State's Motion for Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificadum

[Aedrys]

IIRC these letters were discussed at the end of her indigency hearing held March 18th, and right after Mason made his "trust me" debut and referred to the prosecutors as "ignorants".

J Strickland ruled they were not to be released until Baez had a chance to look them over. :floorlaugh: He gave Baez 15 days to file a motion. He never did.:waitasec:

Ah, okay! So Mason never bothered to read them, then. Neither did Baez. I can so hear Mason asking Baez, "So, is this Robyin going to be trouble for our client?" :crazy:

 

[Aedrys]

So, the letters will come in! The defense will probably try to discredit Robyn with their own prisoner/witnesses... but they can't discredit Casey Anthony's own words in those letters.

Of course, if the defense wants to discredit information in the letters, they will have to show that Casey loves to tell big "whoppers" of lies.

I wouldn't be surprised if Robyn is only asked about how she and Casey came to exchange letters and introduce them into testimony.

Then, there would be nothing for the defense to cross her on. The prosecution doesn't need her to talk about what Casey told her, although it is pretty damning.

Does that make sense?

Yes. It is highly ironic and hysterically funny to me that to discredit the letters, they have to paint Casey as a huge liar. Yet, they wanted all statements about Casey being a liar thrown out. So how were they planning to discredit those letters if they got their way? She's not a liar, she's just crazy?

I think you're right about Robyn too. I just know Casey will writing so furiously during that testimony she might catch the table on fire!

 

[Numbers]

Ah, okay! So Mason never bothered to read them, then. Neither did Baez. I can so hear Mason asking Baez, "So, is this Robyin going to be trouble for our client?" :crazy:

Baez's response:

"No, Cheney. Those letters have nothing to do with Robyn. They were written to someone named 'Cookie.'"




[Or was it Muffin? Tart? Bagel? Hard to keep all the players straight......]

 

[Intermezzo]

Any Lawyers on the thread, or anyone that knows the answer...
Just wondering....
Why the request to have inmate Adams transported to Orlando for the depo? Is there no other alternative instead of transporting her from the Federal Prison in Tallahassee to the Orange County Jail?

HMMM wonder if they will place her in the cell next to Casey?

 

[Purple Iris]

Ah, okay! So Mason never bothered to read them, then. Neither did Baez. I can so hear Mason asking Baez, "So, is this Robyin going to be trouble for our client?" :crazy:

And Baez's reply, "Robyn??........Robyn?? Whatcha talking bout Batman??

 

[Purple Iris]

Any Lawyers on the thread, or anyone that knows the answer...
Just wondering....
Why the request to have inmate Adams transported to Orlando for the depo? Is there no other alternative instead of transporting her from the Federal Prison in Tallahassee to the Orange County Jail?

HMMM wonder if they will place her in the cell next to Casey?

She is to be transported to Orlando for the trial to testify if they decided to use her.

 

[Intermezzo]

She is to be transported to Orlando for the trial to testify if they decided to use her.

:doh:
thanks...I read hearing testimony and thought depo

 

[krisskross]

So, the letters will come in! The defense will probably try to discredit Robyn with their own prisoner/witnesses... but they can't discredit Casey Anthony's own words in those letters.

Of course, if the defense wants to discredit information in the letters, they will have to show that Casey loves to tell big "whoppers" of lies.

I wouldn't be surprised if Robyn is only asked about how she and Casey came to exchange letters and introduce them into testimony.

Then, there would be nothing for the defense to cross her on. The prosecution doesn't need her to talk about what Casey told her, although it is pretty damning.

Does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense. Like you, I'm confident the State won't go beyond asking Robyn to explain how she and ICA started communicating
how that was facilitated by the now sacked Sylvia Hernandez and how, she Robyn got these letters out of the jail. As we've seen recently these prosecutors know the rules of evidence and are only interested in what they can legitimatley get in. The relevancy of these letters for the guilt phase are ICA's written words about Zanny the Nanny.

