Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[beach]

Richard, I believe AZ's stance is that the statements at Universal will get tossed, but the earlier ones at the house will come in.

Is that the way you see it? Or are you saying you think they all will be tossed?

 

[MissJames]

There are no magical words that trigger the Mirdanda requirement, rather the question is whether law enforcement's conduct would cause a reasonable person to believe they were no longer free to decline law enforcement's overtures.

In this case, the handcuffing clearly suggest that Casey was no longer free to leave. But that is just one factor, Judge Perry will also look at all of the other factors in the incident.

Regardless, this is an issue that has no black-and-white answer, and ultimately will be up to Judge Perry to decide based on the totality of all of the circumstances. (Personally I agree with AZLawyer and think Perry will find Miranda was required and toss the statements.)

Also, I think most of the WebSleuthers are having a hard time believing law enforcement did anything wrong because of the self-serving way that law enforcement is trying to paint what they did and how they interpreted the situation.

For example, a lot of you got a kick out of Melich claiming ignorance when Baez asked whether he suspected Casey of a crime. His answer was disingenuous and obviously he had been prepped about how to answer such questions. Everyone knows he suspected Casey of a crime; he would have been more credible to admit that, but he was afraid that by doing so the defense might win. Unfortunately though, this could backfire on him and the State.

ICA was handcuffed for a few minutes ,the previous night. The officer who handcuffed her was not at all involved in the Universal visit .IIRC,no one at Universal was involved in the previous evenings investigation,so what does the handcuffing have to do with her statement the next day? After the brief handcuffing period ,and after a trip in the back of a cruiser,ICA went to bed and was woken up to do the Universal walk.Surely she didn't believe she was under arrest while napping in her own bed?

 

[Bittiness39]

There are no magical words that trigger the Mirdanda requirement, rather the question is whether law enforcement's conduct would cause a reasonable person to believe they were no longer free to decline law enforcement's overtures.

In this case, the handcuffing clearly suggest that Casey was no longer free to leave. But that is just one factor, Judge Perry will also look at all of the other factors in the incident.

Regardless, this is an issue that has no black-and-white answer, and ultimately will be up to Judge Perry to decide based on the totality of all of the circumstances. (Personally I agree with AZLawyer and think Perry will find Miranda was required and toss the statements.)

Also, I think most of the WebSleuthers are having a hard time believing law enforcement did anything wrong because of the self-serving way that law enforcement is trying to paint what they did and how they interpreted the situation.

For example, a lot of you got a kick out of Melich claiming ignorance when Baez asked whether he suspected Casey of a crime. His answer was disingenuous and obviously he had been prepped about how to answer such questions. Everyone knows he suspected Casey of a crime; he would have been more credible to admit that, but he was afraid that by doing so the defense might win. Unfortunately though, this could backfire on him and the State.

BBM...really? We get a kick out of Melich claiming ignorance? Or is it we get a kick out of Jose claiming his client lied? Because honestly, Casey is not a sweet young innocent scared girl, the defense would love for us to believe that...basically, what you have is a [unusual person] with no real identifiable feelings, but can't be classified as insane, killing her kid. What basically, your mass public thinks, [Mr.] Hornsby, is that the Dark Lass, was kind of concerned she wouldn't be able to meet her latest conquest and tried calling her parents to babysit as they had dutifully done so many times, but alas they would not answer, so the dark lass, given the fact that the sex and the movie rental of the nite must be had with the lad of the week, she likely duct taped her child and tossed her in the trunk...regardless of whether the pretty lass who keeps fondling herself in court could possibly understand that it matters not if she could have cared less if the child should die. I get that a Defense Attorney is supposed to defend his/her client...I get the last thing the Defense wants is stuff about the actual victim (Caylee, just in case you forget, the VICTIM is CAYLEE NOT CASEY)...still...

