Casey Anthony TRIAL THREAD #1

[joviroxx]

So the Anthony's lawyer Mark Lippman filed a motion that will be dealt with Tuesday at 8:30. Atty Richard Hornsby who has been following this trial since the beginning weighs in... I would post it but its long so here is the link:

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

Beginning:

I think the motion is one the state probably should have filed, which is a motion in limine to prohibit the defense team from insinuating George molested Casey in questioning until such time as someone has actually testified to it (i.e. Casey Anthony).

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

That's very interesting too. Casey is certainly an odd one so who knows. I'm assuming they have already done tests on the ink. If this is still in evidence (anybody know?), they have it there for a reason.

Did you see my post after that? It appears the diary wasn't even produced or available for sale until 2004.

 

[Dee77]

Here's an article from 2009 about the diary and other evidence found...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/19/national/main4812435.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4812435

A blurb from that article: This is going to sound far-fetched, but in the name of brainstorming...Casey seems to enjoy a bit of cat and mouse games. Perhaps she wrote that on June 21 '08, in a way like some killers keep a souvenir, but dated it '03.

I completely agree that she seems to enjoy cat and mouse games.

It is interesting that the diary references a boy from 2003 but couldn't be purchased until 2004 and may have entries up until 2008, plus if she carried it around with her, where was it confiscated for forensic use, her purse, home car etc. That's a lot of cat or is she the mouse??? I can't tell anymore.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I completely agree that she seems to enjoy cat and mouse games.

It is interesting that the diary references a boy from 2003 but couldn't be purchased until 2004 and may have entries up until 2008, plus if she carried it around with her, where was it confiscated for forensic use, her purse, home car etc. That's a lot of cat or is she the mouse??? I can't tell anymore.

LOL Me neither!

I think it was found in her parents' home, but I'm not sure. I'll try to find out.

Joviroxx, that link yo posted about a motion by the Anthony's lawyer...I did want to add this part of it here:

Speaking of Baez’s Scandalous Allegations

The general rule is that a defense attorney [any attorney actually] enjoys “absolute immunity [from law suit] in any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding.” Delmonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

In this case, Jose Baez’s scandalous allegations were made in arguing a defense of his client and would therefore be considered rationally related to the proceeding. As such, he is entitled to absolute immunity for the allegations he made against George, no matter how damaging they are.

With that said, if it could be proven that he actually fabricated the allegations, he would likely be disciplined by the Florida Bar.

Additionally, while George could not pursue Baez if Baez was just restating what a witness told him, he could nonetheless sue the person who made the statement to Baez.

In this case, it would likely be Casey Anthony who would be the person making the defamatory statements, so George would most likely not pursue the matter.

Ggggrrrrrrr...

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So the Anthony's lawyer Mark Lippman filed a motion that will be dealt with Tuesday at 8:30. Atty Richard Hornsby who has been following this trial since the beginning weighs in... I would post it but its long so here is the link:

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

Beginning:

Oh gosh--- I hope that is successful!

They already questioned George and he denied it.

It isn't fair to continue the accusations until THEY produce some evidence for it. They can't do it until it is their turn. So please, no more cross examinations with meritless accusations.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

It is interesting that the diary references a boy from 2003 but couldn't be purchased until 2004

From part of an article I quoted upthread:

Transfer writing (imprints of writing) from other pages of the diary mentioned a person named Kenneth that Casey had dated in 2003.

So, I think those pages are missing. And it doesn't mention WHAT was said about Kenneth and when in 2003 she dated him. End of the year? Is she still talking about him in 2004? Ran into him? And when in 2004 the diary became available?

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Just back from our cruise aboard the Dream and trying to get caught up on everything that happened last week. So...this is the first I've heard of "Zanny the nanny" possibly being code for Xanax (xanny). This completely blows my mind...She has talked about a boyfriend who "introduced" her to Zanny, so maybe introduced her to Xanax in general or introduced the idea of drugging the child? Or maybe she came up with that on her own. George said Caylee would tell him she was going to see Zanny. That Casey would tell Caylee they were going to see Zanny and then drug her....really, the amount of evil that takes blows me away.

 

[LisaR]

Oh gosh--- I hope that is successful!

They already questioned George and he denied it.

It isn't fair to continue the accusations until THEY produce some evidence for it. They can't do it until it is their turn. So please, no more cross examinations with meritless accusations.

