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

Muzikman

ROCKIN!
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,032
Reaction score
-1,725
Website
stores.ebay.com
More motions filed today by the defense for the Fraud Trial. Notice Baez forgetting more dates and sigs. He sure knows how to pay attention to detail! :)

Defendant's Motion In Limine To Preclude The Introduction Of Any Evidence Relating To Miss Anthony's Murder Case (Includes Table Of Exhibits and Memorandum Of Law in Support, 15 pages)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=13098974


Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Alleged Prior Bad Acts (Includes Table Of Exhibits, Memorandum Of Law in Support, 13 pages)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=13099942


I'm sure somebody will ask this question... What is "Motion In Limine"?
Answer:
A motion made before a trial begins, asking the court to decide whether particular evidence will be admissible. A motion in limine is most often made to exclude evidence by a party who believes that evidence would prejudice the jury against him or her. For example, a defendant in a criminal trial might make a motion in limine to exclude evidence of previous crimes.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/motion-in-limine-term.html

.
 
Heck, while the defense is at it, why not just proclaim her the Virgin Queen of "Truthiness"..........
 
AL isn't too good at dating stuff either...lack of attention to detail must be catchy!
 
Thanks for posting this, and I'm glad it's at docstoc because sometimes PDFs cause my laptop to freeze.

I understand that some parts of the murder may not be relevant to the fraud trial, but shouldn't the judge decide what's relevant if and when any of the murder evidence is presented at the fraud trial?
 
How are they going to do this if KC "allegedly" committed the crime that she is standing trial for (the forged checks), after the commission of murdering her daughter? It's like not mentioning the "pink elephant" in the room!:confused:
 
I'm confused what does this mean?

Page 2, Paragraph 1 -Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Alleged Prior Bad Acts

"The only purpose of evidence of these, and potentially other, alleged prior bad acts of Miss Anthony is to attempt to show Ms. Anthony had the propensity to not properly supervise it's students"

WHAT?????????? Is this a joke or am I missing something?
 
I'm confused what does this mean?

Page 2, Paragraph 1 -Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Alleged Prior Bad Acts

"The only purpose of evidence of these, and potentially other, alleged prior bad acts of Miss Anthony is to attempt to show Ms. Anthony had the propensity to not properly supervise it's students"

WHAT?????????? Is this a joke or am I missing something?

Good gracious, we were reading at the same time and came to the same conclusion. WHAT?????? the heck is JB attempting to say ............ then I thought, hummmm propensity is such a big word for JB to use. Does he NOT know what the word means????
 
Good gracious, we were reading at the same time and came to the same conclusion. WHAT?????? the heck is JB attempting to say ............ then I thought, hummmm propensity is such a big word for JB to use. Does he NOT know what the word means????

Here I was thinking he got confused which case he was defending and meant to put " propensity to not properly supervise HER daughter"..lol that is just my opinion of course:waitasec:
 
Here I was thinking he got confused which case he was defending and meant to put " propensity to not properly supervise HER daughter"..lol that is just my opinion of course:waitasec:

Again, we were thinking the same thing, lol. Reading the COV I had to check to see if I was reading about the murder trial. The man definitely needs not only to use spellchecker but to proof read again, and again the specific motion he is rambling on. Ugh ..........
 
Maybe it was Andrea Lyons that said "propensity to not properly supervise it's students"! LOL LOL Hmm.....she IS the professor right?
 
Well heck, maybe ALyons wrote in her retainer with KC that she was paid by the written word where JB is being paid by the "mileage" of exposure in the media.
 
I'm confused what does this mean?

Page 2, Paragraph 1 -Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Alleged Prior Bad Acts

"The only purpose of evidence of these, and potentially other, alleged prior bad acts of Miss Anthony is to attempt to show Ms. Anthony had the propensity to not properly supervise it's students"

WHAT?????????? Is this a joke or am I missing something?

Forget first year law students. This hot mess looks like first week law students could have written better. I really would love to know who is funding this mockery of the justice system and it's grade Z defense team.

Actually, let them continue on this route....it'll GUARANTEE KC will get the DP!
 
All I can say is how embarassing is that? It's not a word spelled incorrectly, it's an incoherent sentence...OUCH.
 
Well heck, maybe ALyons wrote in her retainer with KC that she was paid by the written word where JB is being paid by the "mileage" of exposure in the media.

OMG...I almost posted the same thought earlier. Paid by the word....would explain quite a bit.
 
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.
 
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.


That's my guess, too!
 
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.

I am so embarrassed for them and I don't even like them, but still that is sooooo embarrassing.
 
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.

Either that or they have software that places certain legal terminology together, based on what they have typed previously. Either way it makes them look nothing less than stupid LOL.
 
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?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
1,132
Total visitors
1,303

Forum statistics

Threads
589,940
Messages
17,927,989
Members
228,009
Latest member
chrsrb10
Back
Top