2011.05.10 - Sidebar Thread (Jury Selection Day Two)

Status
Not open for further replies.
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:unlawful hair:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
I'm totally going to start using that! Oh and please do post that video/time stamp!!


Thanks to Patty, here is the video of the "across-the-room-angry-girlfriend stare even though I am talking to other people" video.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947#p/u/5/03_YYFNBNQI

It gets very telling at the 1:00 mark - she is talking to CM and shaking her head several times, looking exasperated. Then she says "Well,..." and then CM shakes his head and they both look up towards JB talking to AF. The long look then!

It looks like CM is her new BFF that is playing the go-between and he doesn't look like he is on JB's side.
 
Sorry but they are not there to punish her. She has not been convicted. As hard as it may be in a case like this she is entitled to a presumption of innocence. She has lost her liberty merely because of the Charge she is facing and not because she is guilty.

There seems to be little reason why she cannot speak to her Attorneys after Court.

She does not need to be dragged out of court at the first opportunity and treated in a demeaning manner, especially prior to conviction.

BBM

I beg to differ, but yes, she is indeed a Convicted Felon - under the check fraud charges and she is serving that sentence still if I am not mistaken.
 
Mark Geragos said he would prove that Scott Peterson was "stone cold innocent.". Defense attorneys say things like that all the time then when they have nothing they hide behind "well I don't have to prove anything, the state has the burden"

That's exactly what pops into my head every time he says this! We all know how that turned out! MG made some BIG promises during his opening statement, failed to prove any of it (some of it wasn't even entered into evidence :waitasec: ), and then bailed on the verdict.

ITA that if it could be explained in 3 minutes, they would have done it 3 years ago. No matter who they throw under the bus, it doesn't explain the 31 days or Casey's complete lack of concern during that time.
 
I wonder if Casey told all the folks over in Orange County, that she had an event to plan over in Pinellas County? :waitasec:

:giggle:
 
Well said. And just want to say when the potential juror was leaving, and KB interviewed her, what ever happened to; "I can't speak for them." She certainly was speaking for them in my opinion.
I'd have passed by without saying a word. I guess getting the 15 minutes is seductive though.
 
I personally don't see her looking as if she's been mistreated. But, I have to say there is a time and place for everything...and conferencing with your attorneys in full view of others isn't the smartest thing to do.
A far as what others feel...hard to say...their feelings are their own. I couldn't even begin to speculate. JMHO

The courtroom is a dangerous place for Casey and the bailiffs are charged with her protection . Any nut could jump over that divider and stick a pen in her neck. The safest place for her is in her cell where her attorney can visit her any time.
 
Why am I the only one afraid of the DT's opening statement? Guess because I am so afraid of Casey walking and I just couldn't stand it!!!:banghead:

Don't you worry about it. Most of us who have followed this case since Caylee was reported missing, who have read or viewed every deposition, every police interview, every motion and every piece of evidence in this case, we know she'll be convicted. Just a matter of time.

O so sorry gitana, we were wondering who the lady is that follows ICA out of the court room.


Oops! :blushing:

That surprises me. As I understand Defendants generally appear in court unshackled wearing normal clothing. I have not seen a single case where the contrary has been the case (whether the Defendant be black, white, rich or poor). As I understand there is a constitutionality issue.

Interesting article for you to read.

My law partner is a criminal law attorney. So I go to criminal court to bring him papers, make minor appearances for him like arraignments or prelim. hearings, helped him with jury selection a couple of times, etc.. I have the opportunity to be in the criminal court departments on several occasions throughout the year. (otherwise, I'm safely in family court where the parties just do things like attack each other, try to kill attorneys, etc. Nice, quiet stuff like that! LOL.)

I have NEVER seen an unshackled, in-custody defendant standing around chatting with their attorneys. Does not happen. In fact, I have never seen a shackled defendant standing near the "well" talking to their attorneys. They are seated in the courtroom when they talk to counsel or standing in the "cage".

I have rarely seen unshackled defendants, period, sitting at counsel table. They are not handcuffed but usually have ankle chains. Unless they are represented by private counsel.

But, I interned for the Federal Public Defender during law school though, and one in-custody defendant I saw was in street clothes (bank robbery). Can't remember if he was unshackled but I think he might have been. But the Federal Public Defender is different than the public defenders at the state level. They have more resources and a higher level of commitment, IMO.
 
Yes I think it was. There was so much that went on in those first 6 months. It became the "story of the day". The actions and antics of the A's - the bounty hunter and his entourage that "came to the rescue". The searches. The Grand Jury with GA and MN. The return of a true bill and the strange "capture" of ICA on the interstate under an overpass.....

And of course, THE LIES, THE LIES, THE LIES.......

Yep, I was a big follower in the beginning but lost interest when all the evidence pointed to ICA. Lurked alot then joined when Haleigh disappeared.
Now back for the trial!
 
That surprises me. As I understand Defendants generally appear in court unshackled wearing normal clothing. I have not seen a single case where the contrary has been the case (whether the Defendant be black, white, rich or poor). As I understand there is a constitutionality issue.

Interesting article for you to read.

I apologise as I am not quite sure what you are referring..Inmates are given the right to appear infront of Jurors, or potential jurors shackle free and in "Street Clothes"..and IF the defendent possess some risk..his leg shackles will remain, and some sort of skirting infront of table will obscure...

NOW IF you are referring to "Shackles" or Cuffs being placed on ICA before heading out of Courtroom after proceedings.....AS long as there are NO jurors, or potential jurors in that room, it is legal and constituational.

A flukey view by someone from outside of the courtroom, tho not ideal ( and should be guarded against) is no reason for mistrial nor deem any case to be "Dismissed" ..I am sure all due diligance is applied so that no one who shouldnt see that..DOESNT...