"I asked Zenaida to take Caylee for a few days etc etc etc ............ :liar: :bang:

 

[jennyb]

So, the letters will come in! The defense will probably try to discredit Robyn with their own prisoner/witnesses... but they can't discredit Casey Anthony's own words in those letters.

Of course, if the defense wants to discredit information in the letters, they will have to show that Casey loves to tell big "whoppers" of lies.

I wouldn't be surprised if Robyn is only asked about how she and Casey came to exchange letters and introduce them into testimony.

Then, there would be nothing for the defense to cross her on. The prosecution doesn't need her to talk about what Casey told her, although it is pretty damning.

Does that make sense?

ITA! There won't be much of an opening to discredit Robyn. They have Sylvia, the jail guard to say she facilitated the letters being passed. They have Robyn saying she got the letters and had a back and forth correspondence, and they have the writings of the perp in black and white.

NOW this is interesting because I believe the Judge has just telegraphed his intention to let Casey's words to all the people in the defense's motion IN. That includes Mya, Robyn, Cindy, George, etc.

Judge is obviously letting Robyn's correspondence in now... so this tells me Casey's "Gimme Tony's Number!" call will be heard by the jury.

I hope the prosecutors play it right after the 911 call. Two first things they bring to the jury when the trial opens.

 

[krisskross]

ITA! There won't be much of an opening to discredit Robyn. They have Sylvia, the jail guard to say she facilitated the letters being passed. They have Robyn saying she got the letters and had a back and forth correspondence, and they have the writings of the perp in black and white.

NOW this is interesting because I believe the Judge has just telegraphed his intention to let Casey's words to all the people in the defense's motion IN. That includes Mya, Robyn, Cindy, George, etc.

Judge is obviously letting Robyn's correspondence in now... so this tells me Casey's "Gimme Tony's Number!" call will be heard by the jury.

I hope the prosecutors play it right after the 911 call. Two first things they bring to the jury when the trial opens.

Jenny, I would not be the least bit surprised if this crew hit the Judge with another sleugh of motions to exclude specific evidence. Deadlines mean nothing to them and so far J Perry has not acted on his threat about pre-trial rulings. The other thing is the lack of rulings would not give the State carte blanche to introduce certain evidence at trial. eg the jailhouse calls and tapes. The defense can still object at any time during the proceedings as to evidence where no pre-trial motion has been filed. Rules of Evidence must be applied.


So as much as I'd love the jury to hear the Gimme Tony's Number, her whining about her folks having chili and cornbread on Caylee's birthday, the code talk with Lee.......if they don't have some relevant probative value, there is no guarantee a jury will see or hear them or that they won't be heavily redacted.
:truce:

 

[NSS]

It wouldn't be the first time a criminal was called to testify in a case. And sometimes it is effective. As much as a defense attorney can tear that witness down, ultimately it comes to what they say and if it can be corroborated. Maybe this witness is just a corroboration to something else someone else might say.

That's the only thing I can think of!

Ahh, but this inmate won't be offering any testimony that the defense can cross examine. She will just be asked about the mailings between her and ICA and if they are indeed hers.

It is what ICA herself writes that is being offered up for consideration by the jury (Zanny version 3.6 ish). It will show the jury the ever changing/evolving Zanny stories, and the SA can show that the "Zanny' that ICA talks of doesn't exist.


Unless ICA takes the stand and 'explains' the various stories, they will just hang in the air as the lies that they are.

I am starting to get giddy waiting for trial to start....... is it too early to start scratching the days off????:innocent:

 

[strawberry]

Ahh, but this inmate won't be offering any testimony that the defense can cross examine. She will just be asked about the mailings between her and ICA and if they are indeed hers.

It is what ICA herself writes that is being offered up for consideration by the jury (Zanny version 3.6 ish). It will show the jury the ever changing/evolving Zanny stories, and the SA can show that the "Zanny' that ICA talks of doesn't exist.

Unless ICA takes the stand and 'explains' the various stories, they will just hang in the air as the lies that they are.

I am starting to get giddy waiting for trial to start....... is it too early to start scratching the days off????:innocent:

That's right! She did come out with a new whopper, didn't she? What did she say, the babysitter was watching her while she got ready to move and when she went for Caylee they were gone?:waitasec:

 

[strawberry]

Ahh, but this inmate won't be offering any testimony that the defense can cross examine. She will just be asked about the mailings between her and ICA and if they are indeed hers.

It is what ICA herself writes that is being offered up for consideration by the jury (Zanny version 3.6 ish). It will show the jury the ever changing/evolving Zanny stories, and the SA can show that the "Zanny' that ICA talks of doesn't exist.


Unless ICA takes the stand and 'explains' the various stories, they will just hang in the air as the lies that they are.

I am starting to get giddy waiting for trial to start....... is it too early to start scratching the days off????:innocent:

No need...just use KaRN's ticker!!!!

 

[LolaMoon08]

Jenny, I would not be the least bit surprised if this crew hit the Judge with another sleugh of motions to exclude specific evidence. Deadlines mean nothing to them and so far J Perry has not acted on his threat about pre-trial rulings. The other thing is the lack of rulings would not give the State carte blanche to introduce certain evidence at trial. eg the jailhouse calls and tapes. The defense can still object at any time during the proceedings as to evidence where no pre-trial motion has been filed. Rules of Evidence must be applied.


So as much as I'd love the jury to hear the Gimme Tony's Number, her whining about her folks having chili and cornbread on Caylee's birthday, the code talk with Lee.......if they don't have some relevant probative value, there is no guarantee a jury will see or hear them or that they won't be heavily redacted.
:truce:

Okay, the phone call HAS to come in! I don't really care too much about the jailhouse visits, even though it would be nice for the jury to see how Cindy walked Casey through some things... like the big threat to their family. But the phone call is HUGE!

Who could forget these little diddy's...

"All they care about is getting Caylee back. That's all they want... and that's all I want" - not verbatim

"Oh wow (well?). Oh. My. God. Calling you guys a waste... a huge waste" - again not vebatim.

Oh and how she just had to talk to Tony....

"Becauseeee... he'sssss.... myyyyyyy... boyyyy-friend and I haven't gotten a chance to talk to him today." - again not verbatim.

This shows her concern for not being able to talk to her boyfriend, in what?, 12 hours... yet she showed no concern, almost showing complete contempt for anyone concerned about Caylee, who has not been heard from or seen in 31 days.

That call HAS to come in. Right?

 

[krisskross]

Okay, the phone call HAS to come in! I don't really care too much about the jailhouse visits, even though it would be nice for the jury to see how Cindy walked Casey through some things... like the big threat to their family. But the phone call is HUGE!

Who could forget these little diddy's...

"All they care about is getting Caylee back. That's all they want... and that's all I want" - not verbatim

"Oh wow (well?). Oh. My. God. Calling you guys a waste... a huge waste" - again not vebatim.

Oh and how she just had to talk to Tony....

"Becauseeee... he'sssss.... myyyyyyy... boyyyy-friend and I haven't gotten a chance to talk to him today." - again not verbatim.

This shows her concern for not being able to talk to her boyfriend, in what?, 12 hours... yet she showed no concern, almost showing complete contempt for anyone concerned about Caylee, who has not been heard from or seen in 31 days.

That call HAS to come in. Right?

I think that's one for AZ . The rules generally mean, evidence has to be relevant probative and not outweighed by its predudicial value. Well the predudicial value here is huge., particularly her apparent dis-interest in her child, her statement, "they just want Caylee back" and her general tone.

Now I'm with you, here she shows absolutely no concern for her alledged missing child, its obvious she is extremely pissed about her mother's tv appearance and her only interest is speaking to a boyfriend who she had already spoken with for more than 2 hours that very morning. But is that enough to meet the "not outweighed by its predudicial value". On the other hand when being quizzed by Christina, she is still claiming Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez took Caylee. I have no idea how Perry would rule on this call. Im guessing he would only allow a redacted version to be heard.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Okay, the phone call HAS to come in! I don't really care too much about the jailhouse visits, even though it would be nice for the jury to see how Cindy walked Casey through some things... like the big threat to their family. But the phone call is HUGE!