 

[logicalgirl]

There are no magical words that trigger the Mirdanda requirement, rather the question is whether law enforcement's conduct would cause a reasonable person to believe they were no longer free to decline law enforcement's overtures.

In this case, the handcuffing clearly suggest that Casey was no longer free to leave. But that is just one factor, Judge Perry will also look at all of the other factors in the incident.

Regardless, this is an issue that has no black-and-white answer, and ultimately will be up to Judge Perry to decide based on the totality of all of the circumstances. (Personally I agree with AZLawyer and think Perry will find Miranda was required and toss the statements.)

Also, I think most of the WebSleuthers are having a hard time believing law enforcement did anything wrong because of the self-serving way that law enforcement is trying to paint what they did and how they interpreted the situation.

For example, a lot of you got a kick out of Melich claiming ignorance when Baez asked whether he suspected Casey of a crime. His answer was disingenuous and obviously he had been prepped about how to answer such questions. Everyone knows he suspected Casey of a crime; he would have been more credible to admit that, but he was afraid that by doing so the defense might win. Unfortunately though, this could backfire on him and the State.

BUT, is there not a difference between being arrested for stealing a car and credit card theft charges and a missing child, because I am not buying your argument re what you believed was Melich's purpose.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

An arrest is not a condition precedent to Miranda warnings being required. If a person is being detained as a suspect, regardless of whether they have formally been arrested, then Miranda Warnings are required.

Ultimately though, the analysis for Judge Perry is whether he believes a reasonable person in Casey Anthony's position had a realistic belief that she could decline to cooperate with law enforcement.

In making that decision, he will look at all of the circumstances surrounding her encounter with law enforcement. Such as the handcuffing (which is important, because you cannot unarrest a person), the transportation in the back of the patrol car (as opposed to the front), etc.

Great to see you here, Richard! Pleaseeee stop by more frequent!

BBM - isn't that rather redundant, considering that's exactly what Casey did was ultimately not cooperate with LE? Repetitive lying and playing games of "CLUE" with LE about your baby daughter isn't exactly cooperating, is it? So yep, I'd say she felt plenty comfortable!

2nd BBM - Not applicable in this case as Casey didn't need to be unarrested, because she was never arrested in the first place during the handcuff episode, so where do you see that fitting in?

 

[logicalgirl]

Richard, I believe AZ's stance is that the statements at Universal will get tossed, but the earlier ones at the house will come in.

Is that the way you see it? Or are you saying you think they all will be tossed?

I am still not buying the grounds for the Universal statements to be tossed, because a person like Casey who felt free to lie to the LE investigators would not believe she was not free to leave.
Can you expand on your thoughts as to why you believe the Universal statements will be thoughts, because I have yet to see a believable argument that they should be. Did the LE not deliver her home to nap, shower, text Tony or whatever? Doesn't yet sound to me that she could consider herself to be "in custody". All IMO of course.

 

[rhornsby]

BBM...really? We get a kick out of Melich claiming ignorance? Or is it we get a kick out of Jose claiming his client lied? Because honestly, Casey is not a sweet young innocent scared girl, the defense would love for us to believe that...basically, what you have is a [unusual person] with no real identifiable feelings, but can't be classified as insane, killing her kid. What basically, your mass public thinks, [Mr.] Hornsby, is that the Dark Lass, was kind of concerned she wouldn't be able to meet her latest conquest and tried calling her parents to babysit as they had dutifully done so many times, but alas they would not answer, so the dark lass, given the fact that the sex and the movie rental of the nite must be had with the lad of the week, she likely duct taped her child and tossed her in the trunk...regardless of whether the pretty lass who keeps fondling herself in court could possibly understand that it matters not if she could have cared less if the child should die. I get that a Defense Attorney is supposed to defend his/her client...I get the last thing the Defense wants is stuff about the actual victim (Caylee, just in case you forget, the VICTIM is CAYLEE NOT CASEY)...still...

While I appreciate that you believe that witnesses should be given more credibility or leeway simply because they are on the side of the victim. I choose not to base my judgment about someone's credibility on whose side they are on.

And ultimately, this hearing is not about the victim (Caylee), this hearing is about whether specific pieces of evidence can use against Casey. So Judge Perry is not going to base his decisions on emotion or whether it is fair to the victim (as you believe he should) but instead base it on a neutral application of the law.

So when I offer my opinion about an isolated witness' testimony, I do so from an objective view point of someone who has been through hundreds of these hearings. Not as someone who just wants to feed you what you want to hear because you think it does Caylee justice.

Ultimately, the one thing that will do Caylee the most justice is to insure that only admissible evidence is admitted so that there is no issue on appeal that could cause a reversal - which is the purpose of these hearings in the first place.

 

[rhornsby]

Great to see you here, Richard! Pleaseeee stop by more frequent!

BBM - isn't that rather redundant, considering that's exactly what Casey did was ultimately not cooperate with LE? Repetitive lying and playing games of "CLUE" with LE about your baby daughter isn't exactly cooperating, is it? So yep, I'd say she felt plenty comfortable!

2nd BBM - Not applicable in this case as Casey didn't need to be unarrested, because she was never arrested in the first place during the handcuff episode, so where do you see that fitting in?

Apples and Oranges. Casey's lies are not subject to Constitutional requirements, law enforcement's actions are. That is why the focus is on whether they followed the law and are credible - not on whether Casey lied.

Au contrare monfrair - the judge decides if the handcuffing constituted an arrest (or an event that required Miranda) - not the law enforcement officer.

 

[Bittiness39]

I guess depraved indifference doesn't count? Or even "I can't lead Le to Caylee's body because of the duct tape?" or "Caylee's kidnapper called me and I spoke to Caylee and she was fine, didn't really miss anyone" or "hey let me take you to the Saw Grass or Universal (where I HAVEN'T WORKED SINCE 2006 WHEN I ABANDONED MY JOB WHILE PRETENDED I WASN'T PREGGERS)...none of this strikes a reasonably smart person as being lies...prove to me that somehow, in some way, this "innocent" person, with her cell phone foolery really has no idea what died in the back of her trunk...really? Gag reflex...also, remembering the punch from that one fraternity party, full of promise, full of stuff that was bad, basically a sum up to Casey...just a grifter...and a semi-talented one at that. I guess we should feel sorry for her...just but for the tiny cute little being that was in her way. and that she felt so sorry about she actually got a tattoo...and had a fake nanny for...and everything...oh and the whole, Casey was detained in handcuffs and yet allowed to sleep for four HOURS while her parents likely didn't sleep...so not insane...just a dumb client and an attorney who needs a win? Shocker that...

 

[rhornsby]

Richard, I believe AZ's stance is that the statements at Universal will get tossed, but the earlier ones at the house will come in.

Is that the way you see it? Or are you saying you think they all will be tossed?

It is an academic questions that I am not sure about; I have previously thought they would come in (and said so on WESH), but after reading one of AZLawyers posts changed my position.

Honestly though, I don't care to much to elaborate because we will know the answer soon enough... So why not wait:innocent:

 

[Dignity4Victims]

While I appreciate that you believe that witnesses should be given more credibility or leeway simply because they are on the side of the victim. I choose not to base my judgment about someone's credibility on whose side they are on.

And ultimately, this hearing is not about the victim (Caylee), this hearing is about whether specific pieces of evidence can use against Casey. So Judge Perry is not going to base his decisions on emotion or whether it is fair to the victim (as you believe he should) but instead base it on a neutral application of the law.

So when I offer my opinion about an isolated witness' testimony, I do so from an objective view point of someone who has been through hundreds of these hearings. Not as someone who just wants to feed you what you want to hear because you think it does Caylee justice.

Ultimately, the one thing that will do Caylee the most justice is to insure that only admissible evidence is admitted so that there is no issue on appeal that could cause a reversal - which is the purpose of these hearings in the first place.

Bottom line, what will the State really lose if this Motion is granted for the Defense? I say not much, considering the fact that most everything Casey lied about at Universal, she also lied about in her Written Statement which the State will be able to use.

Your opinion?

 

[chefmom]

Thank you for taking the time to help with our questions, Mr. Hornsby. Being from the area and knowing HHJP, how much tolerance do you think he will have for the outbursts and challenges like the ones we saw today when GA was on the stand. He had to tell him to be quiet at one point, which I thought showed him unwilling to put up with any mess. Lol. Have you seen him in action very often? How do you expect him to be come trial time? TIA!

 

[LolaMoon08]

After seeing George and Cindy Anthony in court today, after they had been released as witnesses, do you think that Judge Perry should allow them to be in the courtroom, come trial time, when other witnesses testify with the expectation that they will be called back to the stand?

I ask this because I noticed that George and Cindy made no attempt to hide their feelings about the testimony that Yuri Melich was giving. They shook their heads in protest and at one time Cindy even threw her hands in their air (in disbelief?). I would have no problem with the Anthony's being there for all the testimony if they could control this, but I don't think they can or would even try. I don't think that it would be a good thing for a jury to be distracted by this behavior or even influenced by it.

What do you think?

ETA: Trust me, this isn't just coming from my dislike for the Anthony's. I really want them to be present for every single detail, but I just don't think it is fair to the jury and those giving their testimony.

 

[beach]

I am still not buying the grounds for the Universal statements to be tossed, because a person like Casey who felt free to lie to the LE investigators would not believe she was not free to leave.
Can you expand on your thoughts as to why you believe the Universal statements will be thoughts, because I have yet to see a believable argument that they should be. Did the LE not deliver her home to nap, shower, text Tony or whatever? Doesn't yet sound to me that she could consider herself to be "in custody". All IMO of course.

Hey LG I am guessing you are asking me since you quoted my post.

LE allowed her to stay home, nap, text, etc...after the rides w/ Acevado and YM to Sawgrass and YM's conversation at home with her. They took her back to the OCSO after Universal, right? I know Yuri testified that she didn't put up a fuss about going to the sheriff's department, but still... ITA with AZ regarding the reasons Yuri did not mirandize her and don't blame him a bit. By the time they took her to Universal and she admitted she lied and didn't work there at all, I believe he thought he could get Casey to break and tell at least some truth about where Caylee was. His main focus was finding a missing 2 yr. old and I totally understand his strategy. Once he started reciting miranda warnings, she was going to clam up.

 

[logicalgirl]

It is an academic questions that I am not sure about; I have previously thought they would come in (and said so on WESH), but after reading one of AZLawyers posts changed my position.

Honestly though, I don't care to much to elaborate because we will know the answer soon enough... So why not wait:innocent:

Yes, but AZLawyer will agree she made her comments pre-hearing and she specializes in legal issues outside the state of Florida (and we love her) - so I am looking forward to HHJP's comments - hopefully tomorrow. :great:

 

[Bittiness39]

While I appreciate that you believe that witnesses should be given more credibility or leeway simply because they are on the side of the victim. I choose not to base my judgment about someone's credibility on whose side they are on.

And ultimately, this hearing is not about the victim (Caylee), this hearing is about whether specific pieces of evidence can use against Casey. So Judge Perry is not going to base his decisions on emotion or whether it is fair to the victim (as you believe he should) but instead base it on a neutral application of the law.

So when I offer my opinion about an isolated witness' testimony, I do so from an objective view point of someone who has been through hundreds of these hearings. Not as someone who just wants to feed you what you want to hear because you think it does Caylee justice.

Ultimately, the one thing that will do Caylee the most justice is to insure that only admissible evidence is admitted so that there is no issue on appeal that could cause a reversal - which is the purpose of these hearings in the first place.

