Trial Concerns and Worries

[gmt]

For me the smell test and tin can. SA you don't need it. Remember OJ and the glove, it took too many people to find a jury, what if you make them ill doing this?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

For those of you who still have the heebie-jeebies ... maybe the following article will give some relief (even though this is from Brevard County).

I found this at wftv while I was waiting for the live-feed to come back on.


snipped from : http://www.wftv.com/news/27950622/detail.html


Brevard Woman Sentenced To Death For Killing Housekeeper

Posted: 10:48 am EDT May 19, 2011
Updated: 12:49 pm EDT May 19, 2011

BREVARD COUNTY, Fla. -- A Brevard County woman will become the oldest woman on Florida's death row. Margaret Allen was convicted of torturing and killing her housekeeper, Wenda Wright, when she thought she stole money from her purse. Allen stared straight forward and looked as cold as ice as her death sentence was handed down on Thursday.

 

[Ssejors]

Can someone please clear up for me the question of juror #1319? Why did juror 1319 give you the heebie jeebies?

 

[lacohiba]

In the DP phase, there will be nobody crying for justice for Caylee - only George and Cindy, as next of kin, who obviously won't even accept that Casey was found guilty at all (after all, Caylee is still out there somewhere, isn't she?)

 

[affinity]

Today one of the potential jurors referred to Caylee a couple times as "the baby". It really startled me because most others referred to Caylee as "the child". Baby is such a wonderful word...but the potential juror said something like "I think I heard the baby was found in the woods". The words broke MY heart (and of course, I never had the pleasure of meeting Caylee) but Casey's face registered NOTHING. ZIP. NADA ..(except maybe a little anger). That, my friends, produces a pure heebie jeebie.

 

[jon_burrows]

Juror 1316 gives me the heebie-jeebies. I'm afraid she is not in a position to understand the evidence and she has a problem judging people. (Doesn't think it should be done...) I'm very disappointed the pros couldn't get rid if her, it doesn't seem quite fair to me, but I"m not a lawyer so don't understand the process but I thought any juror could be dismissed for no cause using their 10 strikes.

ITA. I think LDB was right when she said this woman will hang the jury. She said repeatedly she could not judge another person for religious reasons. That is one thing you don't mess with...a person's religious beliefs. They are much stronger than instructions given by a judge because they are answering to a higher power in their mind. I think it was a huge mistake by not letting her go. The entire point of jury duty is to listen to testimony then judge the defendant.

IMO

 

[GolferChick]

I agree Jon...I'm shocked she wasn't dismissed. It only takes one. The other thing I pray for is that the SA doesn't allow the defense to lead them down rabbit holes...there have been so many bizarre things happen since ICA was arrested, but the core of this case is 31 days, smell of decomp in her car, and the duct tape. I believe the SA must pound this home to the jury; keep them focused. The DT will try to distract and discredit. My prayer continues to be that whatever jury is seated, that they have basic reasoning ability that will allow them to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I think if the SA shows pictures of Caylee's skull (it makes me sad to even type that), I really believe that is going to be powerful; it may even enrage some jurors.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

The jury in general gives me the heebie jeebies. It was the death penalty atty I worked for who convinced me that regardless of the effort you put into voir dire, there is no accounting for how jurors perceive the evidence presented or unknown biases they possess, and of course, no matter how careful both sides are there is the stealth juror.

Although I understand why some posters are concerned about the SA being less personable during voir dire (I see it as being highly professional but bordering on insensitive) once the SA puts on their case their no-nonsense personas are going to be very appropriate. They are serious about their case and to me it is reflected in voir dire, although it can rub the PT the wrong way as stated.

I took the trivia quiz to see if I knew the evidence, but its not so much about evidence as it is about, well, trivia.......66%

Your experience with the DP attorney worries me.

I have been worried about that during voir dire, but you make an excellent point about how their personality could really work for them during the trial. I hope you're right.

The closer we get to trial the more anxious I get. Its up and down with me. I appreciate the reassurance I'm getting here from some.

I can be a very objective person. I just don't jump to quilt. Even if I have a very emotional reaction I am able to step back and take things apart piece by piece, look at things from different points of view, and really challenge what I think I know.

It also leaves me vulnerable at times to having a good understanding of how different people can come to different conclusions based on their perception. That seems to be contributing to my trial heebie jeebies.

 

[websurfer]

I read it was a Jeep truck?
Now I lost the location where I read that and the color?
If it is green
she had use of it while he was in NY for a week so surely DNA was done on Amy & His auto?
Hee jeebies about connecting all the cars autos she had been driving for one reason or another.....
plus why did AMY'S car have to be repaired? She was in a accident right? When was this?
She was looking for a new car? When was this?

All autos she drove were seen someplace?
where were they seen and when?
She did a lot of things we probably will never find out she did.And I stick by my theory that she stalked ZFG at Disneyland that is why she started
putting her into her mix for an alibi.

 

[websurfer]

Your experience with the DP attorney worries me.

I have been worried about that during voir dire, but you make an excellent point about how their personality could really work for them during the trial. I hope you're right.

The closer we get to trial the more anxious I get. Its up and down with me. I appreciate the reassurance I'm getting here from some.

I can be a very objective person. I just don't jump to quilt. Even if I have a very emotional reaction I am able to step back and take things apart piece by piece, look at things from different points of view, and really challenge what I think I know.

It also leaves me vulnerable at times to having a good understanding of how different people can come to different conclusions based on their perception. That seems to be contributing to my trial heebie jeebies.

