2011.03.07 Motions Hearing

[Eidetic]

CM: "It's lengthy enough, I'm not going to go through all of it, but I know you will..."

Pretty much sums up the defense teams work ethic.

 

[sleutherontheside]

OMG I figured it out. Attempting an "Acquittal by Filibuster".

 

[karengo]

I really dont see where he is going with this. Any reasonable person would go to the jail and ask the last person who saw a missing child questions. If we believe CM everyone should have just sat around and let her be. I mean no one had any right to ask her anything at all.

 

[TiaM]

Wow! If CM does the actual trial opening and closing statements, and they sound like this, he is going to lose the jury with all the mumbling, bumbling and fumbling, incomplete sentences, stopping and starting, etc.

On the other hand, Baez would be making this all about himself and how nobody likes him or gives him the respect and homage he feels he is due.

I don't know which is worse.

 

[Intermezzo]

:waiting::sigh:

 

[LolaMoon08]

Looks like George and Cindy read WS over the weekend because both are trying to wear poker faces and not show any emotion. Both are chewing gum, though, but they must be trying to keep the chomps to a minimum.

The reason they are keeping their expressions to a minimum is because the defense is talking. The defense is saying things the way they want them to be said. Just wait until LDB gets up there... they won't be able to control themselves.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

how many times can CM refer to LA as "a wink and a nod"

Obviously a LOT.

Are we sure he's not describing where he's puttin' everyone....The Land of Nod...or maybe discussing Winkin', Blinkin' and Nod??

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

If Mason does the closing argument during trial the jury is gonna need a lot of Red Bull.

Nah, I am drinking Red Bull and it does't help.

 

[logicalgirl]

Oh oh oh! Did I just hear Mason say the word Conclusion???:rocker:
Did he mean it????? :great: :great: :great:

Ohhhh - No??

 

[Eye Wonder]

Sorry, OT but are inmates given access to tweezers?

 

[okiedokietoo]

CM In this case LE directed family over and over and told them what to do
Statements from the very 1st from LA and videotaping of ICA was used ..... (sorry he didn't wrap that statement up ended with something else?????

 

[Mama-cita]

View attachment 14005

Sorry for way OT but thanks for making my day SotS! Meow!!!!!

 

[cloud9]

good gawd...there is joy wray sitting behind allen and melich. Unreal

click pic to enlarge

View attachment 14008

thud!

 

[logicalgirl]

Are we sure he's not describing where he's puttin' everyone....The Land of Nod...or maybe discussing Winkin', Blinkin' and Nod??

I think he's talking about us watching.....:banghead:

 

[MommaD]

Did anyone else notice the dagger looks CA and GA are giving the lady and gentleman next to joy w? Wonder who they are? could it be JH parents.. on Caylee's side.. So glad Caylee has so many on her side today.. Great posts everyone.. The truth will prevail in the end for Caylee and and she will get total justice.. SA will make sure of that.. They love and care for her as much as all of us do..

 

[kaRN]

The intent was to put aside the stupid stolen car issue and focus on the kidnapped child. Geesh.

 

[ziggy]

Parks v. State , 644 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1994)

ETA I have looked online, but not found it yet. Although I have found links to several cases in which in was cited as an argument.

Thanks! Here's a brief:

Procedural Posture: Appellant sought review of his convictions for first-degree murder and armed robbery from the Circuit Court for Broward County (Florida). Appellant claimed that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his confession. Appellant asserted that the trial court erroneously admitted an accomplice's prior consistent statement and that certain prosecutorial statements amounted to impermissible comment upon his right to remain silent.

Brief facts: Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery. During questioning, appellant made incriminating statements concerning his involvement in the murder and robberies. Appellant stated that he was present and that he only intended to rob the place. Appellant admitted using a substandard quality gun and it just went off. Appellant's agreement to discuss the crime when he was free to decline and go home was an act of free will sufficient to purge any possible taint from the arrest. The court found that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress appellant's incriminating statements. The court determined that appellant freely and voluntarily gave his statement to police since he made the statements after being released from custody, but had voluntarily remained at the police station to answer questions. The court held that appellant's action broke the causal link between his arrest and his incriminating statements made to the police. The court found that the erroneous admission of an accomplice's tape-recorded statement was harmless because a reasonable jury could presume that the prior statement was consistent with the accomplice's in-court testimony.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed appellant's convictions because there was no error in admitting into evidence a statement that appellant freely and voluntarily made to the police after he was released from custody.

Emphasis by me.

 

[pip]

CM's 'my age', 'my hearing' blah blah blah is wearing thin.. it's not endearing and cute as he intends it to be..

 

[Intermezzo]

Is he done?
Yes,,,,,,
:skip:

 

[UESwifey]

LIN-DA, LIN-DA, LIN-DA !!!

:cheer::cheer::cheer: