Will Casey take the stand?

[mystified]

I'm sorry if this question has been asked, I haven't caught up yet.

If Casey doesn't take the stand who's going to tell her real story that JB keeps spouting off about?

 

[BonKai]

NEVER! The prosecution would rip her apart. Unless Baez is REALLY stupid, she will never take the stand. I am very curious how Baez will get her so called story out to the jurors.

Opening and closing statements. He will not put Casey on the stand.

 

[mystified]

Thank you BonKai, but I read somewhere that would be hearsay, so I guess the jury will just have to take JB's word for it?

 

[VickiInLongwood]

If I remember correctly, IF baez puts her on the stand as a DEFENSE witness, then he leads her questioning. She can tell her side of the story. THEN, the state can only cross examine on issues that the defense brought up. I do not believe that the state can take the liberty of venturing off topic. IMHO, the reason they want to wait to tell her compelling tale :waitasecf innocence, is for this reason and also, there will be little time for the state to verify her tale of events, thus leading to a possible "reasonable doubt" It will probably be a woosey of a tale....with no corroborating witnesses, of course. They wil be TOO :chicken:SCARED to testify in her behalf. THis is all just my speculation, hopefully with some facts tossed in.:crazy:

 

[Bev]

I don't believe that is correct - DAs will spend weeks preparing questions to ask the defendent if he/she takes the stand. That's one of the dangers of taking the stand in your own defense - answering questions for which you don't have a prepared answer. What they might be limited in is asking about prior acts and crimes and if the defense brings it up then it can be considered "opening the door" and the DA can ask questions about prior acts.

One reason why I think in this case the DA will motion to have the check kiting and theft brought up at this trial is that it shows a pattern of behavior, that in fact the defendent went on a "crime spree" after the death of her daughter. Now the defense is really caught out if this is admitted as evidence - what are they going to say? That she was always kiting checks and stealing money or that she was so upset that her daughter was missing that she became a thief? Either way she's proven to be a thief and that goes to character.

 

[maskedwoman]

No competent attorney would ever put her on the stand.

But here's the thing. She has a right to take the stand if she wants to. Jose can advise against it, but he can't stop her. At this point, I think she still believes she can talk her way out of all this. Unless that changes, I think there's a very good chance that she'll take the stand.

If they try the financial charges first and she takes the stand and gets roasted, she might learn from that and keep her mouth shut at the murder trial.

 

[FightTheOstrich]

Here's a little Florida Statutes info for CA and GA if they feel like telling any fibs (especially in a Capital Offense Trial):

837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.--

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of the crime of perjury under subsection (1) or subsection (2), and the defendant's mistaken belief that the statement was not material is not a defense.

History.--s. 1, sub-ch. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2561; GS 3473; RGS 5343; CGL 7477; s. 998, ch. 71-136; s. 55, ch. 74-383; s. 33, ch. 75-298; s. 3, ch. 97-90; s. 1311, ch. 97-102.

837.021 Perjury by contradictory statements.--

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever, in one or more official proceedings, willfully makes two or more material statements under oath which contradict each other, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Whoever, in one or more official proceedings that relate to the prosecution of a capital felony, willfully makes two or more material statements under oath which contradict each other, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

I'll tell ya, Florida doesn't mess around. Perjury is serious business down there.

 

[Lanie]

But here's the thing. She has a right to take the stand if she wants to. Jose can advise against it, but he can't stop her. At this point, I think she still believes she can talk her way out of all this. Unless that changes, I think there's a very good chance that she'll take the stand.

If they try the financial charges first and she takes the stand and gets roasted, she might learn from that and keep her mouth shut at the murder trial.

I disagree with her thinking she can talk her way out of this. IMO, if she still thought that, she would have talked by now. She hasn't said a word that we know of since she got arrested the first time.
Lanie

 

[azwriter]

gitanc1 is right, it's up to the defendant to decided upon taking the stand or not. Not the attorney, who can only advise the client.
I guess, I'm standing alone on this. I think Casey will testify. Miss Silent will relish the idea of having the spotlight on her. She believes her own lies and I believe Cindy will have a hand in steering her right to the witness stand.
JMO

 

[trac]

What did Baez mean when he mentioned on GR last night that Casey will tell her story when it's the right time? Is he even thinking of putting her on the stand? That would be suicide for a pathological liar to do.

She'll tell her story in a book - no way on the stand - the defense AND the prosecution would rip her to threads - because the defense can't get a story straight and the prosecution with all the different stories and lies - might as well let Casey testify in the death chamber and let Cindy testify from a jail cell - there is no way!

 

[Brini]

I would "absolutely" LOVE to see KC take the stand......prosecution would rip her a new one if she does. :woohoo: :woohoo:

Cross ex!