BBM...(1) Testimony of any witness, is testimony of any witness, I care not whether their testimony is on behalf of the defendent or the prosecution. As it so happens, the vast majority, if really any of the actually witnesses themselves are testifying for the defense.

(2) I agree with you is that the most justice to Caylee will be to insure that there is a lot of admissible evidence.

I hope you do not think I am trying to smite you, quite the contrary. But I would ask, not that I would hope you would answer, what your defense, given what you have seen of the evidence against Casey would be? It is totally awesome that you are posting tonite...

I for one would hate, if my snarkiness, would discourage a debate...

 

[logicalgirl]

Hey LG I am guessing you are asking me since you quoted my post.

LE allowed her to stay home, nap, text, etc...after the rides w/ Acevado and YM to Sawgrass and YM's conversation at home with her. They took her back to the OCSO after Universal, right? I know Yuri testified that she didn't put up a fuss about going to the sheriff's department, but still... ITA with AZ regarding the reasons Yuri did not mirandize her and don't blame him a bit. By the time they took her to Universal and she admitted she lied and didn't work there at all, I believe he thought he could get Casey to break and tell at least some truth about where Caylee was. His main focus was finding a missing 2 yr. old and I totally understand his strategy. Once he started reciting miranda warnings, she was going to clam up.

I am asking this question seriously Beach, and thank you for answering because it was you I asked.
I think he was amazed that she could lie and lie and lie, without even breaking into a sweat.
I don't seriously think Melich thought Mirandizing her would make a difference at all. I think this was his first child (missing and/or abused) case and he was completely fascinated with her ability to tell bold cold faced lies and really wanted to see how far this was going to go, and if it did, should she be Baker acted because obviously something was very wrong with the whole process.
ICA wasn't acting shifty, she acted like she believed what she was saying and she was comfortable chatting with them and did not look like she was going to run for it. And she wasn't a risk to the LE's personal safety.

I think the clock simply timed out and he said - okay - nothing is working here - this isn't helping you so we will finally arrest you.

What did you see that indicated Melich wasn't fascinated by her lies, and actually was planning on arresting her, from the beginning?

Cause I think he was genuinely amazed by it all and thought :waitasec: WTH is going on here? Let's see where this goes, cause this is really interesting.

 

[MissJames]

Apples and Oranges. Casey's lies are not subject to Constitutional requirements, law enforcement's actions are. That is why the focus is on whether they followed the law and are credible - not on whether Casey lied.

Au contrare monfrair - the judge decides if the handcuffing constituted an arrest (or an event that required Miranda) - not the law enforcement officer.

Signing a sworn statement ,basically taking an oath that everything you have said is the truth,so help you God,does not fall into that category? So what's the point of the "sworn" part?

fftobed:

G'Nite Y'all

 

[gitana1]

While I appreciate that you believe that witnesses should be given more credibility or leeway simply because they are on the side of the victim. I choose not to base my judgment about someone's credibility on whose side they are on.

And ultimately, this hearing is not about the victim (Caylee), this hearing is about whether specific pieces of evidence can use against Casey. So Judge Perry is not going to base his decisions on emotion or whether it is fair to the victim (as you believe he should) but instead base it on a neutral application of the law.

So when I offer my opinion about an isolated witness' testimony, I do so from an objective view point of someone who has been through hundreds of these hearings. Not as someone who just wants to feed you what you want to hear because you think it does Caylee justice.

Ultimately, the one thing that will do Caylee the most justice is to insure that only admissible evidence is admitted so that there is no issue on appeal that could cause a reversal - which is the purpose of these hearings in the first place.

Thank you for your dispassionate review of the case. We may not like the answers all the time but I don't want to hear b.s.. I want to hear the actual, expert opinion of criminal law attorneys in Florida and that's what you are giving us. It helps us accurately gauge where the case is going and what our chances are, how hard the state's job will be at trial, etc.

Apples and Oranges. Casey's lies are not subject to Constitutional requirements, law enforcement's actions are. That is why the focus is on whether they followed the law and are credible - not on whether Casey lied.

Au contrare monfrair - the judge decides if the handcuffing constituted an arrest (or an event that required Miranda) - not the law enforcement officer.

I think some people are confused about what constitutes an arrest. Booking someone, taking them to jail in handcuffs is obviously an arrest. But simply detaining someone by force of law can be an arrest as well. Handcuffs are a great indicator that an arrest has taken place.

I was intrigued by your earlier statement that one cannot be un-arrested. Thus, if the court views the handcuffing as an arrest, does that mean that Miranda would have had to be read to the subject for any later statement, whether voluntarily given, signed as such, etc., to come in? That sounds like what you're saying and then it seems that none of casey's statements would come in after the handcuffing, which I think includes her written statement.

If so, what does the state's case look like? How do they explain why they went to Sawgrass or Universal or why they looked for a Zenaida Gonzales to begin with? It seems that without most of casey's statements, it will be hard to paint the picture they need to paint, in a logical, chronological manner.

I always had a problem with the universal statements. The moment I heard them, I feared they would not come in. I kept wondering when they were going to Mirandize her. Unlike some, I think the failure to do so was a mistake. It was a huge risk because if she had confessed and led them to the body, the discovery of that body as well as the associated evidence would be fruit of the poisonous tree (IIRC from law school!) and would be inadmissible if the court later ruled casey was in custody (which I think is a strong argument) at the time she confessed. So, it baffled me that they took that risk.

My prediction is that some of the statements will come in (not the Universal one). I think judges weigh how the case will be impacted when making fine line distinctions in such cases. They want to allow the case to proceed but give the defense a bone so that they cannot be accused of trampling the defendant's constitutional rights and to forestall a successful appeal. This judge will be very careful and measured. He is very intelligent and I think whatever decision he makes will hold up. He knows what he's doing.

By the way Hornsby, I agree with your assessment of part of Yuri's testimony. When I saw him dancing around the questions of what his thought process was regarding casey as a suspect, I cringed. It would be witness testimony that I would not favor if he was my witness. That's just how I see it as an attorney. Sorry! I love Yuri and think he's done a great job so far on this case, but I do think his answers and demeanor at that moment slightly damaged his credibility.

He could have avoided admitting to seeing her as a suspect in a better manner, IMO. I think he could have said something to the effect of: "Well I knew something wasn't adding up, but I had no idea if a crime had been committed or where the child was at that point. So no, I didn't deem casey a suspect at that moment because at that time, I was still gathering facts and simply trying to find the location of this child. I was not looking to solve a crime or determine who was a suspect of a possible crime or to interrogate any suspect. I didn't know if this was a domestic squabble, if someone had kidnapped this child, if a custodial parent was lawfully hiding her from other relations, or if she was alive or dead or if a crime had been committed at all and if so, what crime it could have been. None of that was on my radar at that moment. I was just trying to sort out the facts at that point and locate this little girl."

Now, would such a statement be the truth? IMO no. The moment he smelled the odor of death in the car, I think he and the other officers knew they were looking at a potential crime scene. And the moment casey started giving bizarre answers and they found she had not reported the child missing despite a month having passed, I'm sure they viewed her as a potential suspect. But, I don't care. It's all a question of strategy and walking the constitutional line while trying desperately to find a child. So, I get it and do not have a problem with it. I just think if he had testified slightly differently, he would have appeared more credible on that subject. :twocents:

 

[gitana1]

Signing a sworn statement ,basically taking an oath that everything you have said is the truth,so help you God,does not fall into that category? So what's the point of the "sworn" part?

fftobed:

G'Nite Y'all

If she was considered to have been in custody when giving the sworn statement, it would not come in unless she had been Mirandized, prior, regardless of her oath, is what I think he's saying here. It would be better if the oath included that she had been advised of her rights.