Who could forget these little diddy's...

"All they care about is getting Caylee back. That's all they want... and that's all I want" - not verbatim

"Oh wow (well?). Oh. My. God. Calling you guys a waste... a huge waste" - again not vebatim.

Oh and how she just had to talk to Tony....

"Becauseeee... he'sssss.... myyyyyyy... boyyyy-friend and I haven't gotten a chance to talk to him today." - again not verbatim.

This shows her concern for not being able to talk to her boyfriend, in what?, 12 hours... yet she showed no concern, almost showing complete contempt for anyone concerned about Caylee, who has not been heard from or seen in 31 days.

That call HAS to come in. Right?

I'm not a lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn before....:crazy:

BUT when I used to watch Nancy Grace....they debated over and over again whether this phone call would come in and it was always split (of course) between the defense people and the prosecutor people. Nancy said it went to "state of mind" IIRC and would most likely come in, but that the State would have to fight hard for it.

OF COURSE: Not that NG is the be all, end all.

 

[AZlawyer]

I think that's one for AZ . The rules generally mean, evidence has to be relevant probative and not outweighed by its predudicial value. Well the predudicial value here is huge., particularly her apparent dis-interest in her child, her statement, "they just want Caylee back" and her general tone.

Now I'm with you, here she shows absolutely no concern for her alledged missing child, its obvious she is extremely pissed about her mother's tv appearance and her only interest is speaking to a boyfriend who she had already spoken with for more than 2 hours that very morning. But is that enough to meet the "not outweighed by its predudicial value". On the other hand when being quizzed by Christina, she is still claiming Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez took Caylee. I have no idea how Perry would rule on this call. Im guessing he would only allow a redacted version to be heard.

BEAR IN MIND, as HHJP would say , that the only kind of bad prejudice is "UNFAIR" prejudice. Evidence that makes you look like you don't care about your daughter, which is introduced to show that you don't care about your daughter...well, that's FAIR prejudice lol.

 

[Intermezzo]

Are there any Motions filed by the Defense in regards to the Jailhouse letters or Robyn Adams that would require a Hearing?
Found it....
Motion to Suppress Statements Made to George, Cindy, Lee Anthony, Maya D, Robyn Adams and Sylvia Hernandez.
The Defense say that they all were acting as Agents of the State

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331430/detail.html


I ask because of what WESH (Bob Kealing video) reported tonight on the news, he said she will be brought to Orlando to give testimony at a hearing, they don't know which hearing nor the date of the hearing...which is slightly different than was it currently written in their articles which still say she will be transported for trial..
WESH doesn't have it up yet but the Orlando Sentinel does

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...tvguy+(TV+Guy)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

***WESH and WFTV-Channel 9 reported that Robyn Adams, Anthony’s pen pal at the Orange County Jail, will be moved from a penitentiary in Tallahassee to testify at a hearing here. Perry didn’t specify a date when Adams, a convicted drug dealer, will testify, Kealing reported. “Casey allegedly told Adams that she gave Caylee chloroform and that she did not want to be a mom,” WFTV anchor Martie Salt said.

 

[Itsy]

I love the side by side mug shots. In the letters it was obvious that Robyn was devasated being away from her kids. In this pic, ICA could care less that her kid is "missing".

I thought the same thing, SB - Robyn is crying in her mug shot & Casey just looks....creepy. She's got those flat, emotionless eyes like a shark that so many murderers seem to have. No emotion whatsoever. No outrage in her interviews that they had the wrong person, no crying over Caylee being "missing," no screaming for them to go find Zanny/Caylee - NOTHING!!!

 

[RR0004]

I thought the same thing, SB - Robyn is crying in her mug shot & Casey just looks....creepy. She's got those flat, emotionless eyes like a shark that so many murderers seem to have. No emotion whatsoever. No outrage in her interviews that they had the wrong person, no crying over Caylee being "missing," no screaming for them to go find Zanny/Caylee - NOTHING!!!

...but let's remember (CA aside), RA was convicted of being a drug dealer...where were thoughts of her kids then?