 

[amethyst221]

Opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence. They are supposed to talk about what the evidence will or has shown, not things about which there will be/has been no evidence. I agree absolutely that Casey would be a total disaster as a witness, but if she is determined to testify in her own behalf, Baez has no right to stop her. I don't see how the saga of Zanny can come in except through a witness who supposedly has firsthand knowledge of the events, though. That would not include Cindy and Mr. A. While an admission by Casey AGAINST her interests might come in as a hearsay exception, her self-serving statements told only to her parents and attorneys should not. So, as matters stand now, the stuff coming from JB about the day she tells her side and we all go "Ah hah!" sounds like so much hot air if she isn't the one who's going to tell the tale at trial.

The scope of any cross will be broad. It will include impeaching her with her prior lies and inconsistent statements, to show she is not a credible witness. When you tell five different versions, at a point it doesn't matter which is true, just that you can't be trusted to tell the truth. JB seems to indicate that ZG is still at issue, so how is that story going to change? How is that going to accommodate Cindy's tossing out there of various other allegedly guilty friends of Casey? What a job.

 

[maskedwoman]

I don't see how the saga of Zanny can come in except through a witness who supposedly has firsthand knowledge of the events, though.

They might be able to get Zanny in under an exception to the hearsay rule. There are three when the speaker is available. Excited utterances (statement made when surprised or shocked), present sense (statement of a condition or situation present when statement is made) because it can be corroborated by the witness, and state of mind.

Depending on how skillfully they argue, I'm thinking they can get it in under excited utterances. And possibly under the state of mind rule. I read something that says state of mind can also include circumstantial evidence of subsequent acts. That sounds a bit like hooey to me, but the example I read was "I'm gonna go buy some groceries and get the oil changed in my car on my way home from work." IF that's right, then George or Cindy could claim that Casey told them that. Big IF, though.

 

[amethyst221]

I think the scope and timing for an excited utterance is pretty limited. I can see some blurted out bit of info in the initial moment of discovery that your child had been kidnapped. Like running through the outback shrieking "The dingo ate my baby," or through the park screaming "Zanny kidnapped Caylee." It seems sort of tough to show that the you're still in the throes of the kidnap event, just exclaiming wildly in a way that's likely to be true, 30 days after the event, after ample time to drink, party, hang with your bf (to whom you never exclaimed a thing). To wildly embellish on the initial story told to the police after 30 days, and now, months later, tell it to someone, not an excited utterance, IMO.

Obviously, a person who really knows the rules of evidence may be able to get bits and pieces of a story in through some combination of exceptions. But to tell it coherently, and offer the testimony for the actual truth of the assertions, seems to need Casey's testimony. We can dream, right?

 

[jeepgirlva]

Hell No ( I wish she would though I would love to see the lawyer eat her alive)but it ain't going to happen..

 

[amethyst221]

Which takes us right back to JB blowing hot air about the coming day when CA tells her "version" and we finally all get it.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

If Casey wants to take the stand, Baez has to let her. Testifying at one's own trial is part of the fundamental right to a defense. Baez can strongly advise her against it, but if she wants to testify and he doesn't let her, that's grounds for an appeal.
I don't know if she'll want to exercise that right, but I really hope so!!

Me too, Nancy. Me too!!!

 

[MiraclesHappen]

http://www.kttlaw.com/images/news/TuckerFloridaBarJournalDecember.pdf

I'm sorry if this question has been asked, I haven't caught up yet.

If Casey doesn't take the stand who's going to tell her real story that JB keeps spouting off about?

From the above linked Florida Bar Journal article:


General Rules Governing Closing Arguments
.....Despite the legal limitations, lawyers enjoy broad scope in
their closings. They may discuss any theory reasonably supported by the evidence, provide their
interpretations, and suggest that the jury draw inferences or conclusions from the evidence......

:gavel:

I have no clue how JB expects to put in evidence, this long drawn out story which will make us all understand.
He also still owes us the story which shows us per Cindy, that Casey is the "Mother of the Year."

Jose is given wide latitude to argue. But still, there has to be some possible way the evidence can support whatever his theories might be, when he argues.

jmho

 

[Intermezzo]

If Casey wants to take the stand, Baez has to let her. Testifying at one's own trial is part of the fundamental right to a defense. Baez can strongly advise her against it, but if she wants to testify and he doesn't let her, that's grounds for an appeal.
I don't know if she'll want to exercise that right, but I really hope so!!

Wouldn't Casey's credibility, based on her previous and documented lying, be an issue if she took the stand?

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Wouldn't Casey's credibility, based on her previous and documented lying, be an issue if she took the stand?

Yes, her credibility is negatve infinity on a scale of one to ten.

Hence, we want her to take the stand.