Casey Anthony TRIAL thread #2

[Conservative Hippie]

Ok, so State will wrap up tomorrow, and defense will start on Thursday? Good, because I'm not going to be able to watch Thursday or Saturday, so at least I'll get one day of the Bozo Show.

 

[jeanadave]

What did the State ask to see that Mason said he would get to them by tomorrow morning? I didn't quite understand what they were saying, but LDB said that they had given the defense "theirs"??? 2 days prior?

 

[Aisling]

Did you all hear Judge P advising the defense to take a look at case # whatever from another murder trial where that one of the defense focus was on the calm demeanor of the defendant, so the jury wouldn't be influenced by the defendant not showing emotion. Judge Perry said it would be good for the defense's edification.

=Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.

I hope I explained it clearly. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

[Mosoh]

I love Judge Perry!! He just cracks me up. I would love to know what he really thinks about Casey's defense attorneys .

Me too.
Judge Perry Says twitter

"So that was my ruling and I apologize for not making it clearer early on." to JB

 

[horseshowmom]

What did the State ask to see that Mason said he would get to them by tomorrow morning? I didn't quite understand what they were saying, but LDB said that they had given the defense "theirs"??? 2 days prior?

Not sure, but I think it was the dictionary page giving the definition for Bella Vida.

 

[Feralpeg]

Did you all hear Judge P advising the defense to take a look at case # whatever from another murder trial where that one of the defense focus was on the calm demeanor of the defendant, so the jury wouldn't be influenced by the defendant not showing emotion. Judge Perry said it would be good for the defense's edification.

=Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.

I hope I explained it clearly. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

According to a judge on the local news, there have been multiple cases in Florida where it has been ruled that the demeanor of a person on trial cannot be used against them in that all people react differently to different situations. That would mean that the majority of the witnesses first presented by the prosecution would be a problem. This could be grounds for a mistrial. Although, Perry has been doing everything possible to avoid a mistrial. I'm not sure he would point out anything that would help the defense in that direction.

 

[jeanadave]

Not sure, but I think it was the dictionary page giving the definition for Bella Vida.

Well, considering who has to locate it, I can certainly see how that could take overnight Psst to Cheney and Baez: No need to try to find it page by page, just look in the "B" section of the dictionary

 

[CurlyGirl]

Well, considering who has to locate it, I can certainly see how that could take overnight Psst to Cheney and Baez: No need to try to find it page by page, just look in the "B" section of the dictionary

And I hope someone reminds him to use an Italian-to-English dictionary. Otherwise, he'll be at it forever!

 

[woodkins]

According to a judge on the local news, there have been multiple cases in Florida where it has been ruled that the demeanor of a person on trial cannot be used against them in that all people react differently to different situations. That would mean that the majority of the witnesses first presented by the prosecution would be a problem. This could be grounds for a mistrial. Although, Perry has been doing everything possible to avoid a mistrial. I'm not sure he would point out anything that would help the defense in that direction.

Maybe I am a bit slow today, but I don't understand how this is grounds for a mistrial. If I am understanding what you are saying is that if a defendant has a reaction/emotion to a witness during a trial then they can automatically receive a mistrial? Or is it that the prosections is asking witnesses how the defendant acted during the time in which the crime was committed? If it is the latter I still don't think they will get a mistrial as the witnesses testified as to what Casey was doing, where she was going, what she was saying about Caylee etc. It was testimony as to her actions and lies which are all a part of the alleged cover up.

 

[Feralpeg]

Maybe I am a bit slow today, but I don't understand how this is grounds for a mistrial. If I am understanding what you are saying is that if a defendant has a reaction/emotion to a witness during a trial then they can automatically receive a mistrial? Or is it that the prosections is asking witnesses how the defendant acted during the time in which the crime was committed? If it is the latter I still don't think they will get a mistrial as the witnesses testified as to what Casey was doing, where she was going, what she was saying about Caylee etc. It was testimony as to her actions and lies which are all a part of the alleged cover up.

No. The state brought in witness after witness to show that Casey did not seem distressed after Caylee's death. They showed pictures of her partying. Based on other case rulings, that kind of thing is inadmissible because no one reacts the same to loss.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

No. The state brought in witness after witness to show that Casey did not seem distressed after Caylee's death. They showed pictures of her partying. Based on other case rulings, that kind of thing is inadmissible because no one reacts the same to loss.

