Defense Motion to Add New Witnesses

[MADJGNLAW]

Madjgnlaw has just updated the Todays News Thread:

Casey Anthony's defense team attacks reliability of two state witnesses
Hearings March 31. April 1. & April 2.
"Snip"
By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel

3:13 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2011

Casey Anthony's defense team today filed new motions attacking the reliability of two important prosecution witnesses that the state wants to testify about science-related matters in the upcoming murder trial.

First, the defense filed a motion attacking "the unreliability of expert opinion testimony" of Dr. David Hall, a forensic botanist for the prosecution.

The defense also filed an amended motion regarding another state witness, FBI fiber examiner Karen Korsberg Lowe.

On Friday April 1. , a second round of hearings on scientific issues in the case is scheduled to resume.

Hearing set for 10 a.m. March 31. over whether to allow new defense witnesses.

Two witnesses are Dr. Jeffrey Danziger and William Weitz, Ph.D. The defense wants both "to rebut recent rulings related to the defendant's state of mind and consciousness of guilt."

Other late witnesses include Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis; Daniel Kondos, a supervisor responsible for maintaining landscape on Suburban Drive, near where Caylee's remains were found; Patricia Young, a Texas EquuSearch member "found to have material testimony necessary for the defendant; and Sharon Cadieux, another "necessary witness to the defendant."

Read More here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,2945455.story

First thing I thought of was what JP said last week. Not sure if these motions are similar or not. But didn't JP say No other motions for rehearing shall be considered? :waitasec:


March 25, 2011 JP simply denied the order for a rehearing, adding that, "No other motions for rehearing shall be considered." "Snip" http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-trial-perry-bias-rul20110325,0,3339772.story

Casey Anthony’s defense wants new hearing
"Snip" By Adam Longo, Reporter
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Read more: http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news...ts-new-hearing

On March 25, Judge Belvin Perry denied a request from the defense about the exact same thing. http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news...y-Anthony-case

Casey Anthony's defense wanted another hearing to have her statements tossed from trial. Judge Perry Denied the Motions!
"Snip" http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-trial-perry-bias-rul20110325,0,3339772.story

Amended Motion for Hearing on the Unreliability of Expert Opinion Testimony of Dr. Hall http://www.cfnews13.com/static/artic...imony-0329.pdf

Amended Motion in Limine for Hearing on the Unreliability of Scientific Testimony by Karen Lowe on Post-Mortem Hair Banding http://www.cfnews13.com/static/artic...nding-0329.pdf

 

[TotallyObsessed]

This is the US Supreme Court case on the issue: Taylor v. Illinois, 485 U.S. 983, 108 S.Ct. 1283.

See 485 U.S. 983, 108 S.Ct. 1283.

Syllabus

Well in advance of petitioner's state-court trial for attempted murder, the prosecutor filed a discovery motion requesting a list of defense witnesses. Petitioner's answer failed to list one Wormley, as did his amended answer, submitted and accepted on the first day of trial, identifying two witnesses who were never called to testify. On the second day of trial, after the prosecution's two principal witnesses had completed their testimony, petitioner's counsel made an oral motion to further amend the discovery answer to include Wormley. Counsel explained that Wormley had probably seen the entire incident that led to the indictment and that, although petitioner had told counsel about Wormley earlier, counsel had been unable to locate Wormley. At a subsequent voir dire examination, Wormley testified that he had not been a witness to the incident itself but had earlier seen the victim and his brother carrying guns and threatening petitioner and that he just happened to run into petitioner and warned him to watch out. On cross-examination, Wormley acknowledged that he had first met petitioner over two years after the incident in question and that defense counsel had visited him at his home during the week before the trial began. As a sanction for the failure to identify Wormley in the discovery answer, the trial judge refused to allow Wormley to testify before the jury. The judge explained that petitioner's counsel had committed a blatant and willful violation of the discovery rules and that the judge doubted the veracity of Wormley's testimony. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed petitioner's conviction.

 

[mitzi]

But that means that they once again lied to the court. I honestly do not think that AF did that intentionally in front of the judge. But this motion comes from CM? and in it CM is claiming that no reports exist, which is clearly contradictory to what AF said in court.

This once again begs the question, is the defense paying attention to what the other members of the defense team are doing and saying? Are they even all checking the filings that are attributed to them all?

