a requirement that the defendant submit to a State sponsored mental health examination. Based on this analogous authority, the defense requests the ability to call such an expert."


I do not understand what is being argued in that quote above, except that there was a previous case where the defense is using the ruling because they feel it is relevant to what they are arguing. To show the judge why he should rule in their favor. ( :lol: 101 ) But part of the defense's argument is that they are not using the experts as part of the "actual defense" but only to dispute the State's "consciousness of guilt" argument/evidence. Is it a technicality/trick to separate the defense of Casey's "consciousness of guilt" from her actual defense? That is what I am getting from all that. Is the consciousness of guilt different than the circumstantial evidence?

The defense goes on to say that if such an examination is allowed by the State, on Ms. Anthony; that her attorney be present.

The defense wants to have their experts testify but they do not want the State to be able to give Casey their own examination. Also, the experts according to the motion by the defense have not examined nor met with Casey.

In the alternative, the defense requests the ability to call an expert who has not examined Ms. Anthony but possesses the ability to testify as to the general psychological defense mechanisms(but not the defense itself...they are saying because THAT would be wrong/illegal/not allowed) relevant to this case, and who will also answer hypothetical questions based on a hypothetical person predicated on facts in evidence. Such testimony will assist jurors in understanding the issues of this case(Casey's "issues" Casey has "issues" stated George Anthony.) and provide an alternative explanation other than consciousness of guilt.

See, I am not so sure of that...as a juror, wanting to find Casey innocent...hearing a hypothetical about a hypothetical would not satisfy me. Caylee, what happened to Caylee deserves and demands by practicality alone, to be answered with more than hypothetical scenarios when she was a real living girl-her life was not hypothetical. The whole "spirit" of the defense is: this is all hypothetical any way...

we don't even know that Caylee was murdered. We don't even know that was her body. We don't even know that someone didn't put that body that wasn't murdered where the remains were found...and on that way.

I am confused about hearing the State has deposed two of the defense's mental health experts...so why is that? Are they the same two...we are talking about with this motion? Are they being deposed, just because? In the motion it states that they are calling experts that "have not examined Ms. Anthony"...so would the State be asking general questions to the experts and not having to do with this case? Just to be prepared to cross examine the them should the defense win? Sorry for all the questions, reading more will answer most of them as you all know. There are threads now, that will make sense when they didn't before.

The hearing tomorrow will be much easier to understand, heck I wouldn't have understood any of it...had I not read this thread. :cool2:

On the subject of the video of HHJS:
Stuff from the case that I watched when it happened, shown to me now: has more of an impact because I get more of what is going on. And what Judge Strickland had to say about Casey is more straight talk than I have ever heard about her. I was surprised but also I am very familiar with the quote "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers." I knew HHJS had stated that, fact...but I did not know Casey was called out about how she had done nothing to find Caylee while she was out on bond. That is the most emotion I have ever seen from Casey, other than rage/anger. She seemed upset to hear what the judge had to say to and about her. I am :waiting: with many others to see how she handles the trial. All I have done for two years is voice my opinion about this case. But, I am truly waiting to see if Casey will be found innocent or guilty. What I think and my opinion, thankfully have nothing to do with this case. eace:

:websleuther:

 

[momshrink]

WOW. Thank you, this is fascinating. So Casey is just a normal,thieving, lying, coldhearted, spiteful young lady, no 'mental health disorders' to be found. Sounds accurate to me.

Gosh, Katy - you summed it up perfectly for all of us!
:great::great::great::great::great::great::great::great:

 

[logicalgirl]

Ok so I am confused. Why would the DT want ICA to be deemed "normal" and lacking any mental health issues? I thought they wanted dissociation/ugly coping/PTSD, etc? Am I mixed up or something?

Because if the psychologist experts found anything indicating ICA was suffering from any issues recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, that would be considered "diminished mental capacity" which Florida courts do not consider an allowable defense during the guilt phase. Mental health defenses can be brought in during the penalty or mitigation stage and challenged by state experts.

So the defense is trying to be tricky and slide some expert opinions or "letters" during the guilt phase which may simply hint at issues.:waitasec:.
But even Ann Finnell, the DT lawyer who is handling the penalty phase, knew trying to introduce them in the guilt phase would be dicey because she admitted to HHJP that introducing this so called evidence or assessment "may" required litigation.

