Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

[Gaia713]

Well, unfortunately, their rights as next of kin (if HHJP decides they are next of kin) would override the fact that the are witnesses, because their rights as next of kin are constitutional (Florida Const.), while the rule of witness sequestration is just a court rule.

So if HHJP wants to keep them out, he needs to either (1) find that they are NOT "next of kin" (and there's no clear controlling authority on that point so he's free to make that decision), or (2) find that CASEY's constitutional right to, e.g., a fair trial with no mistrial and untainted witnesses, would be impaired by letting them stay.

If they are "next of kin," what is Casey? The surrogate mother? The A's have consistently rallied behind Casey, and NOT Caylee, to the point of Cindy saying that Caylee is not dead. I predict rule of sequestration will remain in place. The cases sited by the motion are regarding a WIFE and SON, and the witnesses were not MATERIAL. Did the Anthony's inherit from Caylee's death? Could they have? Not while Casey was living. So, to me, that makes them NOT next of kin.

 

[MsRyber]

I am guessing he will let them stay and a day into the trial he will admonish them, then admonish them again, and then he will eventually kick them out after making sure everyone knows he tried to be fair and let them stay, but he can't in good faith allow them to stay due to the sighs, eye-rolling and gesturing.

He will let them hang themselves. And this time, THEY WILL.

 

[strawberry]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-trial-friday-filings20110429,0,512553.story

The State wants transcripts of GA and CA (apparently not LA) from the Agent of the State hearings. Wonder if this has anything to do with their motion for excusal from sequestration?

 

[Tulessa]

I am guessing he will let them stay and a day into the trial he will admonish them, then admonish them again, and then he will eventually kick them out after making sure everyone knows he tried to be fair and let them stay, but he can't in good faith allow them to stay due to the sighs, eye-rolling and gesturing.

He will let them hang themselves. And this time, THEY WILL.

I don't think he will. JMO of course.

 

[QueenD]

Well, unfortunately, their rights as next of kin (if HHJP decides they are next of kin) would override the fact that the are witnesses, because their rights as next of kin are constitutional (Florida Const.), while the rule of witness sequestration is just a court rule.

So if HHJP wants to keep them out, he needs to either (1) find that they are NOT "next of kin" (and there's no clear controlling authority on that point so he's free to make that decision), or (2) find that CASEY's constitutional right to, e.g., a fair trial with no mistrial and untainted witnesses, would be impaired by letting them stay.

Did Casey ever sign over her "rights" to GA and CA after all this started?

That would make them next of kin.

 

[logicalgirl]

I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I have extensive courtroom experience in every state, but I DO know that at least in Kentucky, anyone on a witness list, regardless of which side they are testifying on, is not allowed to be in the courtroom prior to their testimony, and are consistently kept out if they might be re-called to the witness stand. That said, what could possibly keep the A family from recording it on TiVo or DVR and looking at it that night? I just don't see how they will be kept totally in the dark about what is being said in the trial and based on past behavior of GA and CA, I personally don't believe they can be trusted to not adjust their testimony. How odd that their behavior is similar to KC spinning lie after lie, believing that others would just take her at her word and not call her out on it. KC discovered it's just not that easy, as when she took LE clear over to Universal, into a building, down a hallway before realizing it just wasn't going to be as easy as lying to her friends and family.

Assuming KC is convicted, they most certainly will be allowed in during the entire sentencing phase.

I would expect them to be called as witnesses during the penalty phase so would you still under those circumstances think they would be allowed in for the whole penalty phase.
Thanks for you input above -It's great to see you comment with all your experience in this area.

 

[LambChop]

Did Casey ever sign over her "rights" to GA and CA after all this started?

That would make them next of kin.

No. KC gave them permission to receive the remains and bury Caylee. KC is still Caylee's next of kin legally. She cannot sign over her rights without getting the bio dad involved. He is legally next-of-kin along with KC. KC must either prove who he is, or notify him she wants to give up her rights. No one in that family seems to want the father, or the father's bio family involved.