This is what has me confused. Maybe there is some evidence down the road but I am guessing there isn't. Can a defense attorney really say anything they want?

I just got done reading a book about innocent people being sentenced to death. In one of the cases, it certainly looks like the husband was the person who committed the crime instead of the guy on trial. I am 99.9% sure that if the defense attorney came out spouting all the FACTS that pointed toward the husband, he would have been stopped in his track. The husband wasn't on trial! Yet, Biaz is allowed to continually put that seed of doubt into the juries head without a shred of evidence.

 

[joviroxx]

Oh gosh--- I hope that is successful!

They already questioned George and he denied it.

It isn't fair to continue the accusations until THEY produce some evidence for it. They can't do it until it is their turn. So please, no more cross examinations with meritless accusations.

Ok, so a little further reading, looks like the state already filed it and it was granted. SO, in order for Baez to bring this up in court, Casey would have to proffer testimony otherwise its hearsay.

So either Casey testifys or Baez has no collaborating witnesses. Since opening statements aren't evidence , the jury is instructed as such. Going to be interesting to see how this is handled by Bozo.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is what has me confused. Maybe there is some evidence down the road but I am guessing there isn't. Can a defense attorney really say anything they want?

I just got done reading a book about innocent people being sentenced to death. In one of the cases, it certainly looks like the husband was the person who committed the crime instead of the guy on trial. I am 99.9% sure that if the defense attorney came out spouting all the FACTS that pointed toward the husband, he would have been stopped in his track. The husband wasn't on trial! Yet, Biaz is allowed to continually put that seed of doubt into the juries head without a shred of evidence.

I think it may be an issue.

They proffered (sp?) Tony Lazzaro about a big secret. Baez expected Tony to reveal that Casey had confided the sexual abuse to him. As it turns out, she didn't. Tony said the secret was that dad "hit" her and he took it (as she explained it) that it was merely disciplinary and that Lee tried to feel her up once but 'did not succeed'.

I think that was to be the way Baez was going to weave this all in via Prosecution's witness list.

Of course, after the proffer, we don't hear another blip about it with a jury present.

I think they can allude to whatever they want in their open....

I do think that prosecution objects and gets sustained on some issues--but I think they want to the questions to stop, period.

Additionally,I think they did get a motion granted to have more questions proffered before asking in front of a jury (hence the tony proffering moment)...but I don't recall the content of that motion and what it covered.

 

[Belle0101]

Just throwing this out and wondering what anyone has heard or read about it ...

I caught an interview with Geraldo tonight. He's been in the courtroom at least one of the days. When asked how he thought the trial and resulting verdict might go he replied, I'm paraphrasing, that he thought it would ultimately end up getting tossed because Casey was never properly Mirandized.

I hadn't heard that before. It would seem to me that it would have been argued already or else how could they even be in court? Unless, maybe it will come up later, again, as grounds for a new trial?

Anyhow, just wondering because I hadn't heard that mentioned before.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Just throwing this out and wondering what anyone has heard or read about it ...

I caught an interview with Geraldo tonight. He's been in the courtroom at least one of the days. When asked how he thought the trial and resulting verdict might go he replied, I'm paraphrasing, that he thought it would ultimately end up getting tossed because Casey was never properly Mirandized.

I hadn't heard that before. It would seem to me that it would have been argued already or else how could they even be in court? Unless, maybe it will come up later, again, as grounds for a new trial?

Anyhow, just wondering because I hadn't heard that mentioned before.

That came up in recent months and does have me concerned.

HOWEVER---and this is a big HOWEVER....

There apparently are many situations where reading of Miranda rights is not required.

She wasn't initially arrested for a murder--she was arrested for false statements she provided in a missing child investigation, IIRC.

http://www.huliq.com/10473/casey-anthony-miranda-rights-question-key-evidence-may-be-thrown-out

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-07/...alez-law-enforcement-murder-trial?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/march/213726/

I am not sure I agree with Geraldo.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm

Prosecution is going with this:

Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?

A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given.

 

[MariDisney]

I apologize if this has been mentioned, but I just don't have time to search the thread. Are they working on Memorial Day? Will it be streamed online as usual?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I apologize if this has been mentioned, but I just don't have time to search the thread. Are they working on Memorial Day? Will it be streamed online as usual?

Thanks in advance!

Nope.

It is a day off.

