Procedure and legal questions

[SoCalSleuth]

Excellent posts! I just disagree with and/or want to add two things: one, CA's statements about the meeting with the lawyer, if knowingly false, would be considered a collateral issue at trial and you can't impeach a witness on a collateral matter. Two, a statement or document does not have to be signed to be admissible and would not be considered unreliable simply because it is not signed. Numerous statements and documents are admitted into court on a daily basis although they are not signed. There are no existing jury instructions that instruct a jury to find a statement or document unreliable if it is not signed. Here's an example, many police officers will interview a witness or suspect and make notes of the conversation or write down the statement(s) verbatim They do not have the witness or suspect sign their notes. At trial, police officers testify as to what was said via their handwritten notes all the time.

 

[blackopsglock]

FBI keeps notes on most interrogations.They generally do not record those.There are exceptions to the rule.

FBI and OCSD maybe working this case together but they are still two Independant LE organizations with rules and policies that differ from one another.

I would imagine at times they work really well together to achieve the end results but you can bet the farm that some of the individuals working this case on both sides are out for their 15 min of fame and to crack this case on their own.You can bet they have seen enough LE officers in the past on big cases make it big and go on to be experts on Cnn and FOx news.Some have even gotten their own shows.They have seen this and in the back of their mind are thinking how they can cash out on this.

ANd I do not intend that to be a slam on the fine LE officers working this case.Its just the fact that is has happened in the past and will happen again in the future that officers think of themselves first.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

What has struck me about reading all the transcripts and documents is how much is based on hearsay.
Is all hearsay inadmissable in court, or are there exceptions to the rule? TIA:blowkiss:

First, the statement has to be established to be hearsay. Second, if it is hearsay and no exceptions apply (and there are tons of exceptions), then the statement is inadmissible.

Hearsay is an out of court statement, made by someone other than the person testifying, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here's an example of a statement that may or may not be hearsay depending on the reason it is being introduced in court:'

TL: "KC told me that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny." The Prosecution wants to introduce this statement at trial not to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny-but wants to introduce it to prove KC made that statement. It's not hearsay because it's not being admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny.

"TL: "KC told me that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny." The defense wants to introduce this statement for the purpose of establishing that Caylee spent the weekend with the Nanny. It's inadmissible because it's hearsay--an out of court statement, made by someone other than the person testifying in court, and is being introduced to prove the matter asserted.

 

[gogrannypop]

I just have to say it, and I know it's been said before...The evidence released is all pertinent to the case, but not all evidence is released to the public. The good stuff, so to speak, will come out at trial. They don't release everything. The doc dumps are not complete for public consumption because the condemning evidence is being withheld for trial.

 

[blackopsglock]

First, the statement has to be established to be hearsay. Second, if it is hearsay and no exceptions apply (and there are tons of exceptions), then the statement is inadmissible.

Hearsay is an out of court statement, made by someone other than the person testifying, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here's an example of a statement that may or may not be hearsay depending on the reason it is being introduced in court:'

TL: "KC told me that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny." The Prosecution wants to introduce this statement at trial not to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny-but wants to introduce it to prove KC made that statement. It's not hearsay because it's not being admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny.

"TL: "KC told me that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny." The defense wants to introduce this statement for the purpose of establishing that Caylee spent the weekend with the Nanny. It's inadmissible because it's hearsay--an out of court statement, made by someone other than the person testifying in court, and is being introduced to prove the matter asserted.

Dad always said there are two ways to skin a cat.

Wanna get hearsay into court?Not that hard.

Taking the above question and rolling with it.
The Prosecution wants to introduce this statement at trial
"KC told me that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny."

Witness could be asked,"has anyone ever told you before that KA was spending the weekend with the nanny"?

Answer:YES!

And for the record who was the person saying this.

Answer:Mrs Anthony told me that KC told her that is where she was.

Thats hearsay and its stricken from the record.