Now what I would love to see is that Caylee's paternal family ask to represent her in court. They are not witnesses and are entitled to be there. That would NOT make the A's happy. jmo

 

[AZlawyer]

Did Casey ever sign over her "rights" to GA and CA after all this started?

That would make them next of kin.

If they are "next of kin," what is Casey? The surrogate mother? The A's have consistently rallied behind Casey, and NOT Caylee, to the point of Cindy saying that Caylee is not dead. I predict rule of sequestration will remain in place. The cases sited by the motion are regarding a WIFE and SON, and the witnesses were not MATERIAL. Did the Anthony's inherit from Caylee's death? Could they have? Not while Casey was living. So, to me, that makes them NOT next of kin.

No. KC gave them permission to receive the remains and bury Caylee. KC is still Caylee's next of kin legally. She cannot sign over her rights without getting the bio dad involved. He is legally next-of-kin along with KC. KC must either prove who he is, or notify him she wants to give up her rights. No one in that family seems to want the father, or the father's bio family involved.

Now what I would love to see is that Caylee's paternal family ask to represent her in court. They are not witnesses and are entitled to be there. That would NOT make the A's happy. jmo

Who is "legally next of kin" can be different for different situations in the law. As far as having rights to human remains, you can't have a big group of people with "next of kin" rights, because a single decision needs to be made regarding the disposition of the body. As far as attending court hearings, you could have a bigger group.

There is no clear authority in Florida, as far as I have found and apparently as far as the As attorney has found, saying who qualifies as "next of kin of a homicide victim" under the Florida Constitution.

 

[Gma Kat]

Can you tell me what aha moment JB was referring to re Cindy and George? Thanks

I am talking about the "Aha Moment" JB promised the media, the people, the jury. Not that he ever stated that GA or CA would have one. I am hoping that the "Aha Moment" is the A's finally seeing the light. I am hoping that when the State presents its case, the A's are present in the courtroom so that maybe, just maybe, they will see what we see. Not that it will happen, I just hope that if there is an Aha Moment as mentioned by JB.....that it is the SA that delivers it. Make sense? Or did I totally slaughter that explanation?

 

[BigMomma]

No. KC gave them permission to receive the remains and bury Caylee. KC is still Caylee's next of kin legally. She cannot sign over her rights without getting the bio dad involved. He is legally next-of-kin along with KC. KC must either prove who he is, or notify him she wants to give up her rights. No one in that family seems to want the father, or the father's bio family involved.

Now what I would love to see is that Caylee's paternal family ask to represent her in court. They are not witnesses and are entitled to be there. That would NOT make the A's happy. jmo

Thank you for mentioning this, as I had a thought maybe some funny business might happen and ica signs another PofA to give to her parents, but can't be possible since Caylee is deceased.
Wouldn't it be something, an Ah Ha moment, if a handful of young men with their families did show up to the trial? Somewhere out there a young man might wonder about this, a family might wonder about this, but don't think they'd want to be involved now. Never know.

 

[LambChop]

Thank you for mentioning this, as I had a thought maybe some funny business might happen and ica signs another PofA to give to her parents, but can't be possible since Caylee is deceased.
Wouldn't it be something, an Ah Ha moment, if a handful of young men with their families did show up to the trial? Somewhere out there a young man might wonder about this, a family might wonder about this, but don't think they'd want to be involved now. Never know.

It could happen. Think about it. If you were the father and knew you were the father after all this press would you come forward to anyone other than LE? Would you ask them to not to release this information because you fear KC would accuse you. If he were alive and wanted to be there no one would know except for KC. She would know. Can you imagine the tension coming from her knowing he was sitting right there where she could see him? It's only a dream, but it could happen and that would be an Ahhhaaa, moment. jmo

 

[ZsaZsa]

It could happen. Think about it. If you were the father and knew you were the father after all this press would you come forward to anyone other than LE? Would you ask them to not to release this information because you fear KC would accuse you. If he were alive and wanted to be there no one would know except for KC. She would know. Can you imagine the tension coming from her knowing he was sitting right there where she could see him? It's only a dream, but it could happen and that would be an Ahhhaaa, moment. jmo

I'm still waiting for some observant reporter to ask Dr Baden to explain how he knows that LE have the identity of Caylee's father (by DNA testing) as he stated on Fox News when the remains were first found.

