Page 43 of 108 FirstFirst ... 33 41 42 43 44 45 53 93 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 645 of 1611
  1. #631
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pinellas Park, Fl
    Posts
    439

    Grand jury question

    When they held a grand jury in this case, who was in the courtroom? Judge, jury, state attorneys office, but is the defense in there, too?


  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Joanner For This Useful Post:


  3. #632
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Joanner View Post
    When they held a grand jury in this case, who was in the courtroom? Judge, jury, state attorneys office, but is the defense in there, too?
    Where I live Grand jury isnt held in a court room its held in a private room and its the only people there is the grand jury and the SA .The proceedings are secret; it is standard practice to call witnesses to testify against the suspect without the suspect or the suspect's lawyer present. Have to remember Grand jury's arent to give verdicts on guilt or innocent they listen to evidence and decide whether charges should be brought against an individual that is, they decide whether to indict someone.
    "Please note - this is a message board, not a blog. Thank you"... Sincerely, Tricia Griffith and the Websleuths Family


  4. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to cuppy199 For This Useful Post:


  5. #633
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Joanner View Post
    When they held a grand jury in this case, who was in the courtroom? Judge, jury, state attorneys office, but is the defense in there, too?
    Quote Originally Posted by cuppy199 View Post
    Where I live Grand jury isnt held in a court room its held in a private room and its the only people there is the grand jury and the SA .The proceedings are secret; it is standard practice to call witnesses to testify against the suspect without the suspect or the suspect's lawyer present. Have to remember Grand jury's arent to give verdicts on guilt or innocent they listen to evidence and decide whether charges should be brought against an individual that is, they decide whether to indict someone.
    Thanks, cuppy! No, the defense is not present.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  6. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  7. #634
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Thanks, cuppy! No, the defense is not present.
    You do so much for us I figured sinse I have served on a Grand Jury a few times before I could help you out alittle with this one
    "Please note - this is a message board, not a blog. Thank you"... Sincerely, Tricia Griffith and the Websleuths Family


  8. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to cuppy199 For This Useful Post:


  9. #635
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,555
    Hi AZ Not sure if you will remember this or not but I'm one of those who believe all of ICA statements will come in. Just wanted your opinion on what you will think will happen now after the 3 day hearing. In or out, some or all? Thanks for any feedback or opinion.


  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to darnudes For This Useful Post:


  11. #636
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,658
    My question is - can anything be done about the absurdity of Mason calling Casey a "child" when she is a 24 year old felon? Or about implying the police were big scary meanies when there is not proof of it?

    Also - what about his other errors - I mean Mason went in front of the judge during his hour long speech - and got major facts and key points wrong...was rebutted, then repeated them...can anything be done about this? I'm concerned the jury will be bamboozled by this nonsense of repeating false info.
    Justice for GEORGE!


  12. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Horace Finklestein For This Useful Post:


  13. #637
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    209

    Moved from "will Casey testify" thread

    Hi- I asked this question in another thread and it was suggested I try here for an answer.

    "I have another question but have no idea where to ask it, so I'll try it in this thread.
    I was watching all the videos again for the hearing last week. My question is: Why does someone always sit with Casey when her attorneys are called for a sidebar? I've never seen that before. It's either the investigator or the legal assistant that gets up and sits with her- why? Can she not be left at the table by herself?

    Anyone? Thanks.
    Please move if I'm in the wrong area to ask this question. New here. "

    If any of the lawyers can answer if there is a 'legal' requirement or need for Casey to have a sitter with her at all times or is it an arrangement made by her attorneys so she doesn't feel so exposed sitting by herself????
    Strange sentence composer but hopefully know you what I mean.

    I was fascinated watching this last night. Someone jumps in a seat next to her and she clings to them as if she is grateful to have a body to smile at. It's a moment of relief for her, I think.

    Anyway-TIA


  14. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to janine For This Useful Post:


  15. #638
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,349
    Quote Originally Posted by darnudes View Post
    Hi AZ Not sure if you will remember this or not but I'm one of those who believe all of ICA statements will come in. Just wanted your opinion on what you will think will happen now after the 3 day hearing. In or out, some or all? Thanks for any feedback or opinion.
    I still think the Universal statement is likely to be kept out, but I think the statement to Yuri at the house will probably come in and the written statement at the house will almost certainly come in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horace Finklestein View Post
    My question is - can anything be done about the absurdity of Mason calling Casey a "child" when she is a 24 year old felon? Or about implying the police were big scary meanies when there is not proof of it?

    Also - what about his other errors - I mean Mason went in front of the judge during his hour long speech - and got major facts and key points wrong...was rebutted, then repeated them...can anything be done about this? I'm concerned the jury will be bamboozled by this nonsense of repeating false info.
    I don't think he was using "child" in a strictly legalistic sense of the word. There is nothing wrong with him trying to convince HHJP, or the jury, that Casey is/was a "child" in the looser sense of the word. IMO it will not work, but that's a different issue.

    Whether the police were big scary meanies is a matter of opinion and "spin." They were bigger than her, and they were angry that they were being lied to. IMO they were not "big scary meanies," but there is nothing "false" about saying this because it is a statement of opinion, not fact.

    What the SA can do about Mason getting the facts wrong is to correct him. HHJP is smart enough to figure out who is wrong. In my experience most juries will catch it as well if an attorney gives them a "fact" that is then not supported by the evidence. You only need one juror to say to the group, "Well, I know the lawyer said that, but my notes say this..."

