Revisiting the Hot Body Contest/"Ugly Coping"

[MissJames]

The judge in Sommer's trial was not going to allow the testimony regarding her behavior following the death saying it didn't prove anything about the alleged murder itself. The defense attorney messed up by putting Cynthia's mother on the stand to testify that she was curled up and cried after the death. So then the judge allowed the prosecutor to present witnesses to refute this. Do you think it possible that this could happen at Casey's trial, the judge not allowing testimony regarding her behavior? Is it more prejudicial than probative or vice versa?

I think it will be allowed in because KC was telling everyone Caylee was with her mom or will the nanny. It's not like Caylee was found dead THEN KC went out partying.This was a period of time she was supposed to be in charge of Caylee.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I am sure JB wishes Casey's case was more similar to Sommers case. He is "reaching" again by comparing the two cases. Casey murdered her two year old child, Sommers lost a husband.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

[SIZE=-1]90.401 Definition of relevant evidence.--Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.

90.402 Admissibility of relevant evidence.--All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law


[/SIZE]

 

[aafromaa]

I think JB is grasping at straws with this comparison. My guess is that he's floating these things to the press to see how they play with the public and that they won't actually be used at trial or even at appeal because JB won't be the lead chair anyway.

KC's activities (partying, theft, lies, etc) after Caylee was supposed to have gone missing are an issue because KC says she was searching for her missing daughter for 31 days. It isn't about whether she reacted in the way one would expect. It is to illustrate that she did nothing to find her missing child because she knew all along that Caylee was dead.

 

[Betty Boop]

I don't know about anyone else but it seems JB is acting like KC has already been convicted and he is working on an appeal.

I realize there are some of us that believe she is guilty...well maybe most of us...but the trial has yet to be and yet he is acting like we are starting the appeals process...

Seems a little backwards...

That's what I'm thinking. A little too cart-before-the-horse. I wonder what his agenda is in bringing this out now? JB is doing something "in a backwards sort of way" that doesn't set well with me. Oh well, maybe it is just another foot getting shot off.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

More from Florida Statutes:



90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.--
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.--Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.--Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.

Continue Reading Here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC404.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0090->Section%20404#0090.404
(b) Character of victim.-- 1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or 2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.

 

[Dear Prudence]

[SIZE=-1]90.401 Definition of relevant evidence.--Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.

90.402 Admissibility of relevant evidence.--All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law


[/SIZE]

90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.--Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.--Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Not sure what is so prejudicial in KC's case - her behavior before and after she alleges her child was kidnapped includes statements CASEY MADE HERSELF .... both in her written statement and various interviews with LE ...

 

[Melanie]

Okay - so this is yet another San Diego case I followed. Darn, there are too many cases close to home. I knew she didn't do it, it was so obvious, yet she was convicted (and eventually released). The cases could not be more polar opposite!

This young marine died of a heart arrythmia. She was convicted because she spent his insurance money a bit too tad fast, and didn't seem the grieving widow. She was arrested 3 YEARS after he passed on. I always believed this to be a political move and nothing else.

Regardless, On January 30, 2007, a jury found Cynthia guilty of murder, which carried with it a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Suprisingly, Sentencing was postponed. On November 30, 2007, Judge Peter Deddeh granted a new trail, based on ineffective assistance of counsel during her first trial. The new trial was scheduled for May 14, 2008.

So if we want to find a tad bit of comparison - we can go for ineffective counsel, but that's about it (ARE YOU READING THIS JOSE)~

While I don't condone her behaviour, she was a woman who was on a downward spiral. Heaven forbid you have surgery for breast augmentation, have a few sexual relationships, have some loud parties at your house or go on a party trip to Tijuana with some friends.

The big difference is when her husband collapsed, she called 911 immediately and he died in the hospital. He wasn't killed and dumped in a wooded area.

All I can say is - JB you crack me up!

 

[Dear Prudence]

Not sure what is so prejudicial in KC's case - her behavior before and after she alleges her child was kidnapped includes statements CASEY MADE HERSELF .... both in her written statement and various interviews with LE ...

I think testimony about Casey's behavior after Caylee's disappearance should be allowed. However, I think Baez can and will be arguing that it is prejudicial. I don't have any legal education though and was hoping some of our legal eagles here on WS could voice a more educated opinion. The judge in Sommer's case originally disallowed it but in Peterson's case it was allowed so there is an argument to be made by KC's defense, in my opinion. I realize those trials were in CA not FL but they do have a slight similarity to enable a discussion.