Well, CM is there for the guilt phase...and AF for the penalty phase. Seems that CM is trying to get one over on the prosecution without producing the reports. Then maybe Ann F. will provide the reports AFTER the motion by CM has been decided. I dunno! *shrug* If so...not gonna happen in HHJP's courtroom! :maddening:

 

[LolaMoon08]

Why is there an assitant state attorney to be added? What is that about? The other people I can see, okay, not see, but understand why the defense wants them on there, but why add Kenneth Lewis as a witness? I've never even heard his name mentioned in this case before this motion.

In any event, it's going to be fun to see the defense argue for these witnesses on Friday.

Is Jose going to whine about not having the financial ability to give Casey a proper defense when the State, according to Jose, has had no penny spared in trying to prosecute her?

I have noticed that Jose has complained more about what he doesn't have at his disposal... what he has had to work against, etc... then defending Casey against the charges against her. I think he is going to put JAC, the State Attorney's Office, the OCSO, the OCJ (jail), the Sunshine Laws, the FBI, the Medical Examiners, etc... on trial... and completely ignore that his client is facing First Degree Murder charges.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I don't think this was filed today. I read this a few days ago.:twocents:

It says March 29, 2011 :waitasec: Or am I reading the PDF wrong?

Casey Anthony’s defense wants new hearing
"Snip" By Adam Longo, Reporter
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Read more: http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/march/224810/Casey-Anthony’s-defense-wants-new-hearing


Amended Motion for Hearing on the Unreliability of Expert Opinion Testimony of Dr. Hall http://www.cfnews13.com/static/arti.../Amended-Motion-on-Dr-Hall-testimony-0329.pdf

Amended Motion in Limine for Hearing on the Unreliability of Scientific Testimony by Karen Lowe on Post-Mortem Hair Banding http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Amended-Motion-on-Hair-Banding-0329.pdf

 

[mitzi]

But HHJP denied a new hearing on that. I don't see how adding witnesses they can't use for that would help them.

But it doesn't have to be a "re-hearing" on that issue. They can write a new motion to some other issue as to why the words of KC should be left out of CIC.

 

[MD MOMMY]

It says March 29, 2011 :waitasec: Or am I reading the PDF wrong?

I'm talking about the first post in the thread.

The DT filed a motion to add new witnesses today.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27360053/detail.html

 

[LolaMoon08]

Yes, the defense can file more motions to exclude Casey's statements... they just can't argue about her being "in custody" or claim her parents were "Agents of the State." More like too prejudicial? A violation of her rights to a fair trial? I don't think her statements are going to be thrown out for any reason... but they can still try to get them thrown out by using a different stradegy.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I don't think this was filed today. I read this a few days ago.:twocents:

You're right, I apologize, it was posted in today's news thread and I didn't read the date--the hearing on this motion was set today for Thursday at 10:00am. Think it's still good to have a discussion of this motion in one place.

 

[mitzi]

Surely there will have to come a time, when HHJP will smack Jose down, and tell him NO MORE MOTIONS! (not shouting...just emphasizing) The defense has had almost three years to get this all lined up...Jose better work on his case and CM better quit with the dang motions and help his less than intelligent partner get ta crackin'! Was CM brought in only to write legible motions? :banghead: The man can't hardly stay awake during testamony!

 

[logicalgirl]

It says March 29, 2011 :waitasec: Or am I reading the PDF wrong?

The report as I see it is made today and the Hearing is for Thursday the 31st is it not? Are these new motions to exclude going to be heard on Thursday or in with the rest on Friday and Saturday, April 1st and 2nd?

There is so much going on there is no time to earn a living here! :loser: Me!

 

[SoCalSleuth]

But it doesn't have to be a "re-hearing" on that issue. They can write a new motion to some other issue as to why the words of KC should be left out of CIC.

I don't think CM meant literally that these new witnesses were needed to "rebut recent court rulings...". I think what he is saying here is that now that the statements are coming in and the court believes they go to KC's state of mind and are relevant on the issue of consciousness of guilt (which the jury will be instructed on), we want to present evidence to show what her state of mind was and that it does not show a consciousness of guilt. That said, still seems as if they were hiding the ball until after they received a ruling on the motions to suppress.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I also remember Judge Perry stating that he has cleared the whole last week of April to go over any and all last motions that need to be heard prior to May 9th. That would be the week of April 25th-29th. Less than five weeks. They better hurry up and get it together because they may just be left out in the dark. :HHJP:

 

[mitzi]

The irony is rich, isn't it!!!

