Evidence

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

manatee

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
1,698
Reaction score
-1
How much of all of these audio and video tapes from the "A's" and KC will be admissible in court? What evidence will be deemed inadmissible?
Anyone care to educate us on how that may play out?
I'm concerned that much of all of this will not be heard by the jury after the lawyers get done arguing... :confused:
 
And please educate me on the consequences of JB carrying letters/cards between KC and the parents (please?).

I know in my facility (and we're non-secure) it's a big NO-NO!
 
They may be admissible, just depends. Could be argued as hearsay (out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement) BUT there are exceptions to that ... statement against interest, etc., etc.

I'm thinking they could be used against GA, CA and Lee but not likely against KC, although mostly what GA, CA and Lee do in these tapes is question her and make general statements about things that don't really pertain to the case against KC.
 
manatee said:
How much of all of these audio and video tapes from the "A's" and KC will be admissible in court? What evidence will be deemed inadmissible?
Anyone care to educate us on how that may play out?
I'm concerned that much of all of this will not be heard by the jury after the lawyers get done arguing... :confused:
Click to expand...

According to the lawyers on TV it is all admissible.
 
It's admissible if relevant. Not all will be considered relevant.
 
bobodedoo said:
They may be admissible, just depends. Could be argued as hearsay (out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement) BUT there are exceptions to that ... statement against interest, etc., etc.

I'm thinking they could be used against GA, CA and Lee but not likely against KC, although mostly what GA, CA and Lee do in these tapes is question her and make general statements about things that don't really pertain to the case against KC.
Click to expand...

The tapes would be offered as circumstantial evidence of a laundrey list of items relative to Casey, such as her efforts to assist in locating Caylee, her lack of distress, etc.
Since offering them as evidence in this manner does not assume the truth of the matter therein,
that will negate the hearsay argument.
Statements against her own interest, abound. That will negate the hearsay argument as well.
In short(because we could create a forum dedicated to hearsay exclusions and arguments):

Once the tapes are properly authenticated by the prosecution (and they will be) I see no legal basis to exclude them at trial.

As always, just my humble opinion.:)
 
Yeah, even the defense lawyers on NG last night didn't argue with the admissability of the jail house videos. Like BetsyB said, if anything relevent to the case was discussed in these videos it's admissable in court.

I think these videos explain why no one in Team Anthony has visited with KC this time around. JB knows how damning these videos could be and he doesn't want any more added to his pile. Instead, they are getting information back-and-forth by "other means" (imo).
 
And quite frankly, if there were any clever tricks or maneuvers to keep even a portion of these otherwise admissable tapes out of evidence, I wouldn't share that here with JB anyway. :wink: Who would?
This is not a reflection on my previous post in this thread, by which I still stand. It's just a little addendum.
 
bobodedoo said:
They may be admissible, just depends. Could be argued as hearsay (out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement) BUT there are exceptions to that ... statement against interest, etc., etc.

I'm thinking they could be used against GA, CA and Lee but not likely against KC, although mostly what GA, CA and Lee do in these tapes is question her and make general statements about things that don't really pertain to the case against KC.
Click to expand...


There was a judge/lawyer on the Today show this morning - she said that all these released tapes, videos, audios, documents, etc are ALL admissable

She said that can argue evasivness in Casey's answers, the myraid of strange emotions, etc. The defense can argue that emotions that are out of wack for someone that is mentally challenged, etc.

So yes everything is admissable
 
TURBOTHINK said:
According to the lawyers on TV it is all admissible.
Click to expand...


Exactly, this isn't a lie detector test.

Now whether JB tries to argue for it not to be included is his doing.

When you get arrested they say this:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?


The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:
“ ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her. "


KC is in custody still so whatever she says to anyone (except her lawyer) can be used against her.
 
I guess my biggest question is about the GA & CA FBI videos? Will those be ruled hearsay? It is not KC talking...
 
manatee said:
I guess my biggest question is about the GA & CA FBI videos? Will those be ruled hearsay? It is not KC talking...
Click to expand...


This would come into play if CA & GA were called to the stand. More along the lines of credibility or characteristic witness.

ETA: It's not hearsay. It was a recorded interview. If it weren't on video and not with the FBI then that would be hearsay.
 
Could they be used to impeach their testimony?

Because that would be AWESOME!

Same question on media interviews.
 
angelmom said:
Could they be used to impeach their testimony?

Because that would be AWESOME!

Same question on media interviews.
Click to expand...


I don't know about impeached but I know that what they have done so far with media and LE interviews has made it to where they will hurt the defense and be great for the prosecution.
 
<<Will those be ruled hearsay?>>

I don't think so. I don't think it's hearsay for a witness to take the stand and describe what a defendant said to them, did or didn't do. I think hearsay would be more like if a witness took the stand and said they had heard the defendant said this or that.
 
trac said:
There was a judge/lawyer on the Today show this morning - she said that all these released tapes, videos, audios, documents, etc are ALL admissable

She said that can argue evasivness in Casey's answers, the myraid of strange emotions, etc. The defense can argue that emotions that are out of wack for someone that is mentally challenged, etc.

So yes everything is admissable
Click to expand...

I'm not an Attorney, but.....

The only videos I'm concerned about being inadmissable are the shopping videos. Baez will argue the shopping videos have nothing to do with Caylee's disappearance and will only serve to prejudice the Jury against his client.
 
Coley said:
This would come into play if CA & GA were called to the stand. More along the lines of credibility or characteristic witness.
Click to expand...

yeah but they are prosecution witnesses...so then the prosecution would call them on the stand to discredit them? I'm confused at what point they would play the tapes. Is it to ask them a question based on the tapes? :confused:
 
<<Baez will argue the shopping videos have nothing to do with Caylee's disappearance and will only serve to prejudice the Jury against his client>>

Good observation and I'd bet you're right.
 
manatee said:
yeah but they are defense witnesses...so the prosecution would call them on the stand to discredit them? I'm confused at what point they would play the tapes. Is it to ask them a question based on the tapes? :confused:
Click to expand...


No as of right now. They are only the prosecutions witness'. There are only 3 named witness' from the defense and they are the ones reviewing evidence.
 
magnolia said:
I'm not an Attorney, but.....

The only videos I'm concerned about being inadmissable are the shopping videos. Baez will argue the shopping videos have nothing to do with Caylee's disappearance and will only serve to prejudice the Jury against his client.
Click to expand...

yes, that's right! those are going to be troublesome as well. the prosecution would have to prove that they go to show mentat state or something to that effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 67 more.
Total: 3,735 (members: 68, guests: 3,667)

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
3,667
Total visitors
3,735
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,661
Messages
17,957,201
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top