Trial Concerns and Worries

[Sharai]

Hello, I'm a first time poster, long time reader and have been following this case since it became a national news story. As I have been watching snippets of the jury selection I've been thinking about the selection process I underwent while serving as a jurer during a criminal trial some 30 years ago. Until the CA trial I was not aware that the defendent had such a signifcant impact on the selection process. Nor was I aware that the questions posed to pj's were specifically connected to the defense's strategy.I've also been saddened and appalled by the disrespectful attitude the defense team seems to display within the courtroom and specifically towards the judge.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Hello, I'm a first time poster, long time reader and have been following this case since it became a national news story. As I have been watching snippets of the jury selection I've been thinking about the selection process I underwent while serving as a jurer during a criminal trial some 30 years ago. Until the CA trial I was not aware that the defendent had such a signifcant impact on the selection process. Nor was I aware that the questions posed to pj's were specifically connected to the defense's strategy.I've also been saddened and appalled by the disrespectful attitude the defense team seems to display within the courtroom and specifically towards the judge.

Welcome Sharai - good to have you on board!

:welcome4:

 

[Panda's eye]

Hello, I'm a first time poster, long time reader and have been following this case since it became a national news story. As I have been watching snippets of the jury selection I've been thinking about the selection process I underwent while serving as a jurer during a criminal trial some 30 years ago. Until the CA trial I was not aware that the defendent had such a signifcant impact on the selection process. Nor was I aware that the questions posed to pj's were specifically connected to the defense's strategy.I've also been saddened and appalled by the disrespectful attitude the defense team seems to display within the courtroom and specifically towards the judge.

Welcome Sharai
I was a silent long time reader and just joined recently also.

So glad you decided to join in too !

Can you believe trial starts tomorrow?

 

[Mendara]

I have been really concerned about this trial. I am very worried that Cindy and George Anthony will be potrayed as awful parents by the defense. It will NOT be hard for them there is so much out there that shows how much they have lied and caused interuptions to the investigation. George's FBI interview is very troubling to me as it shows him NOT defending his daughter, but actually chumming up to the agents and helping them, which is a DIRECT contrast to his media interviews and outburts and even further from his words when visiting his daughter.

Cindy is also has made herself look awful in both FBI interviews and depositions etc. I think it will be easy for the defense to paint a picture of a dysfuntional family.

I am worried that the revelation of Caylee's real father will come out to be someone like a friend of George Anthony's or an uncle or someone that the Anthony's failed to protect her from. That to me is something KC would have saved for trial.

I am also afraid the jury will look at her and even if they thought she had something to do with it, they are not going to believe she deserves death or they may take any doubt served to them by the defense and make it reasonable because they will not want to see this young girl lose her life.

I am also afraid of all the friends who said "KC was a great mother" - there is a lot of testimony from people who say she loved Caylee etc.

I am nervous and just not as sure as everyone else.

I think the defense will allude to GA having the same access to the car, computer, house and dumping ground as KC. He was home sometimes at the same time as KC.

He drove the car home and then went to work no concern. The gas can day is crucial and so is the fact he was the last to claim to have seen both KC and Caylee for the last time.

It will be so easy to prove GA a liar on the stand.

MO

 

[Bon]

Morning all!!!


Just my 2 cents worth here but here goes:

Why would JP allow this person, Juror 1316 to sit on the jury with everything she said. Why couldn't the SA fight more to get her excused? To me, she is a real problem in this case.....
And I am totally expecting to see an entirely different Casey tomorrow morning. Much better dressed, no fidgeting, no doodling on her pads, and lots of crying thru out the trial...poor, pititful, grieving mother.......

And both of these issues scare me alot! And G & C concern me also. They are willing to do ANTHING to save the MOTY...................................

Now if anyone can please knock some sense into to me and bring me back to reality, go for it! Because I will worry myself sick till the verdict is read..........it ain't over till it's over.........

 

[BritsKate]

As far as Casey being portrayed as MOTY material...

Couldn't the SA show the creepy videos of Caylee in which there is no interaction on ICA's part? Can't they also introduce witness testimony of all the parties ICA attended in which Caylee was not present proving often Caylee was being cared for by others? The phone calls from Cindy telling Casey to come home to care for her child? The babysitter who babysat Caylee when ICA wasn't working? The Grunds?

Casey isn't the first 'picture perfect' mother who became 'bored' with mommyhood and decided 'freedom' was more important. Nor, sadly, will she be the last.

There is just so, so much evidence against ICA that, combined, cannot be explained away I just can't fathom anything less than a guilty verdict. When I start getting nervous I just think of the Scott Peterson trial and how worried I was he'd be acquitted - with much less evidence than this case IMO - and he is tucked away on death row.

 

[Mendara]

It amazes me that KC does not feel saddness or show saddness at hearing Caylee's name or the circumstances. If she didn't kill her daughter and was innocent surely hearing this would tear her apart.

 

[LambChop]

She did have terrible problems understanding questions.

If she goes to church she understands the ten commandments: you shall honor your mother and father; you shall not murder, you shall not steal and a very important one, you shall not bear a false witness against your neighbor. That's four at of ten. That would be enough for me. jmo

 

[seagull65]

a "worry" thread, that is a great idea!
I'm not sure if these qualify as worries, more just as thoughts/puzzlements, but here they are:

I was puzzled during jury selection why I never heard any further questions put to the lady (verizon worker with two sons)....the one who claimed not to know anything about the case because it's in Orlando, but when questioned further with, "do your sons ever go over to Orlando" etc, she first acted like no not really, and only finally admitted, well their father lives there, and then finally came out with the fact that the younger son, 23 years old, went to Full Sail. That age would seem to put him there at the same time as Tony L and his friends.....I never saw either side ask her if she or her son know any of the witnesses in this case. I was so surprised. I guess maybe they were relying on questions asked of the jurors in a general questionnaire or something before they got to that stage? Also, I had trouble believing her claim that she didn't know anything at all about the case. Well maybe she was finally asked more questions but I missed it (?). I believe she made it through selection....

