If Miranda argument is upheld

[Intermezzo]

Oh, you're going a step farther than I am I don't think her written statement will be tossed, as it was written round the same time as George, Cindy and Lee's. My thoughts are focused on verbal statements, but if her written stagement is removed, I might just toss my cookies!

MOO

Mel

Was the Written Statement Before or After Eberlin handcuffed her?
IIRC LDB said it was before and then Baez and Mason look at each other..CHIT

 

[Turnadot]

Was the Written Statement Before or After Eberlin handcuffed her?
IIRC LDB said it was before and then Baez and Mason look at each other..CHIT

IIRC, it was before.

 

[Intermezzo]

Even when Inmate Anthony is actually arrested, she does not look too upset (scared, nervous, shocked, intimidated by LE) about it.

Thanks for the pics,

In the second photo it looks like she realizes the media is outside . her head up..she is not ashamed.. she is not crying, she is not visibly upset...:twocents:

Look Ma you called 911 and now I'm going to be on TV..I'm going to be a Celebrity...:sick:

 

[Leila]

A question................when Casey was finally arrested at 4:33pm on July 16th for obstruction of justice, child endangerment, and lying to LE, was she then given her Miranda rights?

I can't see how anyone could consider Casey arrested on July 15th, because after she was taken to Sawgrass Apts. and brought back home, and after questioning by YM, she spent the night in her own bed in her own home. On the 16th, right up until the questioning in the conference room at Universal there was nothing to suggest she was under arrest.

I don't believe George's statement that YM told him, "she won't be coming back", prior to the trip to Universal on July 16. Sometime during the early days of this case, during an interview, Cindy stated that they learned of Casey's arrest late on the afternoon of July 16th. She explained that she, George, and George's sister, had the television on and were waiting for an Amber Alert on Caylee when some called them and said words to the effect of, "quick, turn to channel such and such......Casey's been arrested and they're showing her on television." She said that was how they learned of Casey's arrest.

I hope HHMP doesn't put too much, if any, credibility to what George testified to during last week's hearing.

 

[Intermezzo]

I'm going to recant ^that post. I read she had her cellphone with her, and if I (a reasonable person) still had my cellphone, that means I could dial out any time, like to a taxi. Cellphones this day and age, especially by the young crowd, is a social network, and if I still had mine on me, I would not feel "restrained" by LE at all or in a custodial position, etc.

She had her cellphone she could have called anyone, her parents..and Oh..lets see she could have also called 911 :floorlaugh: on the Detectives.

She also had a voice and could have SCREAMED..she was in an administrative building with other people beyond the door...

Casey was neither afraid nor intimidated by LE...
:twocents:

 

[LolaMoon08]

Was the Written Statement Before or After Eberlin handcuffed her?
IIRC LDB said it was before and then Baez and Mason look at each other..CHIT

Eberlin testified that it was before she was handcuffed.

 

[LolaMoon08]

A question................when Casey was finally arrested at 4:33pm on July 16th for obstruction of justice, child endangerment, and lying to LE, was she then given her Miranda rights?

I can't see how anyone could consider Casey arrested on July 15th, because after she was taken to Sawgrass Apts. and brought back home, and after questioning by YM, she spent the night in her own bed in her own home. On the 16th, right up until the questioning in the conference room at Universal there was nothing to suggest she was under arrest.

I don't believe George's statement that YM told him, "she won't be coming back", prior to the trip to Universal on July 16. Sometime during the early days of this case, during an interview, Cindy stated that they learned of Casey's arrest late on the afternoon of July 16th. She explained that she, George, and George's sister, had the television on and were waiting for an Amber Alert on Caylee when some called them and said words to the effect of, "quick, turn to channel such and such......Casey's been arrested and they're showing her on television." She said that was how they learned of Casey's arrest.

I hope HHMP doesn't put too much, if any, credibility to what George testified to during last week's hearing.

