Defense doesn't want GA & CA in the courtroom....why?

[MissJames]

Oh LORD - THIS HAS GONE SIDEWAYS!!! Lippman said the SA has 6 seats reserved for them - the SA.

The SA didn't offer the Anthony's six seats, the Anthony's didn't ask for six seats. The SA offered the Anthony's one seat each.

That's all!:banghead:

I've been busy and this is the first post I've read in awhile. :crazy:

How are we ever going to make it through the trial ? :waitasec: :needdrink:

 

[logicalgirl]

I've been busy and this is the first post I've read in awhile. :crazy:

How are we ever going to make it through the trial ? :waitasec: :needdrink:

LOL - are you sharing???:crazy:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

So, where do ya'll think the Anthonys are going to sit.

1. in the balcony
2. behind the Defense team
3. behind the prosecution

I mean, until they get thrown out for reacting rudely and chomping their gum..

:cow::cow::cow:

I believe the Ant's will definitely sit behind the Defense Team ...

They will NOT sit on the side of "Justice for Caylee" ... we have seen this for almost 3 years now ... so we can rule out behind the Prosecutors.

IF ... IF they start their "facial expressions" and "gum chewing" ... I hope the Judge "sticks to his guns" and "throws them out" of the courtroom permanently ... unless of course, they have to testify ... then out ... permanently.

 

[QuietMind]

Thanks for the link-- will KC be able to even see the witness? That's an awkward, perhaps even cowardly, place for the accused, imo.

Hey, first post! Welcome! :greetings:

:welcome4:

Thanks for the welcome. :seeya:

Here is a link to Courtroom 23 so you can see the actual position of the tables and can take a virtual tour of the courtroom.

http://www.ninja9.org/courtadmin/mis/courtroom_23.htm

Moving to the side tables is going to be interesting, as had they kept their old table ICA would have had her back to the gallery, now she is pretty much facing the entire room, and directly across from the jury.

 

[QuietMind]

Oh LORD - THIS HAS GONE SIDEWAYS!!! Lippman said the SA has 6 seats reserved for them - the SA.

The SA didn't offer the Anthony's six seats, the Anthony's didn't ask for six seats. The SA offered the Anthony's one seat each.

That's all!:banghead:

Wow....I just posted what I had heard in response to someone else's question. Thanks for the clarification. I will just go back to lurking.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Thanks for the welcome. :seeya:

Here is a link to Courtroom 23 so you can see the actual position of the tables and can take a virtual tour of the courtroom.

http://www.ninja9.org/courtadmin/mis/courtroom_23.htm

Moving to the side tables is going to be interesting, as had they kept their old table ICA would have had her back to the gallery, now she is pretty much facing the entire room, and directly across from the jury.

Thanks, enjoyed the tour. I have a very valid concern though...with this High Tech Courtroom how on earth will JB be able to function? JB can not control the "clicker" on his own Power Point presentations?:great::great::great:

 

[QuietMind]

Thanks, enjoyed the tour. I have a very valid concern though...with this High Tech Courtroom how on earth will JB be able to function? JB can not control the "clicker" on his own Power Point presentations?:great::great::great:

At one of the hearings, HHJP suggested that both the SA and the DT go up and familiarize themselves with all the technology in the room. Perhaps William "Thwarted" has been taking lessons...... :floorlaugh:

 

[ZsaZsa]

What is going to be GA's reaction in court if/when they try to shift the blame to him?

 

[Mendara]

Don't take any of this as seriously real remember that the A's will do anything to save KC and I would not be surprised if this is all a set up, the A's request a visit, KC denies them, they motion to be in the court room and the defense files a motion to keep them out..this may very well be all for show and the A's could very well be going along with this and agreed to the defense using them to get KC off. Even if they make the jury believe GA did it, GA will not be prosecuted later.

I have heard of family members agreeing to be run over in order to save someone else.

So I am going to go with the A's lying about this too as was confirmed by CA still putting money into KC's account.

MO

 

[Nore]

Oh LORD - THIS HAS GONE SIDEWAYS!!! Lippman said the SA has 6 seats reserved for them - the SA.