And litigation it is - with the SA's response of "No Way Jose!"

 

[logicalgirl]

Hi Hell's Belle
Thanks for responding.

I understand there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. But who's saying in this instance, Casey told these doctors anything that could be construed as predudicial to her. Isn't potential predudice what constitutes an "admission against interest". :waitasec:

Ofcourse, I'm just assuming whatever she told them was by way of excusing her behaviour during the 31 days.

I thought the potential prejudice issue is what the defense is going to use as an exception to the rule to get this evidence into the guilt phase without having the State examine her?:waitasec:

Is it not to the State and their experts ICA could be making the "potentially prejudicial statements to that the SA could/would use against her? And why if the SA is granted the right to have their experts to examine her and submit a report we may very well see the DT withdraw the request to have their own experts reports admitted by the court? That would be our signal she has said something highly prejudicial to her own case - and we pretty much know she would.

Liar Liar pants on fire hanging from a telephone wire - wait a minute - is that Joy up there?

 

[Solace]

Because if the psychologist experts found anything indicating ICA was suffering from any issues recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, that would be considered "diminished mental capacity" which Florida courts do not consider an allowable defense during the guilt phase. Mental health defenses can be brought in during the penalty or mitigation stage and challenged by state experts.

So the defense is trying to be tricky and slide some expert opinions or "letters" during the guilt phase which may simply hint at issues.:waitasec:.
But even Ann Finnell, the DT lawyer who is handling the penalty phase, knew trying to introduce them in the guilt phase would be dicey because she admitted to HHJP that introducing this so called evidence or assessment "may" required litigation.

And litigation it is - with the SA's response of "No Way Jose!"

Guilt phase meaning the TRIAL itself?

 

[krisskross]

I thought the potential prejudice issue is what the defense is going to use as an exception to the rule to get this evidence into the guilt phase without having the State examine her?:waitasec:

Is it not to the State and their experts ICA could be making the "potentially prejudicial statements to that the SA could/would use against her? And why if the SA is granted the right to have their experts to examine her and submit a report we may very well see the DT withdraw the request to have their own experts reports admitted by the court? That would be our signal she has said something highly prejudicial to her own case - and we pretty much know she would.

Liar Liar pants on fire hanging from a telephone wire - wait a minute - is that Joy up there?

Hi LG :seeya:

My post was confined to my initial opinion that if these Doctors are merely going to repeat statements told to them by ICA .....that would be hearsay.
It had nothing to do with the State's request to examine her. Im not finished reading that one yet .

Hell's Belle responded by posting an exception to the hearsay rule, i.e. "an admission against interest". That imho didnt fit here as surely ICA is offering these experts to testify on her behalf and essentially to rebut the State's assertion about her conciousness of guilt. :waitasec:

 

[logicalgirl]

Guilt phase meaning the TRIAL itself?

Yes, you are right but "experts" keep reminding me the trial is separated into two parts, the guilt phase and the sentencing phase. So first the jury would be hearing evidence to decide guilt, and then the second half - another mini-trial to decide what sentencing recommendation to make the the judge.

So I guess first part=evidence and second part = mitigating and non-mitigating evidence, where we hear character evidence from family friends :floorlaugh: , doctors,argue age, abuse, blah blah. It is normally at the second half of the trial the shrinks come in.

 

[logicalgirl]

Hi LG :seeya:

My post was confined to my initial opinion that if these Doctors are merely going to repeat statements told to them by ICA .....that would be hearsay.
It had nothing to do with the State's request to examine her. Im not finished reading that one yet .

Hell's Belle responded by posting an exception to the hearsay rule, i.e. "an admission against interest". That imho didnt fit here as surely ICA is offering these experts to testify on her behalf and essentially to rebut the State's assertion about her conciousness of guilt. :waitasec:

I'm thinking consciousness of guilt is a penalty phase subject, but the water level is up to the top of my hip waders and I could be getting in way too deep here for a layperson....:innocent:

 

[Omachka]

Wasn't it a WFTV crew Baez threw out of his office during an early presser. I think the gloves have been off for a long time. And Kathy Bellich's style of reporting is to look for the news not just parrot sound bites from Baez and Co, in the hope of some future exclusive. Kathy Bellich went after the Millsteads, she found Sky Cruz, she discovered the Henkel duct tape on a poster of Caylee, she sought out co searchers of Laura Buchanan. She exposed Andrea Lyon's tricks of the trade. Ms Bellich is a tenacious terrier of a reporter I would hope never to have on my heels. Love her or loath her..........her editors seem to approve.