I believe that when Casey was actually arrested, that she was finally given her miranda warning. The defense glossed over this (actually, they never brought it up at all) because they want you to believe that she was never actually read her miranda rights until October 14th, 2008. From what I understand, they State could only ask questions that dealt with what the defense had asked? No one ever asked the detectives if Casey was read her miranda rights when she was actually arrested, but I have to believe the reason the defense didn't ask is because they know she was read her miranda rights on July 16th, 2008 when she was arrested. Like I said, they want to make it appear that she was never read her miranda rights until October 14th, 2008 and they can do that because they didn't ask if she was.

 

[Leila]

I believe that when Casey was actually arrested, that she was finally given her miranda warning. The defense glossed over this (actually, they never brought it up at all) because they want you to believe that she was never actually read her miranda rights until October 14th, 2008. From what I understand, they State could only ask questions that dealt with what the defense had asked? No one ever asked the detectives if Casey was read her miranda rights when she was actually arrested, but I have to believe the reason the defense didn't ask is because they know she was read her miranda rights on July 16th, 2008 when she was arrested. Like I said, they want to make it appear that she was never read her miranda rights until October 14th, 2008 and they can do that because they didn't ask if she was.

Thanks! That explains a lot! I kept waiting for someone at the hearing last week to directly ask the questions......."was Casey given her Miranda rights on July 16th when she was arrested." I realize now that you've mentioned it that the motions being addressed were motions that the defense has made and therefore the ballgame is in their park so-to-speak. They didn't ask the questions, and since they didn't ask it, the state couldn't address it either.

I can't imagine that Casey was arrested on July 16th and NOT given her Miranda rights............that would be a huge mistake on the part of LE, and is something that rarely happens.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

:waitasec: I just don't see any misconduct here IMO. Cindy called 911 to report her car stolen, then to tell them Caylee may be missing, then the 3rd call to tell them that Casey admitted that the babysitter took Caylee. LE was investigating a theft and a missing child. I will assume that the missing child report would come in and would take precedence over the stolen car that I never saw Cindy file charges for. But that is JMO :cow:

Arguments Made At Anthony Hearing, Perry will rule by the end of next week.
UPDATED: March 7, 2011
"snip" http://www.clickorlando.com/news/27103024/detail.html


VIDEO: Tony Pipitone's Report http://www.clickorlando.com/video/27106788/index.html


Anthony's defense believes anything Casey told LE after initially being placed in handcuffs the evening of July 15 should be suppressed from her trial because she was not read her rights.

Casey was briefly handcuffed July 15, and was not arrested.
Caseu was taken to Sheriff's Office the following day after speaking with investigators on July 16.

If the judge decides to keep Anthony's statements to investigators, the state will likely have to drop four counts against her related to lying to deputies, or it could appeal the decision and further delay the trial.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

1:35 ish this segment -- does a person in custody laugh and have small talk?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65OHVT6y63E&feature=related

:banghead: I can see bits and pieces of the argument both ways here - still trying to make up my own mind.......but, either way all I have seen of Judge Perry makes me know he will rule correctly. Amazing to NEVER have been overturned.

AZ you said way back in the beginning of the thread that it would not have mattered why she was placed in custody theft vs neglect vs murder. Do you explain that more anywhere? Does the law address that? If ANYONE knows where this is addressed more, please be so kind as to hit me with a link!

Did I say :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: yet?

Casey referred to walking "around the lake at JBP" several times as one of Caylee's favorite places to go. Of course I'm looking at it with skewed eyes this time, trying to figure out WHAT possible NEW story now Casey could come up with, but I'm wondering if she's uhh, 'unstable' :innocent: enough to attempt to now claim that Caylee ran ahead of her and suddenly disappeared into thin air.

"Caylee LOVED to run around the whole lake".

Investigator - "Yeah, we just walked it, that's a really big lake."

It just seems to be something that Casey would attempt to bleed to death.

 

[ziggy]

BBM

You make some good arguments here, and I too think the Universal Q&A will get tossed, but as for the bolded, if what I've read is true, KC had her cellphone with her, she could have dialed home and asked one of her parents to come and get her at any time. Also, GA is former LE, and it's very difficult for me to believe that a former LEO has never talked to his children about their rights. Ever.

