Procedure and legal questions

[jamielynn]

I have a very stupid question. Can Cindy A. be called as a hostile witness? If so, what does that mean?:waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a very stupid question. Can Cindy A. be called as a hostile witness? If so, what does that mean?:waitasec:

If the judge determines that Cindy is "on Casey's side" and the State calls her as a witness, the State may be able to get the judge to deem her a hostile witness. All this means is that they can ask her leading questions (i.e., "Isn't it true, Mrs. Anthony, that you immediately identified the smell in the car as that of a dead body, based on your experience with that smell?" rather than "Mrs. Anthony, can you describe for the jury, please, how the car smelled when you picked it up?")

 

[MiraclesHappen]

I have a very stupid question. Can Cindy A. be called as a hostile witness? If so, what does that mean?:waitasec:

Yes, she can be called.


Once the witness is deemed "hostile" by the Judge, because that witness is adversarial, not cooperating, overtly overly prejudicial and so forth, the lawyer questioning the witness is allowed to cross examine the witness, asking leading questions :argue: and all that good stuff.:whip::slap:
That is not the only ramification of one's witness being declared "hostile."

Because each state's rules of evidence will delineate and/or limit the ways in which one is allowed to impeach one's own witness, there may be an effect on the ways in which the attorney is allowed to challenge and impeach the particular witness, now declared "hostile" by the Court.

For example:
Some states maintain you cannot use written documents to impeach your own witnesses. But, it's perfectly okay to do that when you impeach credibility during cross examination of the other side's witnesses.

Once the witness is declared to be hostile, that particular witness is no longer considered "your witness" even though you called them.

In this instance, the State, either way, would be allowed to show to her, prior statements she made, in an "In-your- face" way, to put credibility in question and score points for the prosecution. :bananapowerslide:
I don't necessarily disagree with the posters who believe Cindy will not be :viking: beaten up on the stand. This method of impeachment could be done "gently" but still effectively. Or :waitasec: not so gently.
We'll see. :crystal ball:

So, It's not a simple designation, or "open & shut." Cases have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court, on appeal after conviction, to challenge the fact that a witness was deemed "hostile."
Designating witnesses as hostile, can really turn the tide of things.

FLORIDA'S STATUTE ON MODE & ORDER OF Cross is as follows, linked:



90.612 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.


(1) The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to:

(a) Facilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth.

(b) Avoid needless consumption of time.

(c) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

(2) Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.


(3) Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness's testimony. Ordinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination.
When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
*(etc)*


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC612.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0090->Section%20612#0090.612

Humble-Opinion:wolf2:

N.B.:winko:
There are no stupid or dumb questions... These are great questions which have generated cases to interpret the statutes!!! :clap:

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Yes, she can be called.


Once the witness is deemed "hostile" by the Judge, because that witness is adversarial, not cooperating, overtly overly prejudicial and so forth, the lawyer questioning the witness is allowed to cross examine the witness, asking leading questions :argue: and all that good stuff.:whip::slap:
That is not the only ramification of one's witness being declared "hostile."

Because each state's rules of evidence will delineate and/or limit the ways in which one is allowed to impeach one's own witness, there may be an effect on the ways in which the attorney is allowed to challenge and impeach the particular witness, now declared "hostile" by the Court.

For example:
Some states maintain you cannot use written documents to impeach your own witnesses. But, it's perfectly okay to do that when you impeach credibility during cross examination of the other side's witnesses.

Once the witness is declared to be hostile, that particular witness is no longer considered "your witness" even though you called them.

In this instance, the State, either way, would be allowed to show to her, prior statements she made, in an "In-your- face" way, to put credibility in question and score points for the prosecution. :bananapowerslide:
I don't necessarily disagree with the posters who believe Cindy will not be :viking: beaten up on the stand. This method of impeachment could be done "gently" but still effectively. Or :waitasec: not so gently.
We'll see. :crystal ball:

So, It's not a simple designation, or "open & shut." Cases have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court, on appeal after conviction, to challenge the fact that a witness was deemed "hostile."
Designating witnesses as hostile, can really turn the tide of things.

FLORIDA'S STATUTE ON MODE & ORDER OF Cross is as follows, linked:



90.612 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.


(1) The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to:

(a) Facilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth.

(b) Avoid needless consumption of time.

(c) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

(2) Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.


