2009.10.12 Defense's Motions In Limine-Preclude Murder Case Evidence, Prior Bad Acts

New Posts

Snaz said:
I can't understand how JB can say that the fraud case is completely unrelated to the murder case when KC herself told LE that she would "lie, steal, cheat", etc. to find her daughter.... and the other thing... in one of the jails videos when her parents visited her, did KC not say something to the effect that she needed that money she told in order to hunt for Caylee???? If both of these things are true, how can the defense claim the cases are not related?
Click to expand...

To convict her of the check fraud charges, the state doesn't need to bring up the murder charges at all. They have her on tape signing her name to Amy's checks. Now on the other hand, I do hope the check fraud can be brought into evidence at the murder trial for the reasons you stated above and the fact that KC stole that money and didn't use it to look for Caylee at all.
 
SoCalSleuth said:
I know exactly what happened here. They had a motion in limine from another case, a civil case in which there is a plaintiff. They used it in this case and cut and pasted to get it to fit the facts of this case, although they didn't do a good job because they left things in from the other case (supervising students). I've seen this happen a million times. Notice that the beginning of the motion refers to the "Plaintiffs" NOT the State. Yep, that's what they did allright.
Click to expand...

Back in the olden days we used to call it "boiler plating." Using one document as a stereotype so you could bubble several others out of the same format. Seems in the olden days it worked a little better. :D
 
Dear Prudence said:
To convict her of the check fraud charges, the state doesn't need to bring up the murder charges at all. They have her on tape signing her name to Amy's checks. Now on the other hand, I do hope the check fraud can be brought into evidence at the murder trial for the reasons you stated above and the fact that KC stole that money and didn't use it to look for Caylee at all.
Click to expand...

I wasn't actually suggesting that they bring up the murder charges... but shouldn't they be able to use the video when she is discussing why she needed to steal Amy's money?? At the very least??
 
Snaz said:
I can't understand how JB can say that the fraud case is completely unrelated to the murder case when KC herself told LE that she would "lie, steal, cheat", etc. to find her daughter.... and the other thing... in one of the jails videos when her parents visited her, did KC not say something to the effect that she needed that money she told in order to hunt for Caylee???? If both of these things are true, how can the defense claim the cases are not related?
Click to expand...

Good job linking that together, it's something I did not think of. She also tells her mom to tell Amy "sorry" in the video..lol. It's kind of like getting into an auto accident and jumping out saying "are you okay, I'm so sorry" it's admitting fault. KC is toast IMO.
 
I'm wondering if when they ask for a chance to respond to the prosecution's objection to these motions "in writing" is so that AL can write the response instead of JB arguing it in court because AL won't be present in court that day? Seems to me that AL doesn't have a whole lot of faith in JB's abilities.
 
SoCalSleuth said:
I know exactly what happened here. They had a motion in limine from another case, a civil case in which there is a plaintiff. They used it in this case and cut and pasted to get it to fit the facts of this case, although they didn't do a good job because they left things in from the other case (supervising students). I've seen this happen a million times. Notice that the beginning of the motion refers to the "Plaintiffs" NOT the State. Yep, that's what they did allright.
Click to expand...

In otherwords, the defense is just plain lazy! Cut and paste! Good GAWD!
 
Even with cut and paste you need to PROOF it. "Its" as a possessive does not have an apostrophe; with an apostrophe it's a contraction. I think the tip-off that JB didn't write it is that there are polysyllabic words...
 
Snaz said:
I can't understand how JB can say that the fraud case is completely unrelated to the murder case when KC herself told LE that she would "lie, steal, cheat", etc. to find her daughter.... and the other thing... in one of the jails videos when her parents visited her, did KC not say something to the effect that she needed that money she stole in order to hunt for Caylee???? If both of these things are true, how can the defense claim the cases are not related?
Click to expand...

From a legal standpoint they aren't. At least not as it pertains to the fraud case. It's a weird thing. The fraud and theft case can be used in support of the murder case. It is a lesser crime that was comitted during the time frame of the larger crime. But to do that you ned to bring the lesser to trial first.

Whereas the murder charges would be grossly predjudicial to use during the fraud trial. No jury would be able to look past that and just weigh the bad check charges. Since the person murdered was not an element of the theft and fraud then it really should not be mentioned. So making a motion about it is something a reasonable competant defense attorney would do. Of course a reasonable competant defense attorney would also proofread and correct it before submittin it to the courts and the judge.
 
ONCE AGAIN, I am left vertually speechless. (notice I said vertually)

Anyways, this motion is something akin to a JOKE. How, how, HOW could JoseBGood submit this to an actual REAL court of law???

Is he insane???

And what about AL? Her reputation is on the line here and she allows THIS?

I am totally dumbfounded.

To be honest, even I could have written this motion better. And thats bloody saying something!
 
I betcha JB and LA are doing a "Homer Moment" as we speak....."duuuuoooooohhhhhh!!!!!!!!"