Oh my...so in your opinion is a mistrial for this reason likely?

 

[Kurby]

ya that's right. normal people show some kind of emotion when their child, mother, father, sibling, friend, hell even dog dies.

psychopaths or sociopaths feel nothing and show nothing.

 

[woodkins]

No. The state brought in witness after witness to show that Casey did not seem distressed after Caylee's death. They showed pictures of her partying. Based on other case rulings, that kind of thing is inadmissible because no one reacts the same to loss.

But one can argue that her partying is an action, not a demeanor.

 

[Feralpeg]

Oh my...so in your opinion is a mistrial for this reason likely?

I have no idea. The judge stated that there are several things the defense could take to a higher court. It is pretty obvious that JP will not grant a mistrial short of a juror doing something really stupid.

The other thing that could be used to appeal to a higher court for a mistrial is the presentation that was shown with Casey and Caylee where Caylee's image faded to her skull with the duct tape. Having Casey smiling in the picture where this took place could be considered highly prejudicial. As the judge put it, "Why not judge put horns on Casey in the picture?"

No idea what will happen. Just reporting what has been said.

 

[Aisling]

According to a judge on the local news, there have been multiple cases in Florida where it has been ruled that the demeanor of a person on trial cannot be used against them in that all people react differently to different situations. That would mean that the majority of the witnesses first presented by the prosecution would be a problem. This could be grounds for a mistrial. Although, Perry has been doing everything possible to avoid a mistrial. I'm not sure he would point out anything that would help the defense in that direction.

Judge Perry quoted a case # and referred to it for the edification of the defense team, and I believe he actually said "I advise you" when telling them to take a look at how that other defense team handled the "calm" demeanor of their client with regards to the jury. I have no idea of the laws of Florida, but I heard Judge Perry say it. I'll try to find the actual quote from one of the reporters I follow on Twitter.

 

[Dee77]

Jayne Weintraub (who I CAN'T STAND) is on HLN Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell show and actually said that the tattoo is a form of commemorating her daughters' life. She then went on to say that the trial will end in a mistrial because it is obvious that the jury has talked about the trial and evidence amongst themselves since they asked to see the heart shaped sticker evidence again. Where was it mentioned that the jury asked to see evidence as a collective group or possibly just one of them????

 

[Aisling]

Feralpeg, I'm still looking, but this is what caused Judge Perry to mention the other trial and the defendants demeanor:

Tweet by one of the reporters:

DiDimond Diane Dimond
Depo for #caseyanthony grief expert (def witness) to take place Sat afternoon. wonder if he/she will say dancing & drinking is normal grief?


Judge Perry and the defense were speaking about the "grief expert" the defense was going to bring in as a witness. He then brought up a specific previous murder case, said the case didn't specifically deal with "grief" but did deal with the calm demeanor of the defendant and told Baez's team they should look it over for their edification.

I know the video is out there somewhere. I'll find it!

 

[plutotek]

Personally, I think all the talking heads on both sides of the fence keep making their predictions because that's what they're paid to do, regardless of whether their opinions are based in fact. I don't think enough has occurred to warrant a mistrial or dismissal of charges, but we'll see. Yes, a judge is supposed to be impartial, but the ineptitude of the defense to this point has been enough to drive anyone to drink.

 

[Aisling]

According to a judge on the local news, there have been multiple cases in Florida where it has been ruled that the demeanor of a person on trial cannot be used against them in that all people react differently to different situations. That would mean that the majority of the witnesses first presented by the prosecution would be a problem. This could be grounds for a mistrial. Although, Perry has been doing everything possible to avoid a mistrial. I'm not sure he would point out anything that would help the defense in that direction.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28237780/index.html

Forward to 30:20. I FOUND IT! I knew I wasn't imagining things! It's the video of Judge Perry telling Baez to bone up on his explaining Casey's calm demeanor and using another case as precedent. Phew!

This as nothing to do with dismissing the case, only Judge Perry giving Baez a heads up.

 

[Aisling]

Personally, I think all the talking heads on both sides of the fence keep making their predictions because that's what they're paid to do, regardless of whether their opinions are based in fact. I don't think enough has occurred to warrant a mistrial or dismissal of charges, but we'll see. Yes, a judge is supposed to be impartial, but the ineptitude of the defense to this point has been enough to drive anyone to drink.

And to give them advice! Look at the video link I posted. I couldnt believe it when Judge Perry said this.