As I stated some where else on the boards, I'm not even American but I've seen enough of your TV shows to know your Miranda Warning verbatim and that I can ask for a lawyer at any time while being questioned by LE.

I'm incredulous to the idea that KC was completely unaware that she could ask for a lawyer and keep her mouth closed.

I was going to address the cell phone issue in my post but it was already long-winded. Because KC painted herself into a corner with her "I work at Universal" lie - she would likely not have called her folks and have to explain that problem along with why Caylee had not been seen and why if she'd been kidnapped, KC didn't tell them or the police. No, that would have been too much explaining for KC all at once. She got caught off guard once CA called the police because her lies began to speed downhill like a snowball she couldn't control. So although she had her phone, she wasn't about to call GA and verify her rights and ask them to come get her. By her own doing she lost that option. So are we required to analyze this from the “reasonable person who just screwed the pooch” standard? I don’t think so – but it gives weight to KC’s situation.

As far as just "knowing" that you have a right to an attorney etc...I agree that most people can recite Miranda (fortunately because of Dragnet, it's forever etched in my memory) but when you look objectively - real life situations rarely have an obvious moment when all of the sudden you are "in custody for purposes of a police interrogation" and you know when to assert your rights.
In the interest of protecting individual rights, even if the individual is not invoking their Constitutional right because they believe that doing so might make them “appear” guilty, it is still proper for LE to advise them of their rights so that, should they continue to try and hornschwaggle investigators, at least they were given an express opportunity to shut up.

 

[Turnadot]

I agree with all of that, Ziggy. My disagreement was the assertion that:

To be fair, I don't think a person of her age with no real experience dealing with legal troubles would believe right then and there, after all that had taken place, that they had the right to say, "stop, I'm not saying anything else, take me home."

A person of her age might be clueless, but I would doubt that in 2011, anyone is honestly clueless that they can tell the cops they want a lawyer while being questioned.

KC's father is former LE, and she actively dated LE, so I don't find it believable that she was clueless. Therefore, while I respect your position on this, I disagree that KC would not have known she could assert her right to counsel whenever she pleased. It's my personal opinion that KC didn't assert her right, not because she didn't know she could, but because she thought she could bullshyte them into believing her. But legally, I don't think it matters because that's speculating and I'm not a mind reader and neither is the Court.

Probably moot anyway because it's up to HHJP and I won't exactly cry in my pillow if the Universal stuff gets tossed.

And the obvious moment a person can invoke their right to counsel is as soon as the cop says, 'Let's talk...'

 

[Turnadot]

Bit of an OT and not directed at anyone here; it's just been on my mind lately. I'm more frustrated that someone's willful ignorance of their rights can be used as an excuse to have their statements tossed out. The bottom line is that it's up to every citizen to educate themselves about their rights, after all, people have fought and died so that we (insert country here) could have these rights.

 

[ziggy]

I agree with you Turnadot; but I believe that the law requires an objective standard for the reasonable person test rather than subjective. WE know that subjectively KC probably knew and that the reason she didn't invoke her rights was because she didn't want to appear guilty and like a dog with a bone, she wasn't giving up the idea that she could STILL lie or charm her way out of the mess. But in order to decipher what is Constitutional, there has to be a standard measured kinda by "Joe Blow".

Honestly, you guys must hang around with some super smart and informed people (as do I mostly) but you would be surprised how many people are INTIMIDATED by the police with good reason. I myself have been harassed by the local police and was afraid they were going to arrest me just because they were jack holes. It happens. Start asking around

 

[Turnadot]

Well, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I know there has to be an objective standard, and it's only fair. I got that, and agree. I'm simply incredulous that people are that ignorant of their own rights, especially in America where people pride themselves - deservedly so - on their rights and freedoms. I'm eternally baffled when people can quote the Second Amendment Right* and know when and where they can carry their firearm, but have no idea when they can invoke their 5th Amendment Right or what it actually means.

