Watching Motions Hearing Live on Friday 10-10-08

[Dejablue]

I think it's possible that she was involved with some people that maybe didn't have her best interest in mind and that these people may have been involved with some other kind of illegal activity.

Are they "Phantoms" like the Nanny??? There were NO other people.

 

[shelbar53]

If someone took your child and threatened to kill them if you contacted LE would you take THAT risk. I don't think any of us can really know what we would do unless we had to make that choice for real. it is easy to say what you would do when your child is safe and secure with you. jmo

I would be deeply depressed and distraught...feelings that I dont think I could hide from my friends and family...i would NOT be able to fake a smile much less go out dancing and having sex. Would I tell LE {yes I would}, but I KNOW i would not be able to fake being happy. I would not be able to function normally knowing someone took my child..even if I had "trusted" the person...being without my child is NOT an option...

 

[Chezhire]

Thanks for the explanation. I have posed this question a couple times now, but I will ask you too...do you think that there is some confusion about what evidence is associated with the child neglect charges and the evidence associated with an ongoing investigation into the possible homicide charges?

Any time. There's no confusion.

I think JB WANTS to have some confusion at this time, when there really is no confusion, so he can go on a fishing expedition for things and information that the defense is not entitled to have absent a bill of information or indictment for Caylee's death.

 

[pat19954]

What in the WORLD could KC be doing with JB for 6 hours every single day? I wonder if he is being "paid" for his services by her, during this time. WINK WINK...if you know what I mean.

BTW, I am new to the Caylee thread, but not to WBS ( I am usually over on the JBR Board).

Baez is probably trying to keep her away from Cindy. Remember George works that would leave Casey and Cindy alone in the house together all day.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Not me ... I am judging him solely on his lawyering skills ... and I am a (recovering) attorney! I believe in the constitutional right for everyone to be afforded an adequate defense ... I wish that JB were a better attorney because if he fails to provide at least an adequate defense then the resulting verdict could possibly be overturned on appeal ... making justice for Caylee even more prolonged.

"IF" the state files for capital murder, will Baez have to be replaced by a death penalty qualified attorney? :bang:

Yes, No and Maybe ... :crazy: It is up to Casey to decide who will represent her. If JB has not met Florida's standards to be a DPQA (usually it is just a matter of applying for it ... and having adequate criminal trial experience ... good standing with the state Bar ... etc.) then he could certainly apply to be second or third chair counsel. She would need a certified DPQA for lead counsel though who also has privileges in the state of Florida.

 

[kwmred]

I do not feel that most of Baez's motions were unreasonable. I'm glad that the judge granted 7 of the 9. In regards to requesting Casey have the ability to search for her daughter: I think there was a two-fold purpose for this motion. One- the public has been asking "Why isn't Casey helping in the search for Caylee?" I think that this motion makes it clear to the public that she can not physically go and search for her daughter at this time. Just making the motion in itself speaks volumes. Two-if the motion is granted, then it will allow Casey (In Baez's eyes) to assist with the search of her daughter with the information that she and Baez have (the info that she has withheld from the police). If the motion is denied- she can't be judged for not searching because of the physical restraints of her bond agreement. JMO

She can't be judged? Casey had 31 days to search for Caylee! Do you really believe that a "reasonable" person would wait to notify anyone that their daughter was missing? Also, just so I don't get the response that there must be some compelling reason for Casey not cooperating, let me say that if would be easier to believe if it weren't for the fact that Casey had a history of lying and stealing LONG before Caylee went missing. There is NO possible scenario that can excuse Casey's words or actions.

 

[suspicious mind]

Maybe we should start a new thread? #2?

 

[*lore621*]

I would be deeply depressed and distraught...feelings that I dont think I could hide from my friends and family...i would NOT be able to fake a smile much less go out dancing and having sex. Would I tell LE {yes I would}, but I KNOW i would not be able to fake being happy. I would not be able to function normally knowing someone took my child..even if I had "trusted" the person...being without my child is NOT an option...

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Themis]

Themis, I have a question on your very thoughtful post, if it hasn't already been asked. Can the Judge revise (limit) the amount of time at JB's office without the State requesting? Can he do this on his own initiative? I know the State questioned it repeatedly but did not ask him directly to revise or give reasons why a revision should be made.

It's obvious to all logical thinkers that the visitation schedule is excessive and flaunts the home confinement standard for most if not all -- but will the Judge actually do anything about it without prompting? Thanks.

The Judge ordered home confinement. Mr. Baez put the terms and conditions of home confinement in issue. The Judge controls his own orders.

 

[sandcastles4me]

So, again, some former friend of Casey's, who gave her a place to stay and a car to drive when she needed them, is accused of criminal acts to place the blame other than on Casey. This would mean that AH filed false reports with LE and committed all sorts of fraud or theft by false pretenses when she got the money back from the bank. This is irrational, totally conjectural, and absurdly ignores CA's history of stealing. Why would AH give Casey the entire balance of her bank account (plus the attempt to write a check for which funds were insufficient) to entertain her BF and buy herself clothes? Funny she did it all while AH was out of town. I just don't buy that she had permission.