:dj: while some were joking, and some were serious....
it really made me think ah oh....:sick:

 

[kssgdby]

I am horrified that one or both of the parents are going to do something to create a mistrial. My only hope is that they are put in the balcone and that a court deputy is staged on top of them. I just don't think they can stop themselves from nodding, making facial expressions or even outbursts.

 

[momshrink]

After seeing how JP handled the outburst during jury selection, we know that no outburst will be tolerated and there will be no opportunity for a mistrail.

 

[niaa]

DT Opening Statement - that causes me the most concern. Everything will be explained.
I wonder how they can stray from the Nanny story.

If you try to bring reasonable doubt by pointing the finger at GA, then you have to explain how GA had the opportunity. GA had access to the duct tape and bags and probably had access to the car. But when did he have the opportunity to be alone with Caylee. Did she leave Caylee with him and then was scared to tell CA? Of course GA would lie about this and say he say them leaving. Seems too far fetched to me.

Was there an accident and she was too scared to tell anyone ? Still have to explain the duct tape and searches on the computer. Seems like there are too many problems with this approach.

I can only guess that the DT will stick to the story, she dropped CA off with ZFG and she has no idea what happened. She was just too scared to tell anyone. She doesn't know why her car smelled, it didn't smell when she dropped it off at AMSCOT, Tony never smelled anything, GA didn't smell anything, must have happened after she dropped it off. Maybe ZFG had a key to the car as well as a key to the house, went to the house, got the duct tape, bags and then planted some remains in the car. At least one juror would have to believe that someone else killed her, had access to the duct tape and bags and had opportunity. The juror would also have to believe that someone else planted evidence in the car. Seems like an awful lot to have to believe could happen. It has to be reasonable doubt, not just a doubt. I do think this is what will be presented on Tuesday.

We will see on Tuesday !

 

[Quiche]

Can there be objections to elements in an opening statement?

 

[AbbieNormal]

BBM: :sick:

I am concerned by the age thing, that the defense feels certain concessions should be made for someone that is 22 versus, say, 40.

I know a lot of people, including the majority of the Supreme Court, feel that age makes a difference. But I was one of the 6 million terrorized by the DC snipers, and I was upset when the decision effected Lee Malvo's fate-I think he should've gone down with John Mohammed. After all, Malvo did not seem to care that the boy he shot in the back was only 13 years old, walking into his middle school in Maryland. He was "grown" enough to shoplift guns and to evade the feds for a time as an illegal.

Fortunately, the jury will get to consider Caylee's age as an aggravating factor.

I too was one of the 6 million. They were caught at a rest stop right here where I live. Just down from where my in-laws live.

When ever I heard them ask PJ's if they could consider someones age at the type of the crime as a mitigating factor, all I could think of was "Yes, if the
defendant was TWELVE YEARS OLD!" Casey was an adult when she committed this crime, why in the world would we consider HER age, FGS?

 

[Just Jayla]

I too was one of the 6 million. They were caught at a rest stop right here where I live. Just down from where my in-laws live.

When ever I heard them ask PJ's if they could consider someones age at the type of the crime as a mitigating factor, all I could think of was "Yes, if the
defendant was TWELVE YEARS OLD!" Casey was an adult when she committed this crime, why in the world would we consider HER age, FGS?

Exactly! If the defendant was 12, it would make a big difference to me, too-But when you are able to enlist and to register to vote at 17 (even though you cannot actually serve or vote unless you are 18 by the time the time rolls around)...then certainly 22 years old qualifies as grown.
This is a girl that had a good grasp of the English language, was able to understand nuances and sarcasm (see her tinypic downloads), was able to weave a web of lies not just about the murder, but with her friends, money, etc. She knows how a bank works, she moved around her mom's funds, created a fake deposit slip, stole using a routing number and account number...she created fake e-mail addresses and content and used e-mail forwarding to clean up behind herself...She knew the smell of death and that she should blame it on a tree rat (squirrel)... I could go on and on about how this chick knew enough about the grown-up world to attempt several different scams-A lot of what I mentioned above was probably NOT known by Lee Boyd Malvo, yet he was convicted of first degree murder and absolutely would have received the DP (MOO) if the Supreme Court had not "grandfathered" him into their decision.
There is nothing youthful and innocent about the way she lived her life and should she be found guilty of murder 1, there is no mitigation in her age.

 

[JSR]

Can there be objections to elements in an opening statement?

Yes there can

 

[Blaise]

BBM: :sick:

I am concerned by the age thing, that the defense feels certain concessions should be made for someone that is 22 versus, say, 40.

All the state needs to say is that by the age of 22, some have completed their second tour of Afghanistan . . .

Blaise

 

[affinity]

Even though a nation watched and considered the "mountain of evidence" (quoting Marcia Clark) ...OJ walked! <----(a small concern). But Casey Anthony hasn't won the Heisman Trophy and I have faith in Linda Drane Burdick & Jeff Ashton.

 

[panthera]

I missed #10 and #12. Got 86%

I simply cannot wait to see how many objections are made during opening statements! Baez will be reprimanded by HHJP I will just bet you.

It would be great if LDB does the opening statement for the Prosecution. Has anyone heard if she definately will?

The closing argument for the Prosecution will be powerful, and this is what the jury will hear last. I hope the deliberations begin with those words ringing in their ears!

JMO

BBM

And with the video of Caylee singing........

MOO