The SA didn't offer the Anthony's six seats, the Anthony's didn't ask for six seats. The SA offered the Anthony's one seat each.

That's all!:banghead:

I've been busy and this is the first post I've read in awhile. :crazy:

How are we ever going to make it through the trial ? :waitasec: :needdrink:

----------------

MissJames I believe you've got it!!
:great:

 

[ThinkTank]

I was stunned speechless when Judge Perry granted the Anthony's Motion to be allowed to stay in the courtroom, at the Hearing on Friday! I was under the misunderstanding (from Lippman's original motion) that if either the State or the Defense objected, it would not be allowed. So, when the Defense objected (I thought the State would object), I thought it was a done deal -- no Anthonys in the courtroom during the trial. I was shocked at how quickly Judge Perry dismissed the Defense objection. I thought the Anthonys were a classic case of what the Rule of Sequestration was designed for. After all, the State asked that they be kept outside of the Frye Hearings until after they testified, and Judge Perry ordered it immediately.

However, after reading Hornsby's article (after the ruling on Friday),
http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/05/should-they-stay-or-should-they-go/

I have come to realize that I was wrong in my assumptions and that Judge Perry simply ruled on the law, and it was a simple, cut and dried issue for the Judge -- no wiggle room either way. Judge Perry was not feeling sympathetic toward the Anthonys, or using any other rationale, other than following the law.

I believe Judge Perry already had his ruling ready to announce, before he even heard Lippman's arguments on Friday, and before Lippman added the Beasley case to his Motion (on advice of Hornsby). Judge Perry knows very well what the relevant Florida Statute says.

According to Florida Statute 90.616 Exclusion of witnesses - when the Defense objected - they were supposed to also file a separate Motion outlining in what specific ways the Defense would be prejudiced if the Anthonys remain in the courtroom (mere facial gestures does not cut it), and then the Judge would rule on whether or not the Judge agreed that their presence would prejudice the Defendant. The Defense did not even file the mandatory second Motion.

In addition, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in the Beasley case, there are only two reasons the Defense could object - (1) witness will change his testimony ..... (2) emotional reactions of the victim's family members would be prejudicial.

But .... even if the witness changes their testimony, they can easily be impeached by prior testimony in depositions, so that is not enough reason to keep them out of the courtroom.

Hornsby said: "...State does not have standing to object under Article 1, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution – only the defendant does..."

Hornsby: "...trial judge maintained vigilance so that the “defendant” was not prejudiced by emotional outbursts of the victims next of kin and that the court even admonished them twice during the proceedings. So while some of you will annoyingly complain about Cindy Anthony’s sneers and looks, this is not the type of behavior that the Court is concerned with or would even consider prejudicial...."

So, Judge Perry ruled the way he did because it is the LAW, according to Florida Statute and the Florida Supreme Court ruling in the Beasley case, and as he said the Defense did not give him evidence that the Defense would be prejudiced (enough to keep the Anthonys out). And the State (Ashton) did not object because the State is not allowed to object, by law. And if (when) the Anthonys change their testimony, they will be impeached by their prior testimony, and if (when) the Anthonys make an unacceptable outburst in court, they will be removed on orders of the Judge.

 

[jandkmom]

What is going to be GA's reaction in court if/when they try to shift the blame to him?

 

[Tulessa]

Levi's show is good tonight.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage/2011/05/08/casey-anthony-murder-case

 

[Melanie]

I'm just thrilled that the jury will see ICA head on and will be able to be close to the witness, and all those sitting in the gallery. Doesn't get much better than that!

G&C better mind their P's and Q's!

MOO

Mel

 

[MissJames]

LOL - are you sharing???:crazy:

Of course ! :martini: :toastred:

 

[logicalgirl]

Wow....I just posted what I had heard in response to someone else's question. Thanks for the clarification. I will just go back to lurking.

No, no - you can't take that personally - please - there were at least four of you and I was making a point so the conversation didn't take off. Too easy for a poster to read one comment and move on to another thread and have a whole different meaning in their mind. The comment was not directed at you- truly.

Please please stay around - ignore me!! :blowkiss:

 

[MissJames]

Wow....I just posted what I had heard in response to someone else's question. Thanks for the clarification. I will just go back to lurking.

