Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

suepitzl

Sue in Phoenix
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
384
Reaction score
1
New docket entry:

04/25/2011 Motion
for Relatives of Victim to be Excused from the Rule of Sequestration and Memorandum of Law

IMO, The A's will not be able to keep quiet, and I am sure they will be called to the witness stand more than once. Thoughts.
 
thank you for starting this thread :)

After CA changed her story about the dryer sheets, I really hope they are kept out of the courtroom until fully released from testifying! JMO
 
That and her "yes Linda" "I was on new meds" carp. She'll be tossed in no time!
 
octobermoon said:
thank you for starting this thread :)

After CA changed her story about the dryer sheets, I really hope they are kept out of the courtroom until fully released from testifying! JMO
Click to expand...


I agree. It's scary to think what might come out of GA and CA's mouths. I think they will do anything to save ICA.
 
My first thought when I read this was, Are they now relatives of the victim "Caylee" whom Cindy claims is still alive?" "Caylee whom Cindy along with ICA will go and find once ICA is released?" :doh:
 
suepitzl said:
New docket entry:

04/25/2011 Motion
for Relatives of Victim to be Excused from the Rule of Sequestration and Memorandum of Law

IMO, The A's will not be able to keep quiet, and I am sure they will be called to the witness stand more than once. Thoughts.
Click to expand...

Good idea for a thread! Thanks..

I have just too much information about this case in my brain - hasn't HHJP addressed this somewhat already with one of the hearings? And did he not say he would decide closer to the trial? :sigh:

I wonder what would happen if the SA declares them hostile witnesses on Day II of the trial?

Aren't CA and GA allowed into the trial after they testify? Surely what they would be testifying to would be fairly early in the trial?

And I suppose they will also be testifying in the penalty phase. But aren't these two parts of the trial considered somewhat separate?

Aren't they allowed into the trial between their initial testimony and the penalty phase? Is this what the A's are worried about?

Clearly this has been on CA's mind the last couple of hearings, as she has had her head down and been for the most part fairly poker faced. Clearly someone like her lawyer has told her all her grimacing and muttering was about to get her tossed out for the trial.

What do I think? Keep them both out. We will have other diversions by then.
 
I had no idea that it was even legal to allow witnesses, including indirect wtnesses, to sit in and listen at all. This sure is news to me!
 
Oh this can't be real. These people are train wrecks. No way can this one pass. They'll be yammering every chance they get in and out of court.

I say they should have a nice special room for them to sit (apart) from each other where the least damage can be done to disrupt this trial. They've shown very little respect to the court or the process to warrant being relieved of the sequestration rule. AND NO GUM. That should be a special addition to their instructions. Here in CA, OUT of the court room if you are seen with gum.
 
It's maddening. The A's only claim "kin of the victim" when it suits them. What really have they done for caylee except work like hell to get her murderer off. I mean really? It's maddening they only want to he there to help their daughter not the victim. They could care less if caylee receives any justice.

Caylee is just a distant memory to them ....
 
2011.03.02 Motion for Relative of Victim To be Excluded from Sequestration
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7310723...e-of-Victim-To-be-Excluded-from-Sequestration

filed by Lippman
3/2/2011

March 2, 2011
Judge Perry said that the request would only address the hearing, not the trial and denied the motion based upon the following factors:
Their testimony may be colored by listening to other witnesses testifying.
He also based his decision on their testimony versus their depositions which tend to show their testimony may be colored.
Perry said that they could testify first and then be excused to listen to the other witnesses.

For the trial (not a Hearing), the Anthonys will be called by the State, and then called in the Defense portion of the trial, and possibly called again during the State's rebuttal portion, and then in the Defense Penalty Phase portion.
 
I also think they both need to be kept out for the duration of the trial, except when they are testifying. They simply can't control themselves.
 
JSR said:
It's maddening. The A's only claim "kin of the victim" when it suits them. What really have they done for caylee except work like hell to get her murderer off. I mean really? It's maddening they only want to he there to help their daughter not the victim. They could care less if caylee receives any justice.

Caylee is just a distant memory to them ....
Click to expand...

and..........$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
This premise of being the victim's family is getting old. They are family in name only. JMO!

A witness is a witness and should be required to follow the same rules as all others. Particularly in this case.

BUT -

I am somewhat torn about it. If they were allowed in after testifying as they did in the hearings I would be ok with that. I do want them to be in there. They won't help Casey in any way. The jury will be watching them as well, I would suspect. I can see them being called to the stand several times throughout the trial, but they could also go home and watch it like anyone else, so.... :dunno:

ETA: I also want them in there, to HEAR AND SEE with everyone else just exactly what the "boss" did to Caylee.
 
momtective said:
My first thought when I read this was, Are they now relatives of the victim "Caylee" whom Cindy claims is still alive?" "Caylee whom Cindy along with ICA will go and find once ICA is released?" :doh:
Click to expand...

That was my first thoughts also......
smh.. of course they seem to think that all the rules and laws should be changed and bent just for them.. its disgusting..
 
The pure disdain that George and Cindy have for the SA's is so evident. They are the clearest example of a hostile witness. One ugly outburst, or shake of a head, or better yet snide comment directed at the state should get them tossed out of the courtroom. Let 'em in......
 
JSR said:
It's maddening. The A's only claim "kin of the victim" when it suits them. What really have they done for caylee except work like hell to get her murderer off. I mean really? It's maddening they only want to he there to help their daughter not the victim. They could care less if caylee receives any justice.

Caylee is just a distant memory to them ....
Click to expand...

THANK YOU!!! :great: ONLY when it's convenient for the A's! They should be kept out (period)
MOO
 
The Anthony's should not be allowed in the court except to testify. I DO think they should hear what their daughter did. So, after they testify they should be able to see and hear the trial without being in the court room. The Anthony's should not be allowed to testify if NOT on the stand and they will try. If we're aware of this the state and Judge Perry do too. Caylee's rights need to be protected, her family hasn't and won't.

Teresq
 
Horace Finklestein said:
What victim though? I thought Caylee was still alive according to Cindy.
Click to expand...

No kidding. They can't even decide if she's dead or alive. No way should they be allowed to sit there and color each other's testimony. I don't want any witness on the stand to be subject to GA or especially CA. No, they are obviously on the side of their murderer daughter, and shouldn't get special permission. They are not special and shouldn't be treated as such. HHJP will deny this so fast CA and GA's heads will spin and they'll get whiplash.

Besides, they'll just be texting each other anyway, so they'll know what's going on. I just don't want their presence to affect this trial in anyway. They've done enough already to try and get Casey free. I don't want any drama from them at the trial. I hope the first time one of them causes a scene, they get thrown out for the whole darn trial.
 
Hmmm? Let's see now.

Legal or Appelate risk in keeping them out at least until they fully testify? NONE WHATSOEVER!

Legal or Appelate risk in allowing them to witness the full trial -
1. Alterred or tailored testimony as already demonstrated
2. Using non verbal signals and influences on other witnesses, also as already demonstrated
3. Verbal outbursts during other witness testimony, as already demonstrated
4. Potential for mistrial as a direct result of any and all of above. A highly predictable possibility.

Gee I wonder how HHJP is going to rule on this one? :waiting:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 3,932 (members: 69, guests: 3,863)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
3,863
Total visitors
3,932
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,115
Messages
17,963,464
Members
228,687
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top