    I don't think Mason is getting the actual undisputed facts wrong on purpose, because he must know that the SA would correct him.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94



  16. #639
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,349
    Quote Originally Posted by janine View Post
    Hi- I asked this question in another thread and it was suggested I try here for an answer.

    "I have another question but have no idea where to ask it, so I'll try it in this thread.
    I was watching all the videos again for the hearing last week. My question is: Why does someone always sit with Casey when her attorneys are called for a sidebar? I've never seen that before. It's either the investigator or the legal assistant that gets up and sits with her- why? Can she not be left at the table by herself?

    Anyone? Thanks.
    Please move if I'm in the wrong area to ask this question. New here. "

    If any of the lawyers can answer if there is a 'legal' requirement or need for Casey to have a sitter with her at all times or is it an arrangement made by her attorneys so she doesn't feel so exposed sitting by herself????
    Strange sentence composer but hopefully know you what I mean.

    I was fascinated watching this last night. Someone jumps in a seat next to her and she clings to them as if she is grateful to have a body to smile at. It's a moment of relief for her, I think.

    Anyway-TIA
    This might be a requirement if the defendant is not restrained--if anyone sees Mr. Hornsby, call him over here to let us know.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  17. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  18. #640
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    new england
    Posts
    1,503
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    This might be a requirement if the defendant is not restrained--if anyone sees Mr. Hornsby, call him over here to let us know.

    BBM: (of course, not the Mr. Hornsby!) BUT Jumping in to add anecdotal info:


    I've noticed that in ALL of the jurisdictions where I've testified: defendants described as above are "babysat" and seated in chairs WITHOUT WHEELS!
    “Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succure vitae”– Giovanni Margagni

    "This is the place where death rejoices to teach those who live."-
    Giovanni Margagni


  19. The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to joypath For This Useful Post:


  20. #641
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,671
    Because the defense neglected to test for female DNA, that could have excluded (not likely) Casey Anthony from the scene, could this be an appeals issue?

    For example, what if they did test for female DNA and they found no DNA at all. Although it wouldn't exactly exclude Casey from being the one to throw Caylee out into those woods... it would still show that there is no physical evidence (except the laundry bag, duct tape, Winnie the Pooh blanket, and the trash bags) tying Casey to the scene.

    But because they purposely neglected to test for female DNA at all... it makes it look like the defense, and the defendent herself, knew that if any DNA were found, it would be Casey Anthony and Caylee Anthony's DNA only. It gives the appearance that they had something to hide by not testing for female DNA.

    So later on, if and when Casey is found guilty, could she claim that by not testing for female DNA (ZFG) that it hurt her chances to prove her innocence?


  21. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to LolaMoon08 For This Useful Post:


  22. #642
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,349
    Quote Originally Posted by LolaMoon08 View Post
    Because the defense neglected to test for female DNA, that could have excluded (not likely) Casey Anthony from the scene, could this be an appeals issue?

    For example, what if they did test for female DNA and they found no DNA at all. Although it wouldn't exactly exclude Casey from being the one to throw Caylee out into those woods... it would still show that there is no physical evidence (except the laundry bag, duct tape, Winnie the Pooh blanket, and the trash bags) tying Casey to the scene.

    But because they purposely neglected to test for female DNA at all... it makes it look like the defense, and the defendent herself, knew that if any DNA were found, it would be Casey Anthony and Caylee Anthony's DNA only. It gives the appearance that they had something to hide by not testing for female DNA.

    So later on, if and when Casey is found guilty, could she claim that by not testing for female DNA (ZFG) that it hurt her chances to prove her innocence?
    Since this was a decision made by the defense team, I assume you're asking about a potential "ineffective assistance of counsel" argument? I would say this argument has no chance of succeeding--the defense team reasonably concluded that testing for female DNA was too risky. Strategic decisions are generally not "second guessed" by appellate courts.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94



  23. #643
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,817
    As to the DNA issue. Since the defense didn't get what they wanted, wouldn't it be a good idea NOT to present that particular expert/test results in court?

    It seems to me that if they put on a DNA expert who has nothing to support whatever theory they have, the SA could bring up that the defense didn't bother to test for female DNA.
    The greatest trespasser on justice still wishes it done to him.

    EDWARD COUNSEL, Maxims


  24. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to CarolinaMoon For This Useful Post:


  25. #644
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by janine View Post
    Anyone? Thanks.
    Please move if I'm in the wrong area to ask this question. New here. "

    Anyway-TIA
    BBM: Welcome Janine!
    The road goes on forever and the party never ends.


  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sundance For This Useful Post:


  27. #645
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Sundance View Post
    BBM: Welcome Janine!
    Thank you- Good to be here, although been reading you all since this horrible thing broke the news, I've kept in the background hangin on every word typed. I am speechless at how sharp you all are. When things don't make sense, all I have to do is come to this site and you all make is clear as glass for me!



  28. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to janine For This Useful Post:


Page 43 of 108 FirstFirst ... 33 41 42 43 44 45 53 93 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*
    By Kimster in forum Zahra Clare Baker
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 07-20-2011, 04:04 PM
  2. Replies: 458
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 02:16 PM
  3. Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1697
    Last Post: 01-14-2011, 02:17 AM
  4. Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers on the board
    By Capri in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 04:36 PM
  5. Legal Q&A Answers from VERIFIED Legal professionals only
    By JBean in forum Somer Renee Thompson
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-17-2010, 02:40 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •