Did you attend today's hearing?
Last edited by JBean; 12-11-2009 at 09:02 PM.
YOU PEOPLE ATE CHILI WITHOUT MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Some observers said that Mrs. Anthony passed a note to KC in court today (through Baez, I think.) Is that allowed?
Her killer prepared some substance in advance that would render physically unable to resist, administered the substance, awaited its effect and then methodically applied three pieces of duct tape to completely cut off the flow of air through her mouth or her nose and let nature take its course...
Why didn't Jeff Ashton name the substance prepared and administered to Caylee by the killer?
Today, Andrea L asked the court to approve the destruction / taping over of jail video taken during her clients visitations. I can only anticipate that LKB, JB, and AL, will argue for bench notes from FBI labs, experts etc...They will then argue against any evidence or testimony that can not be "backed up" with said bench notes. We know this is coming because LKB has already requested the Procedures and Policies and made specific mention of bench notes. Is it possible that Andrea's request for destruction of public records could hurt any argument the defense has relating to bench notes, as she seems to have advocated for records destruction that would benefit her client? Seems you can't have it both ways. Additionally, she didn't ask for destruction of tapes only after the SA, LE, and defense team had evaluated them. She only mentioned the jail personnel ruling out security issues. THoughts??
I am very confused about the first motion heard this morning concerning Dominic Casey. Can you explain in layman's terms the difference between a deposition and an investigative hearing?
It is my understanding that Baez cannot attend an investigative hearing (if SA serves subpoena), but if Baez places DC on the defense witness list, he will be able to attend??
I am not sure I understand how either scenario will play out?
However, while a defendant cannot compel a "potential" witness to talk to them, the state can. So if the state knows of a "potential" witness, and that witness does not want to voluntarily cooperate, the state can issue an "investigative" subpoena.
If the witness appears pursuant to the investigative subpoena, but knows nothing; the state is not required to list the person as a potential witness. However, if they end up knowing something, then they are required to list the person as a potential witness.
At this point under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, the defense is then entitled to question the witness. If the person does not want to "voluntarily cooperate" with the defense, then the defense can subpoena the person for deposition. Because a deposition by definition is an interview by compulsion of court order (subpoena). However, the State has the right to attend the deposition - whereas the defense did not for the investigative subpoena.
On the flip side, if a defendant lists a witness, the State can issue a deposition subpoena, but not an investigative subpoena. The logic being that if the state could subpoena witnesses listed by the defense without the defense present, the State could threaten or intimidate the witness into changing their story - thus the right for the defense to be present.
So if Baez wanted to guaranty his right to be present, he would only need to list DC as a potential witness.
Last edited by rhornsby; 12-11-2009 at 11:00 PM.
aafromaa, Angel Who Cares, autumnlover, BeanE, cecybeans, cyberborg, Dear Prudence, Eidetic, Gma Kat, Harmony2, Intermezzo, jandkmom, JBean, Jolynna, kaRN, La.Sandy, LadyL, lisalei321, Marigold, milliac, Misty_Pie, mitzi, MysticOne, nssherlock, sarah7855, Searchfortruth, Spitfire4ever, TakeNote, tasylshari, The World According, WholeLottaRosie, Woe.be.gone, zoomom
Did you have time to view any of the clips from today's hearing as of yet and if so, would love to hear your comments regarding them. Thanks.
2goldfish, 2XL, Angel Who Cares, autumnlover, babycat, beach, BeanE, Brattigirle, Bree0372, cecybeans, chelle70, cleo612, coco puff, Crabcake23, Curious Me, cyberborg, Daisy47, Dear Prudence, debbie0604, DEPUTYDAWG, Eidetic, GarAndTeed, gibby207, Gma Kat, Grace1984, Harmony2, headndownstream, Intermezzo, jmfstl, JSR, kaRN, Krisy, La.Sandy, LadyL, ldh, lee3, logicalgirl, Mamabear1963, Marigold, MD MOMMY, milliac, Miss Anarchy, mitzi, mydailyopinions, MysticOne, nicolem, noonie, Nore, pigwig, precious, PrintGal, QB., Reckless, rookie, RR0004, RVA, sarah7855, sariebell, scout35, Searchfortruth, skygirl, Sooner Fan#1, Spitfire4ever, spqr, Sprout, suki, sumbunny, tasylshari, tekilla, The World According, TorisMom003, Tracey276, tragco, travelgal, Turnadot, Wescott, WholeLottaRosie, zippitydoda, zoomom
I mean think about it, if the State is seeking in "good faith" the death penalty based upon what they discovered after Caylee was found, what other offer do you think they would make?
What were your thoughts on kc's breakdown during J Ashton's talk? Do you think it showed consciousness of guilt?
Question for Mr. Hornsby,
During the capitol trial, will photo's be shown to the entire court of the remains? Will photos be passed around to the jury?
I am curious to know if the jury and rest of the court will be able to see the duct tape and its exact position on the skull..
Justice For Caylee Marie
The state offered up a bit of their theory today regarding how Caylee was murdered. Do you think they may have been intentionally vague on chemical vs. physical restraint, so that their whole strategy is not revealed prior to trial ? Or do you think this is what the state has and what they will present to the jury to decide ?