You are right. Kathi never had the gloves on. She was the reporter you could hear asking KC "Did you kill your daughter?" on the day JB picked her up from jail and took her home after she was bailed out. Kathi takes no prisoners and never has! :rocker:

Here's the video... Kathi asks her if she killed Caylee at about the :59 mark http://youtu.be/c12Wk4_EIlg

 

[krisskross]

I'm thinking consciousness of guilt is a penalty phase subject, but the water level is up to the top of my hip waders and I could be getting in way to deep here for a layperson....:innocent:

Then I must be treading water......:floorlaugh:

I thought these guys were being brought in specifically for the guilt phase, i.e the 31 days and not reporting her child missing.

 

[logicalgirl]

Then I must be treading water......:floorlaugh:

I thought these guys were being brought in specifically for the guilt phase, i.e the 31 days and not reporting her child missing.

Well you are right - they are! And I believe Helle's Bell was discussing how the defense is attempting to slide them into the guilt phase without having her testify in her own defense to their statements. And she was using the "prejudical statements" thingy to show why she would not testify.

For me the question is whether or not HHJP is going to allow this in without the SA's experts examining her because I think/question if this is where the actual "prejudicial admissions" may come in. Opinions are one thing, examinations by the SA is another. Need to again look up where consciousness of guilt is used in depth.

Are you getting dizzy yet? I know I am!kay: I suspect on friday we will be seeing some pretty lively discussions - and I hope the DT side is presented by Ann Finnell because I want to have a look at her "in action". :bigfight:

I always like to size up the competition even if it isn't me in the ring, heh heh. :slapfight:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

An admission against interest of a party opponent is an exception to the hearsay rule in Florida (as in most other jurisdictions). Unavailability of the declarant is immaterial. It's exception 18(a) at this page: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC803.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0090-%3ESection%20803#0090.803

The DT, as inept as they are, couldf never attempt to introduce statements against interest that KC allegedly made--that would be for the prosecutor. Hence, the language 'statement of a party oponent"--KC is their client not an opponent. The DT clearly stated and the motions confirm that the evidence is being sought to be admitted on the issue of KC's state of mind. The state of mind exception to the hearsay rule doesn't apply in this instance for a number of reasons, one of which is that the statements have to be relevant to the defense. The DT admits they are not.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

There is a more subtle issue about statements made to experts. Experts may rely on hearsay not subject to any of the exceptions in formulating an opinion if the hearsay is something that experts would typically rely upon. The expert's opinion comes in, and the hearsay comes in but not as substantive evidence but solely as part of the basis for the opinion. In practice this can be a difficult distinction for a finder of fact (that is, the jury) to make.

Experts may not rely on "testimonial" hearsay in forming their opinions unless those statements have independently been introduced as evidence. In as far as the statements at issue are statements intentionally made by KC to one or more doctors as part of a forensic examination there are no hearsay exceptions that apply.

 

[logicalgirl]

hdear:

What Did Casey Tell Psychiatrists?
Prosecutors Ask Any Mention Of Information Be Kept Out Of Court

Prosecutors are so concerned about what murder suspect Casey Anthony told a pair of defense psychiatrists, they don't want the issue being discussed at all, not even at a pretrial hearing.

http://www.wesh.com/r/27535774/detail.html

Oh Dear - Looks like Wesh and the DT have kissed and made up - take a gander at this headline - misleading much???? :slapfight: (LG to Wesh)

 

[Tulessa]

hdear:



Oh Dear - Looks like Wesh and the DT have kissed and made up - take a gander at this headline - misleading much???? :slapfight: (LG to Wesh)

You beat me to it. I am dying to know what was said behind those doors. :banghead:

 

[mydailyopinions]

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/27535629/detail.html

snip "The state does not want the defense to mention to the jury in any way what the experts believe or what they have been told by Anthony unless Anthony takes the stand herself to make the statements relevant."

Ashton would hurt her feelings :floorlaugh: