Motion to Delay Judge's ruling on the Video

[MissJames]

I think that the prosecution will be allowed to present the video at trial if they so choose. The judge is making a wise decision here. This could likely be an appealable issue for KC/JB were it to be released to the public. Obviously, the video is inflammatory. The remains she was hyperventillating over had not been identified as Caylee's. But the state may not need to use the tape at all. Which if they choose not to, JB, cannot bring in all of his questioning of the guards...all of those depos he has so furiously been involved in of late.


Actually it is brilliant. The state probably never INTENDED to use the tape. But they knew JB would protest its release. So then JS sees the tape and says, "Heck guys...this tape is so indicative of that whackadoodle's guilt...that the public just can't see it and not go...wow so guilty that KC, like I, the judge did." They don't have to show the tape and they get wording from the judge that says it is inflammatory and shouldn't be seen by a pretrial jury pool. Sweet. Meanwhile, JB is hemming and hawing and taking all of these depos...and he won't be able to raise the issue AT trial about KC's cruel treatment because the state didn't first bring it in. BRILLIANT.
STATE: 1 JB: 0 HA!!!!!!!

Yep! Even when JB wins ,he loses.

 

[Bittiness39]

Yep! Even when JB wins ,he loses.

Yep. The SA is playing JB like a cheap fiddle. He fell right into their hands by protesting the release of the video, fighting against the gag order. Can we all say together, "Stoopee!"

 

[momtective]

BBM

Considering his statement .. "While the court is loathe to shield any public record, an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory," Strickland wrote in his three-page order.

.. I think, it is doubtful.

What exactly does that mean? "While the court is loathe to shield any public record, an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory"
Highly inflammatory, please explain. TIA

 

[momtective]

I think that the prosecution will be allowed to present the video at trial if they so choose. The judge is making a wise decision here. This could likely be an appealable issue for KC/JB were it to be released to the public. Obviously, the video is inflammatory. The remains she was hyperventillating over had not been identified as Caylee's. But the state may not need to use the tape at all. Which if they choose not to, JB, cannot bring in all of his questioning of the guards...all of those depos he has so furiously been involved in of late.


Actually it is brilliant. The state probably never INTENDED to use the tape. But they knew JB would protest its release. So then JS sees the tape and says, "Heck guys...this tape is so indicative of that whackadoodle's guilt...that the public just can't see it and not go...wow so guilty that KC, like I, the judge did." They don't have to show the tape and they get wording from the judge that says it is inflammatory and shouldn't be seen by a pretrial jury pool. Sweet. Meanwhile, JB is hemming and hawing and taking all of these depos...and he won't be able to raise the issue AT trial about KC's cruel treatment because the state didn't first bring it in. BRILLIANT.
STATE: 1 JB: 0 HA!!!!!!!

Okay, I get it...lol :doh:

 

[LizzieN]

<respectfully snipped>

Actually it is brilliant. The state probably never INTENDED to use the tape. But they knew JB would protest its release. So then JS sees the tape and says, "Heck guys...this tape is so indicative of that whackadoodle's guilt...that the public just can't see it and not go...wow so guilty that KC, like I, the judge did." They don't have to show the tape and they get wording from the judge that says it is inflammatory and shouldn't be seen by a pretrial jury pool. Sweet. Meanwhile, JB is hemming and hawing and taking all of these depos...and he won't be able to raise the issue AT trial about KC's cruel treatment because the state didn't first bring it in. BRILLIANT.
STATE: 1 JB: 0 HA!!!!!!!

hmm now I get it too. thanks LittleBitty35!! :blowkiss:

 

[msinformed]

What exactly does that mean? "While the court is loathe to shield any public record, an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory"
Highly inflammatory, please explain. TIA

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/inflammatory.html

Inflammatory
Definition - Noun
: tending to cause anger, animosity, or indignation <the use of an alias by a defendant is...almost always ~ *F. D. Doucette>
Evidence, and esp. photographic evidence, may be deemed inadmissible if its inflammatory nature seriously outweighs its probative value or relevance. The mere fact that evidence is graphic or gruesome, however, is not enough to render it inadmissible.
Pronunciationin-'fla-m&-"tOr-E

 

[Lexington]

Okay, so I didn't really need to see the videotape, but I do want to see the autopsy report. When is JS ruling on that one?

 

[momtective]

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/inflammatory.html

Inflammatory
Definition - Noun
: tending to cause anger, animosity, or indignation <the use of an alias by a defendant is...almost always ~ *F. D. Doucette>
Evidence, and esp. photographic evidence, may be deemed inadmissible if its inflammatory nature seriously outweighs its probative value or relevance. The mere fact that evidence is graphic or gruesome, however, is not enough to render it inadmissible.
Pronunciationin-'fla-m&-"tOr-E

:floorlaugh: I would try to explain what I was looking for, but I can't. I guess I was actually asking regarding the judges choice of words "Highly inflammatory"
I guess I should have asked "is the judge simply saying, this is gonna piss a lot of people off if they see it and this chick will never get a fair trial? And in a nutshell that's pretty much what I think he said. LittleBitty35 explained it quite nicely.

 

[Bittiness39]

I wanted to see the tape as well...but it's release to us before trial could likely be an appealable issue for the defense.
Plus, say there is one juror who sees the tape (which can be subjective to some) and decides that KC was treated unfairly...the deputies that were deposed by JB told him as much. Then JB puts them on the stand. Creates unfair, unusual treatment...and it resonates with just one of the jurors. Probably the same one who is already thinking, "Hey I hypervenillate all the time when I see sad stories like this on the news." And it winds up being in the defense's favor.

So here we have JB...who has already protested the gag order...which would have kept the existence of the video from all of our collective knowledge in the first place...and he then whines and motions the court to prevent its release. The SA had to know he would do this...but if they never intended to release the tape at trial as evidence in the first place...then all of these depos are for naught that JB is taking. He can't use them or question the deputies at trial. Can't even bring up anything on the subject of the video and her reaction to it if the SA doesn't first bring up the issue.
So now, JB is left with creating a stink about a video we will never likely see. The Judge issued a ruling today saying it is so inflammatory that we shouldn't see it anywho. Now we are all left to wonder how bad it really is...rather than seeing the video and 1 out of 10 coming to another conclusion about it.

Sincerely, the only reason KC will not get a fair trial, is her lead counsel. If JB were a fly on the wall of his own office today, I bet AL wishes she were a fly swatter. He got so played. Like a record. This makes me do my little happy dance...that no one else can see.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I thought this would not be addressed until Thursday. ( hearing on the issue is set for Thursday at 10AM.http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2..._released.html ) I am assuming that because the SA asked for this to be heard before hand that is why the judge did so and sealed it? I thought the judge was waiting on the media's response? Will there still be a hearing on Thursday so that the media can be heard? Anyone know?
Reason I ask is because it is said an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory," Strickland wrote in his three-page order.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-bk-casey-anthony-news-061709,0,7936902.story

(So, could this mean that Casey will not get a change of venue? Maybe the judge already feels that it won't help?)
The order went on to say that only a change of venue could conceivably protect Anthony's right to a fair trial if the video were to be released. Anthony's attorneys have filed a motion for a change of venue, but it has not been heard. http://www.wesh.com/news/19779304/detail.html

 

[2goldfish]

FWIW, Judge Strickland decided to seal the video. We know the prosecution asked him to hurry up and rule so as to have Baez quit wasting their time over it and move on to the real heart of the matter - the murder trial.

What I found interesting is his comment "it is not unreasonable to assume that many persons in the potential jury pool might view this video and develop a 'hardened' attitude in reference to the defendant's guilt".

Must be one heck of a video. Wonder if he will allow it at trial. :waitasec:

what REALLY gets me about this, is that if she WAS innocent, she would have flipped out TOO.