 

[Mendara]

It is said that a parent's worst nightmare is losing a child. That no mother should lose a child. The pain is unbearable, even more pain for a parent of a murdered child.

There is NO COMPARISON to losing a child to that of losing a SPOUSE. NONE. NO WAY. Different kind of love on a different level.

Mr. Baez is WRONG AGAIN.

 

[Mendara]

Thanks for the link on the Peterson trial, Dawn Treador.
So it's up to the judge and really could go either way? I wonder if this testimony is one reason SP can use to argue for a retrial like Sommer did. Interesting.

He had no alibi. His alibi was that he was fishing in the bay where the bodies were later found. OOPS.

 

[RR0004]

I think testimony about Casey's behavior after Caylee's disappearance should be allowed. However, I think Baez can and will be arguing that it is prejudicial. I don't have any legal education though and was hoping some of our legal eagles here on WS could voice a more educated opinion. The judge in Sommer's case originally disallowed it but in Peterson's case it was allowed so there is an argument to be made by KC's defense, in my opinion. I realize those trials were in CA not FL but they do have a slight similarity to enable a discussion.

But...if JB brings in testimony about what a loving, doting mother she was...can't the prosecution then bring in her behavior to refute that testimony?

 

[Tracey276]

PS... the other similarity is she was/will be granted a new trial because of ineffective assistance at trial. )

There is one major difference in that similarity though. Cynthia Sommers attorney actually admitted he made a HUGE mistake by allowing the testimony of her mother and opening the door to Cynthia's behavior afterwards. He actually testified for her in her re trial. He also stated once, he has not had a lot of innocent clients before. however, Cynthia Sommers was innocent and he always KNEW it.

Also, I think there's a HUGE difference in partying after your husband has died and dealing with grief vs. dancing, drinking and partying WHILE your child is MISSING and NOT telling ANYONE.

If this ***, really goes on TV and says that KC's case is similar to Cynthia Sommers, I'm embarrassed FOR HIM!

 

[Friday]

Maybe because she made statements to the police that she was conducting her own investigation, the behavior evidence will be allowed in to impeach her claims?

Excellent premise, Phumi! Love your posts, BTW

 

[Melanie]

But...if JB brings in testimony about what a loving, doting mother she was...can't the prosecution then bring in her behavior to refute that testimony?

If JB opens that door, the pros has every right to refute it And we all know who's going to open that door - Cindy Anthony!

 

[costalpilot]

her "story" is she was searching for Caylee in those clubs. So how could information about what she was really doing be inadmissible?

maybe if the O.J. judge is available.

 

[Mendara]

If JB opens that door, the pros has every right to refute it And we all know who's going to open that door - Cindy Anthony!

Well then they can just bring up her MYSPACE post "My Caylee is Missing" and point out all the many faults CA listed for KC ... I think it went something like this.."No job..no future..no money"

 

[Friday]

I am not seeing any similarities. She didn't wait 31 days to tell anyone, she didn't lie about everything and anything, she did not steal from everyone around her, she was not found to have done any computer searches for neck breaking, chloroform or anything else,

Respectfully snipped by me, Friday. You're right on all counts. Also, Caylee was a vulnerable child whose entire, tiny world was bounded and supervised by her mother on whom she was totally dependent for food, protection, and transportation. Unlike an adult marine, Caylee could not go anywhere with anyone without her mother's knowledge. What I'm awkwardly trying to say is that whether Caylee died as a result of an accident or murder, there can be no doubt that she was KC's sole responsibility on June 16 and thereafter.

Cyntha Sommers, on the other hand, was not solely responsibile and present for all her husband daily activities, so her attorneys would have a better chance at the SODDI defense.

I hope. :blowkiss:

 

[DAWN TREADER]

I think testimony about Casey's behavior after Caylee's disappearance should be allowed. However, I think Baez can and will be arguing that it is prejudicial. I don't have any legal education though and was hoping some of our legal eagles here on WS could voice a more educated opinion. The judge in Sommer's case originally disallowed it but in Peterson's case it was allowed so there is an argument to be made by KC's defense, in my opinion. I realize those trials were in CA not FL but they do have a slight similarity to enable a discussion.

Yes, it would great if one of our legal eagles would do a fly-by and time allowing, land on this thread to help us out! Clearly, Baez doesn't have the trial experience or media savvy of a Geragos or Sherman. If I was him, I'd zip it.