:shakehead: Oh ,no ,no no, ! You don't get off that easy :nono:

There's a lot of info to process and sometimes the threads can move fast,really fast ! You just jump in and hang on for the ride :rollercoaster:

We're all her Caylee and she's about to get :justice:

This is no time for :escape:

Your motion to return to lurking is :denied:

:welcome4:

 

[beach]

According to Florida Statute 90.616 Exclusion of witnesses - when the Defense objected - they were supposed to also file a separate Motion outlining in what specific ways the Defense would be prejudiced if the Anthonys remain in the courtroom (mere facial gestures does not cut it), and then the Judge would rule on whether or not the Judge agreed that their presence would prejudice the Defendant. The Defense did not even file the mandatory second Motion.

.............

So, Judge Perry ruled the way he did because it is the LAW, according to Florida Statute and the Florida Supreme Court ruling in the Beasley case, and as he said the Defense did not give him evidence that the Defense would be prejudiced (enough to keep the Anthonys out). And the State (Ashton) did not object because the State is not allowed to object, by law. And if (when) the Anthonys change their testimony, they will be impeached by their prior testimony, and if (when) the Anthonys make an unacceptable outburst in court, they will be removed on orders of the Judge.

<snipped for emphasis>

Thank you, ThinkTank!!! :bowdown:

Your entire post referencing RH's article is a fantastic synopsis - I only snipped to expound on these portions of your post.

A judge's job is to enforce the law already on the books. Case law is what he has to reference and is his guide. Even if he personally disagrees with the law and feels that it should be different, he does not have the option of ruling according to what he inherently believes. He is sworn and bound to rule by the laws already supported by prior case law and upheld by the courts. So, even if he wanted to keep the Anthonys out, he couldn't have ruled that way, UNLESS...

The defense had done their job by filing a memorandum outlining specifically how Casey Anthony's right to a fair trial would have been prejudiced by George and Cindy's presence in the courtroom. They had to opportunity to present a passionate oral argument at yesterday's emergency hearing. CM's brief argument was an epic fail...like an afterthought. In my opinion, if they had spent enough time researching and worked at it hard enough, they could have presented a pretty good argument.

I know that HHJP followed the law and ruled accordingly. It should not be a surprise to anyone here that, once again, the defense failed to do the work necessary to fight the good fight. Who knows if it would have changed anything - I have no idea. It would have depended on how compelling their argument would have been. They didn't even give it the good college try, though.

 

[Carrington]

Yeah Beach, it's not like they don't need the practice.

IMO

 

[janine]

<snipped for emphasis>

Thank you, ThinkTank!!! :bowdown:

Your entire post referencing RH's article is a fantastic synopsis - I only snipped to expound on these portions of your post.

A judge's job is to enforce the law already on the books. Case law is what he has to reference and is his guide. Even if he personally disagrees with the law and feels that it should be different, he does not have the option of ruling according to what he inherently believes. He is sworn and bound to rule by the laws already supported by prior case law and upheld by the courts. So, even if he wanted to keep the Anthonys out, he couldn't have ruled that way, UNLESS...

The defense had done their job by filing a memorandum outlining specifically how Casey Anthony's right to a fair trial would have been prejudiced by George and Cindy's presence in the courtroom. They had to opportunity to present a passionate oral argument at yesterday's emergency hearing. CM's brief argument was an epic fail...like an afterthought. In my opinion, if they had spent enough time researching and worked at it hard enough, they could have presented a pretty good argument.

I know that HHJP followed the law and ruled accordingly. It should not be a surprise to anyone here that, once again, the defense failed to do the work necessary to fight the good fight. Who knows if it would have changed anything - I have no idea. It would have depended on how compelling their argument would have been. They didn't even give it the good college try, though.

BBM
Hi Beach- I know this may sound silly and I really have nothing to support my thought other than the defense, even though it appears that they are dropping balls, really can't be this inept. Something tells me that their motion to exclude the Ant's was half assed on PURPOSE. Why though? Why make a stink if what you really were trying to accomplish was the opposite effect?

Something is fishy fishy here............and there and every where.