Why did JB fight this, and why did Strickland agree that it may contaminate the jury pool? Shouldnt anyone wondering if she was innocent seeing her panic at remains of a child (yes, caylee was not positively identified but there were no other missing children of that description in the area which the news was saying repeatedly) feel that it was ...reasonable?

Personally I was afraid it would convince fence sitters she was innocent.

 

[Bittiness39]

what REALLY gets me about this, is that if she WAS innocent, she would have flipped out TOO.

Why did JB fight this, and why did Strickland agree that it may contaminate the jury pool? Shouldnt anyone wondering if she was innocent seeing her panic at remains of a child (yes, caylee was not positively identified but there were no other missing children of that description in the area which the news was saying repeatedly) feel that it was ...reasonable?

Personally I was afraid it would convince fence sitters she was innocent.

This is why the SA likely had no intention of releasing the tape at trial. Remember, it is JB who fought AGAINST the gag order. It was JB who wanted to be on television nightly. It is because of JB's fighting the gag order that we even knew there was a video in the first place. Much less what was on it.
The SA played him brilliantly. He fought against the video. He deposed everyone. We now know that she hyperventillated...asked for a sedative...became very upset. The video is subjective as your post proves. Now we will never see it. The Judge saw it and CORRECTLY sealed it. He had to state a reason since Florida has very liberal laws about release being the sunshine state and all.

JB got played. He is the reason we even know about the video in the first place. We would NEVER have known about her reaction/video of it at all if he hadn't fought vs. the gag order. It is his fault. And as counsel he is an ineffective court jester doofus.

 

[whiteangora]

Wasn't there supposed to be a portion of a video showing when JB sees Casey (right after she watches the news)? Maybe that is the part that's inflammatory.

 

[AZlawyer]

what REALLY gets me about this, is that if she WAS innocent, she would have flipped out TOO.

Why did JB fight this, and why did Strickland agree that it may contaminate the jury pool? Shouldnt anyone wondering if she was innocent seeing her panic at remains of a child (yes, caylee was not positively identified but there were no other missing children of that description in the area which the news was saying repeatedly) feel that it was ...reasonable?

Personally I was afraid it would convince fence sitters she was innocent.

I always wondered what the big deal was too...if she was innocent, wouldn't she react in much the same way? But now I've read the judge's order, I think her reaction must somehow scream "GUILTY" in a way that is just not obvious from all the verbal descriptions of the video we've heard. It has to be more than hyperventilating and breaking out in spots to explain why it would make people develop a "hardened" attitude about her guilt.

This order to me says..."Wow. I watched the video and it is just crystal clear to me that this girl killed her daughter. I think potential jurors who see it will think the same thing and by the time of the trial we won't be able to find anyone in this county who doesn't want to see her fry."

 

[cecybeans]

Kudos, LittleBitty, for seeing the strategy of the subtle chess play the SA and JS have very deftly accomplished. The state almost never has to make a overt move - they can quietly take the high road every single time the defense makes histrionic noises and rest assured that JB the Rodeo Clown will make an unnecessary spectacle of himself in the ring.

It's so much fun to sit back and see the contrast of experienced people who can act classy and professional under pressure versus those who make a burlesque out of not only their jobs but themselves.

As we discussed, I'm sure that the word "Baez" will in the future become an accepted part of vernacular (either as a verb, noun or adjective). Such as: "Boy, that guy is baezing his career right into the ground", or "Gosh, if he wasn't such a Baez, maybe that guy would have half a chance at appearing competent", or "Could he BE any more of a Baez?". I'm thinking the Wikipedia page is being mapped out as we speak...

 

[Nosey Parker]

I'm thinking there's very little on this infamous video, which is exactly why the judge thinks "we, the people" would develop a hardened attitude to dear little KC if we saw her reaction (or lack thereof). We know she had trouble catching her breath; that she found her constraints too tight; felt nauseous; and asked for a sedative. All those could be faked if she felt that's how she should act. We also know she chatted about football.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Kudos, LittleBitty, for seeing the strategy of the subtle chess play the SA and JS have very deftly accomplished. The state almost never has to make a overt move - they can quietly take the high road every single time the defense makes histrionic noises and rest assured that JB the Rodeo Clown will make an unnecessary spectacle of himself in the ring.

It's so much fun to sit back and see the contrast of experienced people who can act classy and professional under pressure versus those who make a burlesque out of not only their jobs but themselves.

As we discussed, I'm sure that the word "Baez" will in the future become an accepted part of vernacular (either as a verb, noun or adjective). Such as: "Boy, that guy is baezing his career right into the ground", or "Gosh, if he wasn't such a Baez, maybe that guy would have half a chance at appearing competent", or "Could he BE any more of a Baez?". I'm thinking the Wikipedia page is being mapped out as we speak...

:clap: Excellent! I think I'm going to start using that myself. Mind you, nobody around my neck of the woods will have any idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Bittiness39]

As we discussed, I'm sure that the word "Baez" will in the future become an accepted part of vernacular (either as a verb, noun or adjective). Such as: "Boy, that guy is baezing his career right into the ground", or "Gosh, if he wasn't such a Baez, maybe that guy would have half a chance at appearing competent", or "Could he BE any more of a Baez?". I'm thinking the Wikipedia page is being mapped out as we speak...

Respectfully snipped, sweetpea. :woohoo:
This really is the best day so far if you are a fan of the SA/justice/Caylee.
I can only imagination what the SA was thinking while he was deposing everyone. His depositions illiciting more and more detail about KC's reaction that we shall never see.
JB might as well just put KC in a basket and hand her to the Devil. He is mucking this case up so much it is ridiculous.

 

[cecybeans]

I always wondered what the big deal was too...if she was innocent, wouldn't she react in much the same way? But now I've read the judge's order, I think her reaction must somehow scream "GUILTY" in a way that is just not obvious from all the verbal descriptions of the video we've heard. It has to be more than hyperventilating and breaking out in spots to explain why it would make people develop a "hardened" attitude about her guilt.

This order to me says..."Wow. I watched the video and it is just crystal clear to me that this girl killed her daughter. I think potential jurors who see it will think the same thing and by the time of the trial we won't be able to find anyone in this county who doesn't want to see her fry."

I'm torn on three possibilities that all seem feasible.

One: her reaction is horribly insensitive and shows no other concern for anything but herself or shows she is simply angry at how this impacts her case and is not behaving in any way shape or form the way a mother would who has lost a child. (Although we have enough of that kind of stuff on tape already to make anything of the sort a bit redundant or anti-climactic).

Two: Her response may tend to be more inculpatory - for instance, she might angrily accuse JB of not fulfilling a "promise" he made her in regards to the body not being found or creates an implication that she is not just reacting to what we all thought could be Caylee's remains but something more specific and reveals she knows additional details about the crime scene that were not yet disclosed.

Three: JB is less concerned about KCs words and/or behavior than he is with something unprofessional he himself either says or does that is inflammatory enough to make a jury realize he believes or has knowledge of the fact that she is guilty.

I suppose it could be a combination of all three of the above as well. Even if we don't know, what we have been able to speculate will be every bit as damaging as seeing the real thing.

I think JB needs to get himself a convenient relapse of whatever put him in the hospital earlier this year and take a little break for a while so that AL has a chance of sweeping the floor of all the debris he has managed to accumulate for this defendant.

 

[QB.]

Wasn't there supposed to be a portion of a video showing when JB sees Casey (right after she watches the news)? Maybe that is the part that's inflammatory.

Yes, its a little confusing for me that the jail video also shows her later with JB.

When JB filed his ammended 15 page motion, he indicated in a footnote on page 4 of the document http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0527/19583157.pdf , that the SA had notified him they would not be using the video at trial. From the footnote they clearly meant they would not use the video that shows he and his client. So it may be possible that they would still use the video portion of her reaction at the trial.