 

[ols386]

Just back from our cruise aboard the Dream and trying to get caught up on everything that happened last week. So...this is the first I've heard of "Zanny the nanny" possibly being code for Xanax (xanny). This completely blows my mind...She has talked about a boyfriend who "introduced" her to Zanny, so maybe introduced her to Xanax in general or introduced the idea of drugging the child? Or maybe she came up with that on her own. George said Caylee would tell him she was going to see Zanny. That Casey would tell Caylee they were going to see Zanny and then drug her....really, the amount of evil that takes blows me away.

I remember in the very beginning when they were talking about Zanny the nanny. Did Cindy and George believe that there was actually a nanny? How could Casey possibly have had enough money to pay for a nanny. I also thought that I had heard that Cindy and George had never met the so-called nanny???

I always just figured that Zanny the nanny was just something that Casey made-up, amongst all of her other lies.

 

[Dee77]

Just throwing this out and wondering what anyone has heard or read about it ...

I caught an interview with Geraldo tonight. He's been in the courtroom at least one of the days. When asked how he thought the trial and resulting verdict might go he replied, I'm paraphrasing, that he thought it would ultimately end up getting tossed because Casey was never properly Mirandized.
I hadn't heard that before. It would seem to me that it would have been argued already or else how could they even be in court? Unless, maybe it will come up later, again, as grounds for a new trial?

Anyhow, just wondering because I hadn't heard that mentioned before.

I had not heard that before at all. Her initial contact with police was in reference to her missing child. Maybe he is talking about something not being admissible in the trial because she wasn't mirandized at that time that brought about evidence "fruit of the poisonous tree" so to speak.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I had not heard that before at all. Her initial contact with police was in reference to her missing child. Maybe he is talking about something not being admissible in the trial because she wasn't mirandized at that time that brought about evidence "fruit of the poisonous tree" so to speak.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

She was placed in cuffs at that time, but I don't think she had been arrested. In fact, she was out the following morning, hence all her text messages to Tony.

At this point, they are looking at technicalities that will serve to weaken the prosecutions case.

But she willfully went to the police station to make a statement regarding her missing child. At that time, the police did not mirandize (sp?) her since she was not a suspect in the case.

I think that is the state's position on that matter.

While Jose raises a valid point, I don't think it helps his client much.

 

[Seahunt]

Also where was the diary found, I was thinking that it was in the house which is odd if she never returned after the 16th of June.

Casey did return to the house She was bailed out by a bounty hunter (Leonard Padilla) on August 21, 2008 and then rearrested on August 29, 2008 - who knows what evidence she could have removed or changed in that time

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I remember in the very beginning when they were talking about Zanny the nanny. Did Cindy and George believe that there was actually a nanny? How could Casey possibly have had enough money to pay for a nanny. I also thought that I had heard that Cindy and George had never met the so-called nanny???

I always just figured that Zanny the nanny was just something that Casey made-up, amongst all of her other lies.

Yes, Cindy and George believed there was a Zani the Nanny. Cindy stated on the stand that they were still looking for Zani up until 6 weeks ago (which is also when the defense implied they were pointing the finger at George).

They thought Casey had a job and could pay for a nanny. And we really don't know what is meant by "nanny" (just a babysitter?) and how much she was allegedly being used (a day here and there?). I also think that Casey may have said that she and her friend (the guy who didn't actually HAVE a child) were sharing costs?

No, they never met Zani (of course). Cindy said on the stand that Casey was a grown woman, and that they wanted her to let them know when she was going to be out since she was living with them, but that she was a grown woman with a child and her own life. The fact that they never insisted that they meet Zani wasn't odd to me. Casey gave a good cover story (she was a friend of a friend), and again, Casey wasn't some 15 year old with a baby where parents would be more in charge of overseeing everything.

 

[Mlissa88]

Just throwing this out and wondering what anyone has heard or read about it ...

I caught an interview with Geraldo tonight. He's been in the courtroom at least one of the days. When asked how he thought the trial and resulting verdict might go he replied, I'm paraphrasing, that he thought it would ultimately end up getting tossed because Casey was never properly Mirandized.

I hadn't heard that before. It would seem to me that it would have been argued already or else how could they even be in court? Unless, maybe it will come up later, again, as grounds for a new trial?

Anyhow, just wondering because I hadn't heard that mentioned before.

I'm hoping Geraldo is wrong and it will be another of his "Al Capone's Vault" type mistakes