Here's the defense wanting Dr. Hall's testimony kept out, but yet they think their own witness, who is a "plant hobbyist" (sp) and hasn't studied Florida plants and forgets to bring a Florida plant reference book to her deposition, is well-qualified!

Hey Cheney...your boots must be gettin' a bit tighter, seems like your brain is being squeezed!

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I also remember Judge Perry stating that he has cleared the whole last week of April to go over any and all last motions that need to be heard prior to May 9th. That would be the week of April 25th-29th. Less than five weeks. They better hurry up and get it together because they may just be left out in the dark. :HHJP:

Even sooner, the week of April 18! I love JP, he is awesome!

Judge Perry has also set aside the week of April 18 to handle anything else that comes up before the murder trial begins jury selection on May 9.
"Snip" http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011...ck-to-court-for-more-arguments-over-evidence/

 

[strawberry]

I don't think this was filed today. I read this a few days ago.:twocents:

This is the one that started the whole talk a few days ago about the two witnesses involved in the GA altercation.:waitasec:

 

[LolaMoon08]

Even sooner, the week of April 18! I love JP, he is awesome!

Oh thank-you!! I was going off memory! Even better!

:yourock:

 

[mitzi]

Even sooner, the week of April 18! I love JP, he is awesome!

One thing tho, Insessions blog is often wrong with their facts, so IMO another source to this would be better. Insessions blog is like their shows...defense slanted and misinformation stated. They make my blood boil when I hear the facts twisted and incorrect, as if it all were true. :maddening:

 

[MADJGNLAW]

The DT filed a motion to add new witnesses today.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27360053/detail.html

Apparently, the motion is filed in response to the SA asking the DT to show cause why these additional witnesses should be allowed post the deadline for the same.

As far as the two new experts (Danziger and Weitz) the motion only states that they just finished their work and they have opinions to rebut "recent court rulings" which go to ICA's state of mind and consciousness of guilt. Neither has written a report yet.

I'm not sure this reason is going to fly with JP so close to trial. My question would be, when were they hired, when did they do the initial work upon which their new opinions were based, and why didn't they formulate these opinions sooner.

:waitasec: I just don't understand how the DT can filed these motions with a straight face. Danziger and Weitz haven't finished up their work, the have not turned over a report on their findings. So, the State has to wait? Didn't Judge Perry say that if deadlines were missed then it was their loss. State of Defense?

Then we have the other 4 witness, one that if the inmate Maya doesn't testify then the Lewis will? A lawn care guy Mr.Kondos ? A lady (Sharon C.) that is out of state but will be returning, they just don't have a date yet as to when?


Mr.Kondos the supervisor for landscaping on Suburban drive, why did they wait until now to add Mr. Kondo? Is he going to say he cleaned that area and there was no sign of Caylee? :no:

Then P. Young a member of TES, who was in a fight with George Anthony, while protesting outside the Anthony house in 2008. The DT claims they just got her address? Really? Was there not a INCIDENT REPORT: Battery Accusations ?

State Interviews 'Possible' Witness Patricia Young In Casey CaseA hearing over the new witnesses was scheduled for Thursday at 10:00am.
"Snip" http://www.wftv.com/news/27361078/detail.html
Updated: 4:46 pm EDT March 29, 2011

DOCUMENT: Motion For Additional Witness http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27361077/detail.html

BILL SHEAFFER: Analysis Of Possible New Strategy http://www.wftv.com/video/27347083/index.html
GEORGE GETS AGGRESSIVE:
Images http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/17417748/detail.html
Raw Video http://www.wftv.com/video/17418105/index.html

INCIDENT REPORT: Read Battery Accusations http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27346565/detail.html


In September 2008, Young was in a fight with George Anthony, while protesting outside the Anthony house.
Bill Sheaffer said the defense may try to call Young as a witness, possibly to blame George for Caylee's death (watch full interview http://www.wftv.com/video/27347083/index.html ).

 

[MD MOMMY]

You're right, I apologize, it was posted in today's news thread and I didn't read the date--the hearing on this motion was set today for Thursday at 10:00am. Think it's still good to have a discussion of this motion in one place.

For sure:seeya: I just thought I was having deja vu or something LOL.

ETA It may be less confusing since we are speaking of a few different motions to edit the title of the thread?