(3) Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness's testimony. Ordinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination.
When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
*(etc)*


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC612.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0090->Section%20612#0090.612

Humble-Opinion:wolf2:

N.B.:winko:
There are no stupid or dumb questions... These are great questions which have generated cases to interpret the statutes!!! :clap:

Very well put MH! One other factor is that, and I think that you were probably touching on this, when the jury hear the term "hostile" they tend to automatically place that persons intentions ... especially previous or subsequent intended testimony into speculation. They no longer see that witness as a vessel to present impartial facts, but one with an agenda(s)-- where the truth, if not for the Judge's ruling of 'Hostile Witness,' might not have been otherwise accessible.

 

[whiteangora]

How is the State going to paint an accurate picture of Casey if
no prior bad acts are admissible? They can't talk about her stealing?

 

[amethyst221]

Have to give that some thought. Sometimes you have to be creative, and try to get some things in for a purpose other than to prove bad character.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

How is the State going to paint an accurate picture of Casey if
no prior bad acts are admissible? They can't talk about her stealing?

They probably won't be able to question witnesses about KC's prior bad acts in their direct ... but as soon as JB during direct or cross, invariably asks the witnesses to vouch for Casey as a "good person" a "good mother" or even testify that they believe "she could never do something like that to Caylee" ... then they are fair game to the State on redirect, or if it is a defense witness on cross.

 

[mitzi]

They probably won't be able to question witnesses about KC's prior bad acts in their direct ... but as soon as JB during direct or cross, invariably asks the witnesses to vouch for Casey as a "good person" a "good mother" or even testify that they believe "she could never do something like that to Caylee" ... then they are fair game to the State on redirect, or if it is a defense witness on cross.

This is right...even NG and Ray G. (TH attorney on NG) said that once the defense opens that door of KC's "good character", the prosecution can bring all the negative stuff in. Makes it a bit difficult for JB, doesn't it!:crazy:

 

[SeekingJana]

Shirley P. (Cindy's mother, Casey's maternal GM) stated several times in her interview transcript with LE that her family ( most notably her sister) communicated with her about the Anthony family via email. She referred to the email MANY times as being her source info.
I noticed that in part of the interview, LE showed Shirley how to download or open a file or access a blog. This would indicate that they saw the computer, know it is functional, etc.

What I am wondering is this:
Why LE did or didn't consider it prudent or in any way helpful to obtain warrants to seize Casey's grandmother Shirley's computer equipment and the huge stack of emails she said she had saved. She elaborated as to the quantity of email she saved several times.
I think she was throwing them all a bone in going on and on about the thick stack of email printout documents she had saved, and they perhaps failed to grasp this. I think that while she may have been reticent or unwilling to speak of all she knew, maybe she was directing them to the unedited source material on her PC.

There were times when, instead of giving direct answers regarding Cindy and Casey, she actually offered to go and get the email printed out in a file. She said " It's this thick" indicating printed material of apparently considerable size.

IF there had been a search and seizure of Casey's grandmother's warrant issued, would we have seen a copy of the warrant in this doc dump or previously?
I thought it was something she was trying to give up... and I don't understand why LE present during her interview wouldn't pick up on this. It's obvious that she's pointing LE to her computer in the questioning as often as a person could.

Thanks to any legal eagles or law enforcement types who have read her interview transcript and who can help me out with this.

Maria

 

[ecs5298]

Shirley P. (Cindy's mother, Casey's maternal GM) stated several times in her interview transcript with LE that her family ( most notably her sister) communicated with her about the Anthony family via email. She referred to the email MANY times as being her source info.
I noticed that in part of the interview, LE showed Shirley how to download or open a file or access a blog. This would indicate that they saw the computer, know it is functional, etc.

What I am wondering is this:
Why LE did or didn't consider it prudent or in any way helpful to obtain warrants to seize Casey's grandmother Shirley's computer equipment and the huge stack of emails she said she had saved. She elaborated as to the quantity of email she saved several times.
I think she was throwing them all a bone in going on and on about the thick stack of email printout documents she had saved, and they perhaps failed to grasp this. I think that while she may have been reticent or unwilling to speak of all she knew, maybe she was directing them to the unedited source material on her PC.

There were times when, instead of giving direct answers regarding Cindy and Casey, she actually offered to go and get the email printed out in a file. She said " It's this thick" indicating printed material of apparently considerable size.

IF there had been a search and seizure of Casey's grandmother's warrant issued, would we have seen a copy of the warrant in this doc dump or previously?
I thought it was something she was trying to give up... and I don't understand why LE present during her interview wouldn't pick up on this. It's obvious that she's pointing LE to her computer in the questioning as often as a person could.