Live streaming in a courtroom will catch glimpses or audible clanging of shackles...Course the watchers of said stream are NOT in the courtroom on any official basis....

The above is JMOO
 
Why am I the only one afraid of the DT's opening statement? Guess because I am so afraid of Casey walking and I just couldn't stand it!!!:banghead:

Think about it for a minute. What have you seen of JB/CM or the various other Attys that have drifted in and out of this case ?
What have you been impressed with? Anything?
If not, do you think they will suddenly become astute Advocates..?
 
Love this line from the article: "The court of public opinion is the most uneducated court in the whole country," said lead defense attorney Jose Baez.

This, from a man who is incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence.

Who has to be schooled by the Judge on how to make a proper motion :floorlaugh:
 
That's exactly what pops into my head every time he says this! We all know how that turned out! MG made some BIG promises during his opening statement, failed to prove any of it (some of it wasn't even entered into evidence :waitasec: ), and then bailed on the verdict.

ITA that if it could be explained in 3 minutes, they would have done it 3 years ago. No matter who they throw under the bus, it doesn't explain the 31 days or Casey's complete lack of concern during that time.

Moreover, if, as noted above, big moment is "they can't say how the child died" then the SP case really is a very good comparison.
 
BBM

I beg to differ, but yes, she is indeed a Convicted Felon - under the check fraud charges and she is serving that sentence still if I am not mistaken.
She was sentenced to time served and probation if she ever gets out.
 
Thanks to Patty, here is the video of the "across-the-room-angry-girlfriend stare even though I am talking to other people" video.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947#p/u/5/03_YYFNBNQI

It gets very telling at the 1:00 mark - she is talking to CM and shaking her head several times, looking exasperated. Then she says "Well,..." and then CM shakes his head and they both look up towards JB talking to AF. The long look then!

It looks like CM is her new BFF that is playing the go-between and he doesn't look like he is on JB's side.

What this inquiring mind wants to know is... what CAUSED this massive and obvious rift between ICA and JB? It's a fool's errand to try and figure out what is going on behind the scenes at the DT, I know, but boyohboy she is MAD at that man, and I wanna know WHY! :maddening:
 
BBM

I beg to differ, but yes, she is indeed a Convicted Felon - under the check fraud charges and she is serving that sentence still if I am not mistaken.

It's absurd that she was tried on these charges before the 1st degree murder charges. It was done expressly to be able to do exactly what you are doing here, in order to state that she is a convicted felon. We knew something was amiss with the defense when they weren't able to postpone this until after the trial for the more serious charges.
 
Don't you worry about it. Most of us who have followed this case since Caylee was reported missing, who have read or viewed every deposition, every police interview, every motion and every piece of evidence in this case, we know she'll be convicted. Just a matter of time.




Oops! :blushing:



My law partner is a criminal law attorney. So I go to criminal court to bring him papers, make minor appearances for him like arraignments or prelim. hearings, helped him with jury selection a couple of times, etc.. I have the opportunity to be in the criminal court departments on several occasions throughout the year. (otherwise, I'm safely in family court where the parties just do things like attack each other, try to kill attorneys, etc. Nice, quiet stuff like that! LOL.)

I have NEVER seen an unshackled, in-custody defendant standing around chatting with their attorneys. Does not happen. In fact, I have never seen a shackled defendant standing near the "well" talking to their attorneys. They are seated in the courtroom when they talk to counsel or standing in the "cage".

I have rarely seen unshackled defendants, period, sitting at counsel table. They are not handcuffed but usually have ankle chains. Unless they are represented by private counsel.

But, I interned for the Federal Public Defender during law school though, and one in-custody defendant I saw was in street clothes (bank robbery). Can't remember if he was unshackled but I think he might have been. But the Federal Public Defender is different than the public defenders at the state level. They have more resources and a higher level of commitment, IMO.

Thanks for your info.

Does your experience refer to trial or pre-trial?

I have seen Defendants shackled in prison garb for pre-trial hearings (including ICA for some of her initial appearances). But every newspaper article (even for "small time" cases), video, live streaming, etc has shown the Defendant in their own clothes unshackled for the trial in front of the Jury.
 
ICA seems to stand around after court has been dismissed, collecting papers, pushing the pen cap, patting the attorney on the arm. She needs to be removed immediately by the deputies upon court being dismissed.

No pretense she is a clerk, an attorney, a free citizens. Watched many many trials and have never seen a defendant linger after court. Come deputies remind her she is 'in custody'. Don't allow her to pretend for one minute she is a free person.

I agree. Get her out of there immediately. She is not an attorney, not a member of the defense team. Other than that - very impressed by the deputies in the court room.
 
It's absurd that she was tried on these charges before the 1st degree murder charges. It was done expressly to be able to do exactly what you are doing here, in order to state that she is a convicted felon. We knew something was amiss with the defense when they weren't able to postpone this until after the trial for the more serious charges.

Well. Richard Hornsby said they should have combined the cases.
 
What this inquiring mind wants to know is... what CAUSED this massive and obvious rift between ICA and JB? It's a fool's errand to try and figure out what is going on behind the scenes at the DT, I know, but boyohboy she is MAD at that man, and I wanna know WHY! :maddening:

Whatever it was, it happened ?last week. It was during the hearing where they were all called back to HHJP's chambers. When ICA came out she was livid about something, she did not make eye contact with JB again for the rest of the hearing and she sat at the table drumming her fingers on the desk. They have been on the outs since then... now she pats CM as soon as she walks in,then sits close to him and seems to ask him all the questions. Unless we know what went on in that meeting - ? anything's possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
617
Total visitors
759

Forum statistics

Threads
627,167
Messages
18,540,050
Members
241,205
Latest member
bhill
Back
Top