Defense Motion to Add New Witnesses

New Posts

S

SoCalSleuth

Verified Expert
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
381
The DT filed a motion to add new witnesses today.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27360053/detail.html

Apparently, the motion is filed in response to the SA asking the DT to show cause why these additional witnesses should be allowed post the deadline for the same.

As far as the two new experts (Danziger and Weitz) the motion only states that they just finished their work and they have opinions to rebut "recent court rulings" which go to ICA's state of mind and consciousness of guilt. Neither has written a report yet.

I'm not sure this reason is going to fly with JP so close to trial. My question would be, when were they hired, when did they do the initial work upon which their new opinions were based, and why didn't they formulate these opinions sooner.
 
SoCalSleuth - I did not immediately see you had started this thread, thank you!

Bringing my last post over from the Defense Strategy Thread....

Well we are sort of both correct. I looked up the motion from the Defense to add additional witnesses for good cause and here is the lineup.

- Daniel Kodos
- Sharon Cadieux
- Patricia Young
- Kenneth Levers
- Dr. William Weitz
- Dr. Jeffrey Danziger

So, are we placing bets as to who is going to make it in and if those reports actually made it to HHJP in time? :great:
 
When were they hired would be interesting to find out.

What recent court rulings have anything to do with KCs state of mind and consciousness of guilt? Taking LE to Universal Studios? Are they still plugging away at the 'in custody' thing?
 
SoCalSleuth said:
The DT filed a motion to add new witnesses today.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27360053/detail.html

Apparently, the motion is filed in response to the SA asking the DT to show cause why these additional witnesses should be allowed post the deadline for the same.

As far as the two new experts (Danziger and Weitz) the motion only states that they just finished their work and they have opinions to rebut "recent court rulings" which go to ICA's state of mind and consciousness of guilt. Neither has written a report yet.

I'm not sure this reason is going to fly with JP so close to trial. My question would be, when were they hired, when did they do the initial work upon which their new opinions were based, and why didn't they formulate these opinions sooner.
Click to expand...

They have not completed reports? Didn't AF state to the court that JA would have the reports by yesterday at the latest? Also these witnesses are listed as not being to provide evidence or testimony, but to rebut a prior ruling of the court. WTH? Are they trying to re-argue a motion via a psych back door now?

I can see maybe the landscape guy and the TES person. But there is nothing here that really goes to show cause as to why the others should be allowed so late. Maybe if they are penalty phase only?
 
This is the US Supreme Court case on the issue: Taylor v. Illinois, 485 U.S. 983, 108 S.Ct. 1283.
 
miimaa said:
When were they hired would be interesting to find out.

What recent court rulings have anything to do with KCs state of mind and consciousness of guilt? Taking LE to Universal Studios? Are they still plugging away at the 'in custody' thing?
Click to expand...

The only rulings where this was raised were the motions to suppress. JP stated that the evidence was relevant because it showed her state of mind and went to the issue of consciousness of guilt (paraphrasing), iirc. If so, why didn't they bring a motion to reconsider and ask for this testimony to be heard at the hearing? Sounds more like a defense ambush to me.
 
Madjgnlaw has just updated the Todays News Thread:

Casey Anthony's defense team attacks reliability of two state witnesses
Hearings March 31. April 1. & April 2.
"Snip"
By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel

3:13 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2011

Casey Anthony's defense team today filed new motions attacking the reliability of two important prosecution witnesses that the state wants to testify about science-related matters in the upcoming murder trial.

First, the defense filed a motion attacking "the unreliability of expert opinion testimony" of Dr. David Hall, a forensic botanist for the prosecution.

The defense also filed an amended motion regarding another state witness, FBI fiber examiner Karen Korsberg Lowe.

On Friday April 1. , a second round of hearings on scientific issues in the case is scheduled to resume.

Hearing set for 10 a.m. March 31. over whether to allow new defense witnesses.

Two witnesses are Dr. Jeffrey Danziger and William Weitz, Ph.D. The defense wants both "to rebut recent rulings related to the defendant's state of mind and consciousness of guilt."

Other late witnesses include Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis; Daniel Kondos, a supervisor responsible for maintaining landscape on Suburban Drive, near where Caylee's remains were found; Patricia Young, a Texas EquuSearch member "found to have material testimony necessary for the defendant; and Sharon Cadieux, another "necessary witness to the defendant."

Read More here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,2945455.story
 
faefrost said:
They have not completed reports? Didn't AF state to the court that JA would have the reports by yesterday at the latest? Also these witnesses are listed as not being to provide evidence or testimony, but to rebut a prior ruling of the court. WTH? Are they trying to re-argue a motion via a psych back door now?

I can see maybe the landscape guy and the TES person. But there is nothing here that really goes to show cause as to why the others should be allowed so late. Maybe if they are penalty phase only?
Click to expand...

AF did say JA would have the reports before today. My guess is they don't want the opinions in writing if they lose the motion, this way they can use Plan B defense theory. That said, in order to rule on this the court has to weigh or balance certain factors--one of which is the necessity of the testimony to the defense and the credibility of that testimony--how are they going to meet that factor if we only have the attorneys telling the court what they think the good doctors are going to testify to? Very sloppy-but I think it's intentional sloppiness on the part of the DT.
 
faefrost said:
They have not completed reports? Didn't AF state to the court that JA would have the reports by yesterday at the latest? Also these witnesses are listed as not being to provide evidence or testimony, but to rebut a prior ruling of the court. WTH? Are they trying to re-argue a motion via a psych back door now?

I can see maybe the landscape guy and the TES person. But there is nothing here that really goes to show cause as to why the others should be allowed so late. Maybe if they are penalty phase only?
Click to expand...

But Ms. Young clearly state in the video the night of the incident with GA that they had arrived late to search and the search had been called off because of conditions. She did not search but showed up at the A's to harass them. She even has a sign in front of her. In the video she claims to have been there to help CA and GA. So if she is identified as a TES search member it is misleading the judge to believe she searched in that area, I would think?????? I would not want to play any more games with the Judge. The other woman was also one of the protesters that evening. jmo
 
Respectfully snipped

logicalgirl said:
- Daniel Kodos
- Sharon Cadieux
- Patricia Young
- Kenneth Levers
- Dr. William Weitz
- Dr. Jeffrey Danziger
Click to expand...

Can someone give me the run-down on each of these individuals? I'm thinking Dr. Jeffrey Danziger is a Psychiatrist...but I have no idea who the others are. TIA
 
SoCalSleuth said:
AF did say JA would have the reports before today. My guess is they don't want the opinions in writing if they lose the motion, this way they can use Plan B defense theory. That said, in order to rule on this the court has to weigh or balance certain factors--one of which is the necessity of the testimony to the defense and the credibility of that testimony--how are they going to meet that factor if we only have the attorneys telling the court what they think the good doctors are going to testify to? Very sloppy-but I think it's intentional sloppiness on the part of the DT.
Click to expand...

But that means that they once again lied to the court. I honestly do not think that AF did that intentionally in front of the judge. But this motion comes from CM? and in it CM is claiming that no reports exist, which is clearly contradictory to what AF said in court.

This once again begs the question, is the defense paying attention to what the other members of the defense team are doing and saying? Are they even all checking the filings that are attributed to them all?
 
Does this go back to Baez's priceless comment "they don't write reports"? I just cant see the judge letting them in at this late hour -- but could be wrong.

After all, the defense has had since 2008 to get their ducks in a row.

Sitting on hands until the ruling comes through!

Mel
 
faefrost said:
But that means that they once again lied to the court. I honestly do not think that AF did that intentionally in front of the judge. But this motion comes from CM? and in it CM is claiming that no reports exist, which is clearly contradictory to what AF said in court.

This once again begs the question, is the defense paying attention to what the other members of the defense team are doing and saying? Are they even all checking the filings that are attributed to them all?
Click to expand...

Just because AF said that she would have the reports by today doesn't mean she lied to the court. Perhaps she thought the reports would be done by today and was wrong?
 
It is officially less than 6 weeks (by a day) until jury selection is to start in this case. There is no reason why these witnesses do not have a report written and readily available. Ann Finnell stated that she could get the reports to Jeff Ashton by Friday morning. She stated in open court that she just learned of their findings that Saturday prior to the hearings last week.