Thanks to any legal eagles or law enforcement types who have read her interview transcript and who can help me out with this.

Maria

I believe they have her emails already. We saw them in the first doc dump.

 

[lawlady84]

Shirley P. (Cindy's mother, Casey's maternal GM) stated several times in her interview transcript with LE that her family ( most notably her sister) communicated with her about the Anthony family via email. She referred to the email MANY times as being her source info.
I noticed that in part of the interview, LE showed Shirley how to download or open a file or access a blog. This would indicate that they saw the computer, know it is functional, etc.

What I am wondering is this:
Why LE did or didn't consider it prudent or in any way helpful to obtain warrants to seize Casey's grandmother Shirley's computer equipment and the huge stack of emails she said she had saved. She elaborated as to the quantity of email she saved several times.
I think she was throwing them all a bone in going on and on about the thick stack of email printout documents she had saved, and they perhaps failed to grasp this. I think that while she may have been reticent or unwilling to speak of all she knew, maybe she was directing them to the unedited source material on her PC.

There were times when, instead of giving direct answers regarding Cindy and Casey, she actually offered to go and get the email printed out in a file. She said " It's this thick" indicating printed material of apparently considerable size.

IF there had been a search and seizure of Casey's grandmother's warrant issued, would we have seen a copy of the warrant in this doc dump or previously?
I thought it was something she was trying to give up... and I don't understand why LE present during her interview wouldn't pick up on this. It's obvious that she's pointing LE to her computer in the questioning as often as a person could.

Thanks to any legal eagles or law enforcement types who have read her interview transcript and who can help me out with this.

Maria

LE wouldn't need a warrant if SP voluntarily gave them the documents or information. We all have a right to NOT have our property searched and seized without cause- a S&S warrant basically says that a judge thinks there is cause for LE to go in and look and take things for their investigation. But if someone voluntarily gives over items, its not really a "search and seizure" since you're offering the stuff to LE. You can always give whatever you want to LE- the warrant issues come up when LE wants to take something that you don't want to give.

SP may have given them the stacks of documents in the past, or after this interview- if LE took her computer at some point, they may already have all of the files so they wouldn't need her hard copies. If they weren't already, the documents/files will at some point be on an evidence list (like those we see released with the investigative reports)

 

[SeekingJana]

I believe they have her emails already. We saw them in the first doc dump.

OK, thank you. I didn't have a chance to dig through the early case documents due to illness.

 

[SeekingJana]

LE wouldn't need a warrant if SP voluntarily gave them the documents or information. We all have a right to NOT have our property searched and seized without cause- a S&S warrant basically says that a judge thinks there is cause for LE to go in and look and take things for their investigation. But if someone voluntarily gives over items, its not really a "search and seizure" since you're offering the stuff to LE. You can always give whatever you want to LE- the warrant issues come up when LE wants to take something that you don't want to give.

SP may have given them the stacks of documents in the past, or after this interview- if LE took her computer at some point, they may already have all of the files so they wouldn't need her hard copies. If they weren't already, the documents/files will at some point be on an evidence list (like those we see released with the investigative reports)

OK, thanks. I'm not familiar with the actual process of property going into the possession of LE voluntarily.
I pretty much know how LE documents their possession of same property, just not how it starts off if a person voluntarily hands it over.

My experience online with the search warrants with property removed from a house by a Judge's court order all stems from the Ramsey case. It's been a LONG time since that happened, sadly.

Maria

 

[MiraclesHappen]

OK, thanks. I'm not familiar with the actual process of property going into the possession of LE voluntarily.
I pretty much know how LE documents their possession of same property, just not how it starts off if a person voluntarily hands it over.

My experience online with the search warrants with property removed from a house by a Judge's court order all stems from the Ramsey case. It's been a LONG time since that happened, sadly.

Maria

You are on the right track!
It is a misconception that the police were not involved in a search when they entered Shirley's home.

The home is sacred in the law, and once the police cross the threshold of the door, they are now under the law, involved in a search. The word "Search" has been defined over the years.
But if there is an expectation of privacy in a location and further, it is a reasonable expectation, then, generally, it is a search.
When LE breaches the boundary of where that reasonable expectation begins, it is legally, going to qualify as a search.