Exactly! This makes me so angry when people keep pointing fingers at the real victims, instead of looking at the facts which all point to KC.

 

[Chezhire]

Since I am not totally clear on exactly what Baez is going to get from all of this, will he be getting enough of the information to show him that Caylee is deceased or not?

I guess that depends upon what the judge decides to do with the motion on Body Farm/DNA testing, which is the *best evidence* (not discounting the cadaver dogs whatsoever, btw!) we're aware of being conducted that would potentially shed light on the issue of alive or deceased. Other than that, I don't see how anything he "got" access to today (which he could have had way earlier had he asked properly) will tell him much. :waitasec:

Frankly, I think he knows she's deceased. He just wants to see how strong the case ag his client is.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Originally Posted by Chezhire
Um...isn't there a thread for Caylee Is Alive, go here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72731
or the Is Caylee Alive Debate/Poll Thread, go here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69125
Not meaning to be snarky, but I, for one, am really not interested in getting into this and I've been getting the feeling from several posts back that this is where this discussion is heading...

It certainly is heading down that slippery slope into arguments and such. Staying on the topic for the Motions shouldn't include those things.

 

[suspicious mind]

It certainly is heading down that slippery slope into arguments and such.

ITA, that's why I have been miss lurkingston for a bit!

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "...I would never let another second go by allowing my child to be in grave risk while I just fretted and drank a diet coke...."

...or went to Fusian ... or to Buffalo Wild Wings...

 

[SeriouslySearching]

The Judge ordered home confinement. Mr. Baez put the terms and conditions of home confinement in issue. The Judge controls his own orders.

Do you think the Judge gave him a few things today so when he doesn't give them Casey's "secret missions" on Monday they can't scream and yell?

 

[susiemc]

...or went to Fusian ... or to Buffalo Wild Wings...

Well... maybe to Buffalo Wild Wings. They ARE rather hard to resist.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

OneHW - To restate, and not to step on Themis' toes, Themis said the state COULD LOSE the ability to have the evidence at trial, he didn't say the state would lose said ability, and I think the reason for the hypothesis is because Themis knows we don't have any bright-line ruling from the US Supreme Court. (Feel free to correct me for explaining what I think you meant, Themis.)

Do you think there is controlling case law that Judge S will have to follow? I haven't seen any, thus my question.

I don't think that you need a US Supreme Court ruling to find plenty of precedence. In fact, when lower courts consistently rule the same on any argument then it doesn't ever make it to the US Supreme Court. I do not think that Judge Strickland will throw out or not allow into evidence the States samples based on this argument ... the burden of proof is on the State. Instead, I think that violation of due process will be cited on appeal.

 

[Chezhire]

This discussion really does belong on the special designated alive thread with those that post on it. I'm gently letting this drop from further discussion by me on this thread.

Thanks Gin I really appreciate that!!! :blowkiss:

 

[Themis]

Respectfully Snipped

I agree with most everything you have offered with the above exception.

While I believe violation of due process will be argued by the defense, I do not believe that the prosecution's evidence would be deemed inadmissible. I believe instead that the defense would be allowed to place into record the fact that they were not afforded the right to independent analysis.


Arizona v. Youngblood (1988)

"Unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith, the State's failure to
preserve potentially useful evidence--of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant--does not constitute a violation of the due process clause of the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment."

State v. Estep (1991)
"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does
not require the prosecution to preserve samples for independent analysis unless the sample possesses an exculpatory value that is apparent before the sample is destroyed, and the defendant is unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.”

The above cases were also cited as precedence for State v. Abercrombie, (2007), in which a trial court granted defendant’s motion for an independent lab analysis. However, due to the reported weakness of the sample, the forensic testing did not allow for an independent test. The jury convicted the defendant on felony murder, which was subsequently appealed based largely on the inability of the defense to have access to the States evidence for independent analysis, claiming denial of due process. Ultimately, the State Supreme Court found that "there was no evidence that the consumption of the DNA evidence by the State’s testing was the result of bad faith." The conviction was upheld.

There you go. Arizona v. Youngblood is a US Supreme Court Case in 1988. Without bad faith on the part of LE, there is no due process violation under the 14th Amendment.

D'ya think if we post the law here it might show up in the prosecution briefs or judge's opinions? No reason why WS can't help them out. :clap::clap::clap:

 

[Pink Panther]

Do you think the Judge gave him a few things today so when he doesn't give them Casey's "secret missions" on Monday they can't scream and yell?

It sounded to me as though most of the things that the judge "gave" him today; he was already entitled to and just hasn't acted on.