 

[atthelake]

HHJP, with this case - appears to have quite a bit of referring/digging out case law, and perhaps making case law for the future. I am so very glad that he replaced Judge Strickland because of these reasons........(and more--which everyone is already aware of as to DP record).

Who is "legally next of kin" can be different for different situations in the law. As far as having rights to human remains, you can't have a big group of people with "next of kin" rights, because a single decision needs to be made regarding the disposition of the body. As far as attending court hearings, you could have a bigger group.

There is no clear authority in Florida, as far as I have found and apparently as far as the As attorney has found, saying who qualifies as "next of kin of a homicide victim" under the Florida Constitution.

 

[shgrbkr]

[/B]

I would expect them to be called as witnesses during the penalty phase so would you still under those circumstances think they would be allowed in for the whole penalty phase.
Thanks for you input above -It's great to see you comment with all your experience in this area.

Yes, I believe they would be allowed in during the entire penalty phase as the sort of testimony brought forth in that situation is more of character type sentiments, as well as heartfelt emotions about the defendant and the type of person they believe her to be. It's the time when loved ones can "humanize" her and present memories and opinions that would bring her hopefully into the lives of the jury members that they can relate to. It seems like it is a more opinionated and heartfelt presentations, hoping the end result would soften the demonizing of the defendant that occurs in the criminal phase of the trial.

 

[LolaMoon08]

It could happen. Think about it. If you were the father and knew you were the father after all this press would you come forward to anyone other than LE? Would you ask them to not to release this information because you fear KC would accuse you. If he were alive and wanted to be there no one would know except for KC. She would know. Can you imagine the tension coming from her knowing he was sitting right there where she could see him? It's only a dream, but it could happen and that would be an Ahhhaaa, moment. jmo

Would the father, or in the case that he is deceased, the family of the father, be listed on a witness list if they did choose to give some sort of victim impact statement? Even if it wasn't a witness list, wouldn't they have to file something with the court in order to give permission to give a victim impact statement?

I hope this makes sense??

They just can't show up out of no where and want to address the court, can they? I'm just thinking if Casey and the defense would know in advance??

 

[ZsaZsa]

We're all going to be watching it live, so what's to stop the A's from watching it at home? The only day they will miss is the one when they are required to testify,right?
They don't need to be in the Courtroom itself to hear others testifying...

 

[Gnatcatcher]

I hope this hasn't been asked and I've missed it, if so, sorry for a repeat. I have a question on how the Judge would handle removing somebody from the courtroom. I know recently there was that guy that stood up and spewed his nonsense about God's destruction in Japan, and the Judge YELLED "OUT OUT, GET OUT". But in the case of somebody in the gallery disobeying rules of decorum, or worse - trying to sabotage the trial - how would the Judge remove them? Does he send a little Instant Message from his computer to the guards, does he stop proceedings and bring up an officer and quietly explain, does he say out loud "Mr. Anthony, you are to be removed immediately", or..? How would that happen? Thanks!

 

[LambChop]

We're all going to be watching it live, so what's to stop the A's from watching it at home? The only day they will miss is the one when they are required to testify,right?
They don't need to be in the Courtroom itself to hear others testifying...

If they were expected to testify at different times throughout the trial they would have to be at the courthouse I would believe.

 

[Joanner]

I know recently there was that guy that stood up and spewed his nonsense about God's destruction in Japan, and the Judge YELLED "OUT OUT, GET OUT".

That is not exactly what Judge Perry said. I think it is important that, if you want to use quotes, they should be correct.

"Out. Remove that person from the courtroom. They are not permitted to be back in."

 

[BigMomma]

Once again, if there was nothing out of the ordinary to worry about, this would not be an issue, just go with what the courts dictate. I think they just want to know everything. When I hear them say they have not read this or that, I do not believe it. I don't think they need to be in that courtroom pre their testimony, they'll be just as indignant as they have always shown to be wether they are in the room or when they testify. Best to keep them out as law is written.