Her handing things over and her consent to their entry does not negate the core definition of "search. " Humble-Opinion:wolf:

 

[trixi491]

Do you think they'll bring the Fusion pictures into trial? I remember on the NG show the DAs were saying all it does is show bad character and they won't be allowed; however, I believe it shows possible motive and total lack of consciousness!

 

[BonKai]

Do you think they'll bring the Fusion pictures into trial? I remember on the NG show the DAs were saying all it does is show bad character and they won't be allowed; however, I believe it shows possible motive and total lack of consciousness!

Well, those photos certainly show that KC was not out there searching for her daughter as she claimed. Seems to me the prosecution can bring them in for that reason alone.

 

[Themis]

Yes, she can be called.


Once the witness is deemed "hostile" by the Judge, because that witness is adversarial, not cooperating, overtly overly prejudicial and so forth, the lawyer questioning the witness is allowed to cross examine the witness, asking leading questions :argue: and all that good stuff.:whip::slap:
That is not the only ramification of one's witness being declared "hostile."

Because each state's rules of evidence will delineate and/or limit the ways in which one is allowed to impeach one's own witness, there may be an effect on the ways in which the attorney is allowed to challenge and impeach the particular witness, now declared "hostile" by the Court.

For example:
Some states maintain you cannot use written documents to impeach your own witnesses. But, it's perfectly okay to do that when you impeach credibility during cross examination of the other side's witnesses.

Once the witness is declared to be hostile, that particular witness is no longer considered "your witness" even though you called them.

In this instance, the State, either way, would be allowed to show to her, prior statements she made, in an "In-your- face" way, to put credibility in question and score points for the prosecution. :bananapowerslide:
I don't necessarily disagree with the posters who believe Cindy will not be :viking: beaten up on the stand. This method of impeachment could be done "gently" but still effectively. Or :waitasec: not so gently.
We'll see. :crystal ball:

So, It's not a simple designation, or "open & shut." Cases have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court, on appeal after conviction, to challenge the fact that a witness was deemed "hostile."
Designating witnesses as hostile, can really turn the tide of things.

FLORIDA'S STATUTE ON MODE & ORDER OF Cross is as follows, linked:



90.612 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.


(1) The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to:

(a) Facilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth.

(b) Avoid needless consumption of time.

(c) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

(2) Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.


(3) Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness's testimony. Ordinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination.
When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
*(etc)*


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...TM&Title=->2008->Ch0090->Section 612#0090.612

Humble-Opinion:wolf2:

N.B.:winko:
There are no stupid or dumb questions... These are great questions which have generated cases to interpret the statutes!!! :clap:

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: You get five "stars" for this post, Miracles. Designating a witness as "hostile" is very important. The attorneys put in a lot of facts in those "leading" questions and the juries tend to remember the facts as stated clearly by a lawyer. It gives the lawyer a chance to lay out their theory of the case and the mealy mouthed yes or no answer given by the witness tends to be far less important. When well executed by experienced counsel it can be a unique opportunity to give another closing argument that seems to come from the mouth of a witness favorable to the other side! Again, thank you, Miracles for the well crafted explanation, backed up by citations and the statutes. :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Chezhire]

How is the State going to paint an accurate picture of Casey if
no prior bad acts are admissible? They can't talk about her stealing?

I've read here the responses you've gotten so far, and ITA with all of them.

I'm going to throw out another way the information may be admissible during the SA's case in chief, during direct examination of witness(es): if the SA can find a way to show that the information that Casey was stealing is relevant to the case-in-chief against Casey for a purpose other than to show she acted in conformity with her prior bad acts, then the information comes in and SA doesn't have to wait to see if the defense "opens the door" (unless, of course, the defense can lobby the correct objection to this move by the SA, which I'm not going to lay out here for the defense. )

 

[AZlawyer]

Miracles, great explanation of the effect of calling Cindy as a hostile witness.

Personally, I would want to call her as a hostile witness but play it to the jury as something I'm very reluctant to do. Act very sad every time I have to go pick up her prior statements from the table to show her where she's contradicting herself, etc. Message: "We feel terrible for this lady and understand how she has been brought to the point of mistruthing for the sake of her daughter, and we know you the jury feel terrible for her too, but we will all have to get past that because we have a duty to the legal process and to Caylee's memory."

That way the jury would (hopefully) not see the SA as "beating up" on Cindy, and the SA will be modeling for the jury the appropriate reaction: feel sad for her but get to the truth.

 

[sua_sponte]

I just want to give a BIG THANKS to Miracles, Chezhire, and AZlawyer for helping me prep for my Evidence exam.