Now they don't have reports according to Cheney Mason? This is not going to go over well with Judge Perry. There is no reason whatsoever to go about this in this fashion other than to say that they are trying to ambush the State.

I also would like to know when they were retained as witnesses? I just hope Judge Perry denies their request to add them this late. Simple as that!
 
SoCalSleuth said:
Just because AF said that she would have the reports by today doesn't mean she lied to the court. Perhaps she thought the reports would be done by today and was wrong?
Click to expand...

She stated in court, to Judge Perry, that she had found out these doctors findings the Saturday prior to these hearings last week. She told Jeff she could have the reports for him the next morning (that would be last Friday) but even if it did take longer than Friday to get the reports to JA... these doctors had over a week to write these reports up. Someone is lying. It is either Ann Finnell or Cheney Mason. My bets would be on Cheney Mason, but Ann Finnell may get the blame because she stated in open court that the reports would be sent the next morning. It was Jeff Ashton who gave her until Monday morning or Tuesday morning and Ann Finnell stated she didn't think that much time was neccessary. (ETA: in so many words).
 
miimaa said:
When were they hired would be interesting to find out.

What recent court rulings have anything to do with KCs state of mind and consciousness of guilt? Taking LE to Universal Studios? Are they still plugging away at the 'in custody' thing?
Click to expand...

Bold mine.

HHJP's recent order in letting in the words of KC to LE, parents, etc. in for trial, had the above bolded words in his order. Could this have something to do with finding other reasons to keep KC's words out of trial, since the motion before was denied?
 
I don't think this was filed today. I read this a few days ago.:twocents:
 
logicalgirl said:
Madjgnlaw has just updated the Todays News Thread:

Casey Anthony's defense team attacks reliability of two state witnesses
Hearings March 31. April 1. & April 2.
"Snip"
By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel

3:13 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2011

Casey Anthony's defense team today filed new motions attacking the reliability of two important prosecution witnesses that the state wants to testify about science-related matters in the upcoming murder trial.

First, the defense filed a motion attacking "the unreliability of expert opinion testimony" of Dr. David Hall, a forensic botanist for the prosecution.

The defense also filed an amended motion regarding another state witness, FBI fiber examiner Karen Korsberg Lowe.

On Friday April 1. , a second round of hearings on scientific issues in the case is scheduled to resume.

Hearing set for 10 a.m. March 31. over whether to allow new defense witnesses.

Two witnesses are Dr. Jeffrey Danziger and William Weitz, Ph.D. The defense wants both "to rebut recent rulings related to the defendant's state of mind and consciousness of guilt."

Other late witnesses include Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis; Daniel Kondos, a supervisor responsible for maintaining landscape on Suburban Drive, near where Caylee's remains were found; Patricia Young, a Texas EquuSearch member "found to have material testimony necessary for the defendant; and Sharon Cadieux, another "necessary witness to the defendant."

Read More here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,2945455.story
Click to expand...

Bold mine.

Bold one: For crying out loud!!:banghead::banghead: JB just doesn't learn, does he! They really want that stuff out!

Bold two: Well, at least by Thursday, we may have some hints as to where this is going...wanna bet Jose calls for a bunch of "side-bars" and wanna bet what HHJP's answers will be? LOL!
 
Why is there an assitant state attorney to be added? What is that about? The other people I can see, okay, not see, but understand why the defense wants them on there, but why add Kenneth Lewis as a witness? I've never even heard his name mentioned in this case before this motion.

In any event, it's going to be fun to see the defense argue for these witnesses on Friday.
 
mitzi said:
Bold mine.

HHJP's recent order in letting in the words of KC to LE, parents, etc. in for trial, had the above bolded words in his order. Could this have something to do with finding other reasons to keep KC's words out of trial, since the motion before was denied?
Click to expand...

But HHJP denied a new hearing on that. I don't see how adding witnesses they can't use for that would help them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 2,298 (members: 169, guests: 2,129)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
2,129
Total visitors
2,298
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,164
Messages
17,964,444
Members
228,708
Latest member
Marlenewatches
Back
Top