I want KC locked up for life because I think she's guilty, but I also want her to have a fair trial. Not just because I'm afraid of appellate issues, but because she deserves one as the accused and it's what separates the civilized from those countries who string their countrymen up for blinking the wrong way.

I don't doubt that it happens, Ziggy. Or that you were harassed. I know it happens. Not to me, but it happened to my sister.


* Not intended to bash American gun laws. I'm not American, it's not my "issue".

 

[strach304]

I believe that when Casey was actually arrested, that she was finally given her miranda warning. The defense glossed over this (actually, they never brought it up at all) because they want you to believe that she was never actually read her miranda rights until October 14th, 2008. From what I understand, they State could only ask questions that dealt with what the defense had asked? No one ever asked the detectives if Casey was read her miranda rights when she was actually arrested, but I have to believe the reason the defense didn't ask is because they know she was read her miranda rights on July 16th, 2008 when she was arrested. Like I said, they want to make it appear that she was never read her miranda rights until October 14th, 2008 and they can do that because they didn't ask if she was.

Is that because it is the defense that is trying to have the statements tossed? These are defense witnesses? If you know that is.

 

[AZlawyer]

1:35 ish this segment -- does a person in custody laugh and have small talk?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65OHVT6y63E&feature=related

:banghead: I can see bits and pieces of the argument both ways here - still trying to make up my own mind.......but, either way all I have seen of Judge Perry makes me know he will rule correctly. Amazing to NEVER have been overturned.

AZ you said way back in the beginning of the thread that it would not have mattered why she was placed in custody theft vs neglect vs murder. Do you explain that more anywhere? Does the law address that? If ANYONE knows where this is addressed more, please be so kind as to hit me with a link!

Did I say :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: yet?

Her reaction is really just not too important. The question is whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave, not whether Casey felt free to laugh. Clearly she is not reasonable. A reasonable person IMO would have understood once the Universal interrogation began that they were in SERIOUS TROUBLE! Casey did not. :waitasec:

I'm not sure what more to say about the "in custody" issue. It does not matter WHY the person was in custody--the question is WHETHER they were in custody.

 

[RR0004]

I agree with all of that, Ziggy. My disagreement was the assertion that:

A person of her age might be clueless, but I would doubt that in 2011, anyone is honestly clueless that they can tell the cops they want a lawyer while being questioned.

KC's father is former LE, and she actively dated LE, so I don't find it believable that she was clueless. Therefore, while I respect your position on this, I disagree that KC would not have known she could assert her right to counsel whenever she pleased. It's my personal opinion that KC didn't assert her right, not because she didn't know she could, but because she thought she could bullshyte them into believing her. But legally, I don't think it matters because that's speculating and I'm not a mind reader and neither is the Court.

Probably moot anyway because it's up to HHJP and I won't exactly cry in my pillow if the Universal stuff gets tossed.

And the obvious moment a person can invoke their right to counsel is as soon as the cop says, 'Let's talk...'

Aw heck...she even claimed to be a big fan of all that CSI stuff.

 

[gitana1]

Was not sure where to post this, mod's plz move as needed. I have been going over old doc's, text, and audios regarding what Casey told LE, family, and friends to see if by chance some of her statements get thrown out how many more will still remain where she blames the so called "Nanny" as the person who took Caylee. She has stuck to her story that ZFG took Caylee, even Baez went on the air stating that LE has not found the right one if I am not mistaken. She claimed the phone that was missing was the phone she used for work at Universal.