I myself CONTINUE to bang my head on my desk with this mystery surrounding Caylee.....sound of head banging on desk in background....:crazy:
 
Sammiejam said:
ONCE AGAIN, I am left vertually speechless. (notice I said vertually)

Anyways, this motion is something akin to a JOKE. How, how, HOW could JoseBGood submit this to an actual REAL court of law???

Is he insane???

And what about AL? Her reputation is on the line here and she allows THIS?

I am totally dumbfounded.

To be honest, even I could have written this motion better. And thats bloody saying something!
Click to expand...

Question: alright, but would you do THIS and MUCH MORE FOR FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE???????????
 
It is a proven fact that KC is a liar. How is that hearsay? How is that not relevant to this case?

They should be talking about her "propensity" to LIE, STEAL etc. That is what she had a propensity for.

Establishing character (or a lack thereof) will be very relevant to this case.

The fact that KC lied about so many things (job, graduating, college, house for her and Amy, father of baby, miscarriage and on and on and on) will establish that it's extremely possible that she also lied about the NANNY.

Duh.
 
cecybeans said:
Even with cut and paste you need to PROOF it. "Its" as a possessive does not have an apostrophe; with an apostrophe it's a contraction. I think the tip-off that JB didn't write it is that there are polysyllabic words...
Click to expand...

cecybeans, thanks for pointing out the misuse of it's and its. Using the contraction when the possessive pronoun is required drives me nuts. I want to edit every post where I see these two switched incorrectly.
When I taught Freelance Magazine Writing at the local JCollege, I told my students to sound it out. To actually read the it's as two words: it is. If it made sense, leave the apostrophe in, if it sounded foolish take it out and make it one word: its.
Bless you for standing up for correct grammar.:dance:
 
This is one motion filed by the defense that actually makes sense. When you considered you've got footage of her cashing forged checks on Amy's account, and she (according to JB) has already paid the amount back to the bank (which is paramount to a confession), I don't believe they need to mention anything about the other non-financial crimes in this trial.

So..yeah. JB - you get this one. (The tattoo WILL be relevant and material though - hehehe.)
 
May I just follow up with - not just pleading guilty on the financial crimes is one of the more boneheaded moves this defense is making. And it's hard some times to pick the more boneheaded, btw. Taking this all the way to trial before a jury and allowing witnesses to be asked about the RELEVANT AND MATERIAL areas of:

1. her employment (or lack there of)
2. her income sources (or lack there of)
3. the other people she was stealing from (mommy, daddy, granny, papa)
4. her obligatory expenses (or lack there of - such as a nanny, car payment, housing expense) --- which leads to...
5. was she saving up for something with her non-existent income...say, maybe to buy the house from her parents?

Cindy were you and George going to move out and give the house to Casey?

6. her discretionary spending (such as drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking....that leads to...
no sign of discretionary spending toward items for say...Caylee, Caylee, Caylee, Caylee or Caylee.

They truly are "running over their own short blocks" on this one, if you ask me.
 
And Valhall, let's not forget her bonehead move with stealing from her grandmom, SP and her granddad's living expense account either.
 
tasylshari said:
Question: alright, but would you do THIS and MUCH MORE FOR FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE???????????
Click to expand...

Oh come on now...you know it's one of those... "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back" kind a things." EWE, on second thought, maybe not! :floorlaugh:
 
Could someone post the Motions in PDF or link to them? I can't open the docs. Thanks in advance!
 
I love this line! the defendant, Casey Anthony respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

1. Grant this motion in Limine and direct the prosecution not to elicit or refer to in any way information regarding Miss Anthony's OTHER pending homicide case........

I know they meant to say either 'pending homicide case' or 'other case' but it sure sounds like they are referring to more than one Homicide case. Perhaps they are thinking of all the possible Homicide charges? Am I reading this wrong or is this another example of a shoddy motion?
 
faefrost said:
From a legal standpoint they aren't. At least not as it pertains to the fraud case. It's a weird thing. The fraud and theft case can be used in support of the murder case. It is a lesser crime that was comitted during the time frame of the larger crime. But to do that you ned to bring the lesser to trial first.

Whereas the murder charges would be grossly predjudicial to use during the fraud trial. No jury would be able to look past that and just weigh the bad check charges. Since the person murdered was not an element of the theft and fraud then it really should not be mentioned. So making a motion about it is something a reasonable competant defense attorney would do. Of course a reasonable competant defense attorney would also proofread and correct it before submittin it to the courts and the judge.
Click to expand...
Can the SA use KC's grandmother as a witness to say KC stole from her?
Also, can the big goof [not supervising her students] change this motion somehow?Like "go back and start over"?
I can't wait for the response from the SA's office on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 172 more.
Total: 4,363 (members: 173, guests: 4,190)

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
4,190
Total visitors
4,363
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,462
Messages
17,969,234
Members
228,774
Latest member
truecrime-hazeleyes
Back
Top