Other concern during jury selection: It seems a shame the way the law is, that jurors are dismissed at cause level if they admit they are against the death penalty. I mean, if the prosecution wants to use strikes to dismiss them, that makes sense, but I think I saw more than one juror dismissed for cause because he basically admitted he was disinclined to vote for the death penalty. It seemed to hinge on the magic word "consider", and basically seemed to boil down to how a juror interpreted this word. They had to be able to say the magic word that they would be able to "consider" the death penalty and not "automatically" vote against it. I saw the judge explain to one juror that the question "could you consider the death penalty" did not mean would you have any inclination to vote for the death penalty, only, could you listen to arguments regarding aggravation/mitigation and consider them before voting for or against the death penalty. But on one of the last days I saw two jurors dismissed, and they seemed to be perfectly good jurors, who didn't have it explained to them in exactly the same way, they had already indicated they could listen to arguments regarding aggravation/mitigation, but then when the judge said "would you consider voting for the death penalty", they said "No"-- It seemed that their meaning was that they would probably still have no inclination to vote for the death penalty, not that they wouldn't be able to consider the arguments. They didn't even seem to be saying that they absolutely never would be able to vote for the death penalty just that they were highly unlikely to and could not picture themselves voting for it. They had already said they did not belong to any religion or group that required them to automatically vote against the death penalty without consideration, they just admitted they had no inclination to vote for the death penalty for various reasons. Obviously it's the law and the judge can't change the process, but it looked like the effect was that most jurors who admit they are against the death penalty are weeded out ....the result is a jury already handpicked in favor of the death penalty, and that's even before the prosecution uses its strikes. I just think surely when the law was written the goal was not to have juries pre-screened to the degree that people who are against the death penalty are weeded out? I think maybe the one lady who had the term "consider" explained to her in more detail did make it on the jury, but she may have been the only one.

 

[seagull65]

p.s. other thoughts. Hopefully the defense will get their client a haircut. Unless she is going to enter the courtroom Lady Godiva style like we've discussed before LOL!

 

[Miss Anarchy]

I too worry about Juror #1319 says that she is not able to judge anyone. I also worry about the number of jurors that had problems answering the voir dire questions. If they couldn't comprehend those questions, is the information presented at trial just going to be over their heads?

 

[seagull65]

I pray the truth will come out in this trial (whatever that really is, I'm still not sure) and justice will be done for Caylee. My thoughts are with Caylee and her innocent family members and friends.

 

[thumbtack]

I'm worried the WS server won't be able to handle all of us.

 

[Quiche]

This is worry for me...

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel.html

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Hello, I'm a first time poster, long time reader and have been following this case since it became a national news story. As I have been watching snippets of the jury selection I've been thinking about the selection process I underwent while serving as a jurer during a criminal trial some 30 years ago. Until the CA trial I was not aware that the defendent had such a signifcant impact on the selection process. Nor was I aware that the questions posed to pj's were specifically connected to the defense's strategy.I've also been saddened and appalled by the disrespectful attitude the defense team seems to display within the courtroom and specifically towards the judge.

:welcome4::welcome4:

BBM: I agree ... the DT attitude is totally disrespectful and I think they have pushed Judge Perry to his limits ! Also, the disrespect by the DT for Caylee is absolutely appalling !

Just one time ... just one time I would like to see the DT use Caylee's name and recognize her as THE ONE and ONLY VICTIM !

 

[dog.gone.cute]

This is worry for me...

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel.html

I can see where you would be worried but would this only apply to JB, since CM and AF have been around for a while and are "qualified defense attorneys" ...

Also, since ICA had 2 other so-called "qualified defense attorneys", who have quit ICA's DT, would this even work ?

I am hoping NOT !

 

[seagull65]

I too worry about Juror #1319 says that she is not able to judge anyone. I also worry about the number of jurors that had problems answering the voir dire questions. If they couldn't comprehend those questions, is the information presented at trial just going to be over their heads?

I agree, MissAnarchy. I remember hearing one female juror who didn't seem to really answer the judge's questions. For about three questions in a row, she answered "yes" to what he asked, but then the phrases she said after the yes didn't have to do with his question. It was like she was still answering the first question over and over and not really listening to his other questions, just reiterating her first answer. I wondered how could this particular potential juror have understood the later questions that were really kind of long and a bit complicated. And how would she be able to keep up with and follow some of the complicated evidence during the trial? Oh well. Hopefully it was only nerves but I don't know.

 

[little_miss_smart]

So is there a chance that the DT will say it was an accident? Has there ever been any indication that the DT are going to say that the nanny/babysitter was all a figment of Caseys imagination.

Could someone please tell me what ICA stands for, I get the CA = Casey Anthony but what does the I stand for?

 

[thumbtack]

I = inmate (ICA)

 

[seagull65]

So is there a chance that the DT will say it was an accident? Has there ever been any indication that the DT are going to say that the nanny/babysitter was all a figment of Caseys imagination.

Could someone please tell me what ICA stands for, I get the CA = Casey Anthony but what does the I stand for?

some people enjoy using ICA because it means "Inmate Casey Anthony", and some just use it to distinguish her from Cindy and Caylee (since they all have the same initials). I prefer plain old KC, since we got in the habit of using that early on