If we go back to all the times she blames ZFG as the person who took Caylee and the reason for the 911 call we can conclude that Casey did not need to have her Miranda Rights read to her at that time, "up until the arrest July 16". Right, I hope? Anyone follow?:crazy:

The call came from Cindy that Casey stole her car, then it was that Caylee was missing, then it was that "CASEY ADMITTED THAT THE BABY SITTER TOOK CAYLE" The babysitter ZFG...that Casey spelled out the name for LE. Right? :crazy:


"snip" BBMDocuments LINK from IDDC: http://investigation.discovery.com/...full_coverage/files/caylee_anthony_files.html


July 15, 2008 Cindy and Amy H. show up at Tony's house looking for Casey. Amy told him that Casey had stolen from her and he needed to check his account. 20 min after Cindy took Casey home with her Tony got a call from Lee A. telling him that Casey admitted to Lee that she had not seen Caylee in over 31 days. No cops involved yet at this point.
Read here: http://investigation.discovery.com/...l_coverage/files/anthony-lazaro-interview.pdf


Arrest Affidavit - On July 16, investigators discovered that Casey had been lying about her place of employment and other details regarding her daughter's disappearance. As a result, Casey was arrested and charged with child neglect, making false official statements, and obstructing an investigation.

OK, so even if the Universal statements can't come in how about her statements to LE after her arrest July 16th?
Investigators' first interview of Casey Anthony | July 16, 2008 0411 HRS

First interview of Casey Anthony by investigators on July 16 after her arrest

This is the first of two audio files released by the Orange County Sheriff's Office of investigators interviewing Casey Anthony on July 16 - the day the 22-year-old mother was arrested.


Here's a guide to some highlights of this recording:
1:30 - Detective talks to Casey Anthony about when Caylee went missing.
2:48 - Casey talks about how she met Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.
9:30 - Casey explains what happened the day Caylee disappeared.
11:12 - Casey says who she talked to about Caylee missing.
13:40 - Casey describes how she tried to find Zenaida.
14:40 - Casey tells detectives why she did not alert them earlier.



ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
You can listen to the entire audio.
Here:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-caylee-anthony-case,0,3157747.htmlpage


Attorney's Letter - On July 21, Casey's attorney sent a letter to the Orange County Sheriff's Office, which stated that Casey was willing to "cooperate fully" with law enforcement. (Why didn't Baez at this time say hey my client was falsy imprissioned? )

Bond Order - On July 22, Circuit Court Judge Stan Strickland chastised Casey for her behavior and set her bail at $500,000.

Motion for Protective Order -July 28, Casey's attorney filed a motion for a protective order.


Social Networking Subpoena - July 29, Casey's attorney subpoenaed the records for her MySpace and Facebook accounts.

Attorney General's Response - On July 30, Attorney General Bill McCollum issued a written response to an appeal request that Casey's attorney filed on July 24. Within it, McCollum concluded that Baez, "failed to show that such action by the trial court was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable."

Formal Charges - August 5, Casey was formally charged with a felony count of child neglect and another misdemeanor offense.

Search Warrant - August 6, investigators executed a search warrant at Casey's home.

Bail Bond - On August 21, Casey was freed from jail.


Sept. 15 Arrest Affidavit - On Sept. 15, Casey Anthony was, once again, under arrest. http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/MONDAYfraud.pdf


Anyone follow where I am going lol...sorry for the long post. :crazy::crazy::crazy:

I didn't see any audio for July 16, 2008 interviews. There were two mentions in your link of July 16 under "audio" but nothing to click on. So, was there a post-arrest interview? I would think there would be. Mirandize her and then ask her to repeat everything she said at Universal. But I haven't heard a thing. If so, anyone have audio for me? In such a case, the Miranda rights are usually read during the interview to prove they have been read and would be recorded. If there was such an interview, that would be great.

 

[AZlawyer]

I didn't see any audio for July 16, 2008 interviews. There were two mentions in your link of July 16 under "audio" but nothing to click on. So, was there a post-arrest interview? I would think there would be. Mirandize her and then ask her to repeat everything she said at Universal. But I haven't heard a thing. If so, anyone have audio for me? In such a case, the Miranda rights are usually read during the interview to prove they have been read and would be recorded. If there was such an interview, that would be great.

I don't think there was any post-arrest interview. There was an interview around 4:00 am on July 16 (before the Universal trip later that day), but nothing after the Universal trip.