But then you parade another 6 witnesses in and have them answer the same question knowing what the answer is going to be.All are stricken from the record but the jury has heard it more than once and although they have been instructed by the judge not to listen to it,,its programmed into their head that Mrs Anthony told folks that KC told them about the nanny.

Then you haul Mrs Anthony on the stand and have her testify that indeed KC did tell her that she was with the Nanny.Mrs Anthony can lie her butt off if she wants to but the jury is not going to buy it.They have heard 6 people give the exact same story and its not going to change their mind.

Its all in how the question is worded.

 

[shelbar53]

Was it unwise for baez to ask for a delay in the trial that was scheduled jan 5. On dec 11 around 9am, he asked for a delay...granted. then about 1/2 hour later the bones were found.

Is it wise for Baez to use law students on such a high profile case.

Is Baez in over his head and does the judge think so. could baez be removed from the case.

why is the jusdge asking that casey be preesnt at all hearings? does he think casey is not being kept fully informed by her defense team?

 

[blackopsglock]

Was it unwise for baez to ask for a delay in the trial that was scheduled jan 5. On dec 11 around 9am, he asked for a delay...granted. then about 1/2 hour later the bones were found.

Is it wise for Baez to use law students on such a high profile case.

Is Baez in over his head and does the judge think so. could baez be removed from the case.

why is the jusdge asking that casey be preesnt at all hearings? does he think casey is not being kept fully informed by her defense team?

I am sure that the defense wishes they could have gone to trial without finding the body.What is done is done.

I don't think they will remove Baez.He may ask to be removed from the case if he is holding certain information and cannot allow his client to testify to such.But I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell that KC is ever going to testify so don't look for Baez to be leaving anytime soon.

Judge is telling KC that she has to be at her hearings because he knows at the appellant level the case could get reversed if the argument was made that she was not aware of what her counsel was doing ,that she had ineffective counsel or if matters where handled without her consent.

This judge knows the ropes.Don't expect him to be a roll over judge like Judge Ito.(Simpson Case)

 

[DotsEyes]

I will give the questions a go here.. .


I dont know about anyone else but I have a lot of questions about law and procedure.Can our legal eagles help?

1. Why are there so many interviews where LE has spoken off tape first, and metioned things that they dont want on tape. Shouldnt it all be recorded? Is it normal procedure to have a casual chat detailing all events, and only recording certain parts of that info?

Yes, a casual chat is nornal and then the important things get recorded.

2.Would the issues discussed in the chat, and not recorded be included in a statement that we havent yet seen? would there be any official record of the statements made, or is it good enough that the officer heard it?

If it is not written in a statement, it may notcome into evidence at trial, but the officers can act on the information they heard and did not reduce to writing.

3. Are the FBI and OSCO seperate entities? I kept hearing about the hairbrush issue and people saying CA lied to a fedral officier, but from what i understand she gave the items to OSCO, not FBI. so does this mean that once FBI are involved anything said to OSCO becomes a fedral issue?

Yes, these are completely seperate entities. No, if the FBI is invovled with a State case it does not become a Federal issue, it remains a State case. The hairbrish issue is that she "lied" to OCSO by purposefully giving them something other than what they asked for. In reality she obstructed justice by failing to disclose and deliver the real hairbrush. However, this is a wash since the hairbrush she gave them had hair from both KC and Caylee. Her intent was petty, but LE did get hair. If we look back to her interview with the FBI, I think we will hear some tall tales she told them. This is where lying to the FBI would become an issue.

4. Does OSCO share all of their information regarding the case with FBI, and vice versa? For example if a witness contacted FBI and spoke with them, would they share that with OSCO?

Yes, the FBI would share all information it collected or obtained with OSCO. The FBI is assisting, not leading, the invesitgation by the State. The State would share all information necessary to allow the FBI to perform it's assistance role

5. I know that LE can legally lie to a suspect to try to get to the truth, but can they legally do the same with a witness? what are the boundaries of this?

Yes, they can lie to a witness for the same reason.

6.If a statement or other document is not signed, or has errors is it admissable in court?

No document or statement is admissable on it's own. There must be a foundation laid for it's admissibility, meaning someone has to refer to it during their testimony. By refer, this means that the witness needs to see/read the document to refresh his or her memory. Same with an unsigned document/statement, but the missing signature suggests that this document is not authentic and would require the witness to explain the missing signature.

(ETA) 7. why would the case have been referred to the sex crimes unit?

Yuri Melich is with the sex crimes unit. It may be as simple as he was the one on call and available that night. His may wear many hats in the detective bureau and since he was the Det. first on the scene, it was assigned to him.

 

[Voice4theSilent]

I just have to say it, and I know it's been said before...The evidence released is all pertinent to the case, but not all evidence is released to the public. The good stuff, so to speak, will come out at trial. They don't release everything. The doc dumps are not complete for public consumption because the condemning evidence is being withheld for trial.

Thank you! I keep hearing conflicting fact/opinion about that. BUT they are required to release it all to the Defense in advance, correct?

Also, I continue to hear conflicting fact/opinion about whether or not the Prosecution has listed ALL witnesses they intend to call on their witness list to date. Some say they had to include them on their original list (unless something comes up at the last minute...which wouldn't be the case re: Annie) or the witness will not be allowed to testify while others have said that they are holding key witnesses names to add at a later date. Can you clear this up?

 

[MD MOMMY]

OK my question is...

Legally can BC ask for immunity for GA/CA without both of them seeking it?

 

[butwhatif?]

Excellent posts! I just disagree with and/or want to add two things: one, CA's statements about the meeting with the lawyer, if knowingly false, would be considered a collateral issue at trial and you can't impeach a witness on a collateral matter. Two, a statement or document does not have to be signed to be admissible and would not be considered unreliable simply because it is not signed. Numerous statements and documents are admitted into court on a daily basis although they are not signed. There are no existing jury instructions that instruct a jury to find a statement or document unreliable if it is not signed. Here's an example, many police officers will interview a witness or suspect and make notes of the conversation or write down the statement(s) verbatim They do not have the witness or suspect sign their notes. At trial, police officers testify as to what was said via their handwritten notes all the time.

Thanks for the info. My concern would be that in the documents where there is a space provided for a signature, if it has not been completed, would that then give the defense the opportunity to point out that LE may not have paid attention to detail? If they overlooked a signature, then what else could they have overlooked, for example.
I wouldnt put it past JB to call into question the competence of the officers and detectives involved, which could make way for reasonable doubt. (not that I think the jury will by it, but it just takes one).

I'm of the believe that the defence is going to use as many technicalities and stall tactics as they can, since they dont have much else to go on at this point.
And if the prosecution can make statements in court knowing they are inadmissable, and will be struck from the record, (and you cant unring the bell), then the def atty's could do the same I suppose.
But with Judge SS, do you think he would allow the state to continually ask questions, knowing they will be struck from the record, but stick in the jurys minds, when he appears to be very wary of anything that could give Casey a reason for appeal?

I love the strategy behind what happens in the courtroom..
so many loopholes and laws open to interpretation.

Thanks to all of you who have done a great job at answering all of these questions. I really appreciate you taking the time to do it. :blowkiss:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Dad always said there are two ways to skin a cat.

Wanna get hearsay into court?Not that hard.

Taking the above question and rolling with it.
The Prosecution wants to introduce this statement at trial
"KC told me that Caylee was spending the weekend with the Nanny."

Witness could be asked,"has anyone ever told you before that KA was spending the weekend with the nanny"?

Answer:YES!

And for the record who was the person saying this.

Answer:Mrs Anthony told me that KC told her that is where she was.

Thats hearsay and its stricken from the record.

But then you parade another 6 witnesses in and have them answer the same question knowing what the answer is going to be.All are stricken from the record but the jury has heard it more than once and although they have been instructed by the judge not to listen to it,,its programmed into their head that Mrs Anthony told folks that KC told them about the nanny.

Then you haul Mrs Anthony on the stand and have her testify that indeed KC did tell her that she was with the Nanny.Mrs Anthony can lie her butt off if she wants to but the jury is not going to buy it.They have heard 6 people give the exact same story and its not going to change their mind.

Its all in how the question is worded.

The prosecution would never have trouble asking this question because it's not hearsay because they are not admitting it to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If you meant that it was the defense trying to ask the question this tactic would never fly in any jurisdiction I practiced law in or in any courtroom I've sat as a judge. If it were the defense asking, after the first question was asked there would be a hearsay objection which would be sustained. The asking attorney would then ask the judge if he/she could make an offer of proof. (i.e that it's not hearsay). The judge would call the attorneys to the bench. The asking attorney's only offer of proof would show that it was hearsay. The judge would allow the objection and ruling to stand.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Thanks for the info. My concern would be that in the documents where there is a space provided for a signature, if it has not been completed, would that then give the defense the opportunity to point out that LE may not have paid attention to detail? If they overlooked a signature, then what else could they have overlooked, for example.
I wouldnt put it past JB to call into question the competence of the officers and detectives involved, which could make way for reasonable doubt. (not that I think the jury will by it, but it just takes one).

I'm of the believe that the defence is going to use as many technicalities and stall tactics as they can, since they dont have much else to go on at this point.
And if the prosecution can make statements in court knowing they are inadmissable, and will be struck from the record, (and you cant unring the bell), then the def atty's could do the same I suppose.
But with Judge SS, do you think he would allow the state to continually ask questions, knowing they will be struck from the record, but stick in the jurys minds, when he appears to be very wary of anything that could give Casey a reason for appeal?

I love the strategy behind what happens in the courtroom..
so many loopholes and laws open to interpretation.

Thanks to all of you who have done a great job at answering all of these questions. I really appreciate you taking the time to do it. :blowkiss:

There could be many reasons why a document with a signature line isn't signed. If it were a witness statement and the witness refused to sign it then the prosecution probably wouldn't want to introduce it. If they forgot to get a signature then sure the defense could jump on that and subsequently argue to the jury that LE wasn't thorough. That wouldn't be a technicality however, that would be correct! I wouldn't be too concerned about testimony being stricken from the record. There are numerous things lawyers do in court in pretrial motions and during the trial to prevent such occurrences. As an attorney's question is not considered evidence it is not stricken from the record. A witnesses testimony can be stricken from the record. This sort of thing with attorneys trying to get in inadmissible testimony constantly in a trial is not usually tolerated by the judge--they normally nip it in the bud if it starts.

 

[reeseeva]

I have been wondering if that is why they keep putting off the additional FBI interviews they agreed to do.

TURBOTHINK, I've so missed your input!!!!!

 

[Leila]

I tried a search and couldn't find anything. If there is a thread please link it for me. tia

I want to know more about the DA's office. What is there experience with murder charges and their win/loss ratio.

Also the jury selection; will JB have a jury selection specialist on his defense team.

What type of juror will both sides be looking to select.

Just my opinion, but JB would be seriously remiss if he didn't have a jury selection specialist on the defense team.

The prosecution will probably want to see some people with young children on the jury who will be horrified at Casey's lack of emotional response to her daughter being missing, and her failure to report her missing child to the police. They may want to have grandparents on the jury who have responsible adult children and young grandchildren, as they will have a strong opinion on Casey's failure to be responsible, and her priority of partying over parenting. They will want to have jurors who have a strong sense of right/wrong.

The defense may want people with no children, who may not be able to strongly identify with the role of a parent. They may want young un-marrieds, who more closely identify with the lifestyle of the 20-something group.

 

[pirate]

My turn for a couple of questions about issues that have been nagging at me......

#1- While on the stand as a witness, can CA/GA be called out on their changing stories?

- From the 911 call on 7/15 "It smells like there was a dead body in the damn car!"
- From various other televised interviews- Pizza!

- Admitting to purposely giving the wrong brush to the investigators

- Things she said to Casey's friends (sociopath, etc) and others (wanting to seek custody)
- Comments that Casey was a great mother who would never hurt Caylee


- GA during LE interviews expressing his concern about what Casey may have done
- GA changing his story for the cameras


It goes on and on- I understand that what was said to Casey's friends during the first hours could be considered heresay, however, if there are a couple or more witnesses to her comments, as I believe there are, would that make them admissible?

 

[HRCODEPINK]

My turn for a couple of questions about issues that have been nagging at me......

#1- While on the stand as a witness, can CA/GA be called out on their changing stories?

- From the 911 call on 7/15 "It smells like there was a dead body in the damn car!"
- From various other televised interviews- Pizza!

- Admitting to purposely giving the wrong brush to the investigators

- Things she said to Casey's friends (sociopath, etc) and others (wanting to seek custody)
- Comments that Casey was a great mother who would never hurt Caylee


- GA during LE interviews expressing his concern about what Casey may have done
- GA changing his story for the cameras


It goes on and on- I understand that what was said to Casey's friends during the first hours could be considered heresay, however, if there are a couple or more witnesses to her comments, as I believe there are, would that make them admissible?

They can put them on the stand and ask them if they said whatever is in question. I am sick and on a lot of meds and don't feel like looking up who said what but just as an example (may not be accurate as to who said what to who): the female bodyguard tells LE Cindy said she should have given them the dogs toothbrush and they put Cindy on the stand and ask if she said that and she says "no" then they put the female bodyguard on the stand and ask her about it and she says "Yes, Cindy said she should have given them the dogs toothbrush instead of Caylees" Chip!
Then they ask Cindy if she told Amy that Casey was a psychopath and she again says "No." They put Amy on the stand and ask her did Cindy ever tell you that KC may have mental problems or what did Cindy tell you about KC and Amy says that Cindy said to stay away from her because she was a psychopath. Chip chip chip away at Cindy's credibility. But yes, there are ways to get the credibility issue in there. Like I said, I have a brain cloud right now, so they may have to ask Amy and the female body guard first to get it in there and then ask Cindy, but yes there are ways to get her truthfulness out there.

ETA: Cindy has said so many conflicting things and things that make her look less than honest. I don't think they are going to have any problems proving that her testimony could be less than reliable. I think that was what you were actually getting at, right?

 

[Macushla]

snipped

(ETA) 7. why would the case have been referred to the sex crimes unit?

Yuri Melich is with the sex crimes unit. It may be as simple as he was the one on call and available that night. His may wear many hats in the detective bureau and since he was the Det. first on the scene, it was assigned to him.

Just a bit of a minor correction here. When this all first happened and Cindy made the call about Caylee being missing, Detective Yuri Melich was not with the sex crimes unit. He was in the missing persons unit - and if I remember correctly that unit also handled child abuse. The confusion could have come from that fact that at the time this first came down Detective Samara Melich was in the sex crimes unit. Detectives from various units were assigned to help out on this case as it grew and grew. Detective Samara Melich did a couple of interviews related to this case and that might be how it was thought that Detective Yuri Melich was in the sex crimes unit.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I've got another one that might sound dumb....but who cares, right?

Are the documents that have been released, copies of the actual originals? Is what we are seeing the same as what the jury will see at trial?

I'm not an American attorney, but my understanding is this.

The jury will see some of what we have, but only that which the Judge considers to be admissible at the trial.

 

[Verité]

I greatly appreciate this thread. Thanks to all who are spending time
to educate self/others/me.

Does anyone know of a similar thread about legal issues with respect
to posting, mechanics of posting, etc.? Thanks for any references.
(I don't want to be spanked for my own ignorance.)