2010.03.08 Motion to Exclude Hearsay, Gossip, Innuendo - Legal insight requested

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Muzikman

Muzikman

ROCKIN!
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,032
Reaction score
-1,725
Website
stores.ebay.com
And, to rotate charts, "right click" on chart and choose Rotate clockwise.
 
Heads up Cindy. The bus is heading your way.
JMO, but I don`t think CA will take kindly to the legal parsing of words. Seems to me she`s one of only about 2 people on the planet on KC`s side.
But hey, the concentration on heresay and inuendo suggests there`s no evidence whatsoever that somebody else killed Caylee and planted her body. If they could prove that, they wouldn`t need to parse this.
 
Just jumping into this grid.....WTH?.....page 2 George tells Brian Burner that "the shed was broken into and the gas cans stolen".....

Please someone, help me, tell me how this statement is hearsay...ok, I see Burner says it in his transcript, but hello?!! It was a statement of FACT, not necessarily hearsay. Why in the world is this statement listed here? Why would this stmt need to be excluded?
 
The beauty of this motion's shortcomings: In my mind, none of these statements are absolutely necessary at trial, because nearly every person listed can give first hand accounts of these attributes or of what they saw.

For example, Simon Birch can speak about the smell of the car and the trash bag-If he is not allowed to talk about what GA said, that's fine with me because GA said it himself at other times, and before the grand jury.
Annie has said in the civil suit how she thinks of KC at this point, no need to worry about what someone else said about Annie's opinion of KC.
The state can ask Jonathan D. directly whether or not KC hung out with them, etc.

This just seems like a whole lotta motion just to make a tiny wave for the state-All they have to do is direct their questions to the sources of the statement. In most cases, the people will not lie about what they saw/knew...In the case of the Anthony's...well, I don't think the state will be hanging their hats on the A's testimony anyway.
 
kew17 said:
Just jumping into this grid.....WTH?.....page 2 George tells Brian Burner that "the shed was broken into and the gas cans stolen".....

Please someone, help me, tell me how this statement is hearsay...ok, I see Burner says it in his transcript, but hello?!! It was a statement of FACT, not necessarily hearsay. Why in the world is this statement listed here? Why would this stmt need to be excluded?
Click to expand...

It is peculiar-But again, I think all the state has to do is go back to GA's interview/GJ testimony, or even TL's recollection of actually breaking the lock-And make this statement by BB unneccesary to begin with.

ETA-I don't WANT the state to have to do the extra work to go around this, though-This gives me an indication of how many times AL will rise from her seat at trial to object on this stuff, and that must be annoying for the other side.
 
I echo Muzikman's request.

I know that heresay isn't allowed at trial.

However, I've noticed in other trials that what the defendant said to the witness is admissable.

How does that work???
 
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA.

This is HILARIOUS reading! I can just imagine JBGood compiling his charts feverishly into the night. Probably the most work he has done since "Day 31" !

AS IF Jose! AS IF you stand a snowballs chance of this gettin' chucked. Thanks for the laugh though!

ETA - I just love the parts where it says Statements attributed to: "Some people", "People", "Unidentified People" and the people with no last names. SOOOO professional! hehehhehehehehe
 
:waitasec: Over kill to get "the fight" the evening of the 15th tossed?
 
Thanx Jayla = I was just thinking about trial time. All we're gonna hear is "Objection...Objection...Objection"
 
Eidetic said:
:waitasec: Over kill to get "the fight" the evening of the 15th tossed?
Click to expand...

Yep...And I noticed the motion referenced the second 911 call-IIRC, during that call, we hear CA threaten to take custody of Caylee because that's how Casey wants to play it...I began to wonder if they want that whole thing out, too, because it goes back to that matriarchal tension that would've required a Ginsu to slice.
 
kew17 said:
Just jumping into this grid.....WTH?.....page 2 George tells Brian Burner that "the shed was broken into and the gas cans stolen".....

Please someone, help me, tell me how this statement is hearsay...ok, I see Burner says it in his transcript, but hello?!! It was a statement of FACT, not necessarily hearsay. Why in the world is this statement listed here? Why would this stmt need to be excluded?
Click to expand...

I agree. Statements as such will prove that people are truthful in their statements to LE and how important all of their statements are. The pieces will then easily fall into place, it's simple enough to make a time line. I can see the jury now!

No wonder they'd try to get something like that tossed. :snooty:
 
Quoted from motion

The requirements for an excited utterance as interpreted by Florida Courts are:

1) The declarant must have experienced or witnessed an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement.

2) The statement must have been made while under stress caused by the event

3) Statements must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent

Factors a judge should consider to determine whether the necessary excitement or stress is present are the age of the declarant, the physical and mental condition of the declarant, the characteristics of the event an the subject matter of the statement

Cynthia Anthony is not a child, in good physical and mental health, and even though she found out upsetting news, the subject matter of the calls are things she had been dealing with for some time. The same considerations are true for Casey Anthony, and though she is younger, she was not in danger of any physical harm at the time of making the call and calmly explained the events to the 911 operator

In addition, the statement in the 911 calls do not meet all three requirements for an excited utterance, namely the second and third requirements. Cynthia Anthony was still not under the stress of her car being stolen or her granddaughter going missing. Her car had been returned and her granddaughter had not been staying at the house for thirty-one days.

Furthermore, there is a significant amount of time between the two calls, giving Cynthia Anthony time to reflect and regain her composure before calling again to supplement the first call. Time also could have passed between the moment that Casey Anthony informed her mother that the child had been missing for thirty-one days at the moment 911 was called. There is no evidence that Cynthia Anthony was under stress of a startling event

Wow! Wow! Wow! They have got to be kidding me!

1) I don't know what falls under a startling event moreso than just finding out that your two-year-old granddaughter, who can not fend for herself, has been kidnapped... not today, not yesterday, not last week but 31 DAYS ago.

2) Everything Cindy said during that final 911 call was made while under the stress of finding out her granddaughter is missing. Gone.

3) If I remember correctly the final 911 call was made after Casey finally admitted to Lee that Caylee had been kidnapped. The other 911 calls, Casey hadn't admitted this little piece of information. So, Cindy did not have time to contrive (plot) or misrepresent (distort) her words.

Is anyone really upset how they continue to call the kidnapping (murder) of Caylee an "event?" "The event."

I would like to hear what Cindy has to say about them implying that she knew for quite some time that Caylee had been kidnapped before making that final 911 call. That she waited long enough to plot and distort what she was going to say on that final 911 tape.

Also, saying that she was no longer under stress of... this kills me... her car being stolen or her granddaughter going missing. Saying she (Cindy) had been dealing with this "event" for some time. That Caylee had not been at the house in thirty-one days.

:furious:

I am not a lawyer but I can tell you that they will not get the 911 call thrown out.
 
Sammiejam said:
I just love the parts where it says Statements attributed to: "Some people", "People", "Unidentified People" and the people with no last names. SOOOO professional! hehehhehehehehe
Click to expand...

snip by me.




I know, right? "People" said it. About as professional-looking as DC's Chart of Forbidden Haters.

I refused to finish reading the memo re this motion once I saw in the statement of facts that they said "on july 16th, 2008, Casey Anthony was arrested and indicted for first degree murder (capital), manslaughter, etc". (top of page 4) WHAT?? well, they're 3 months off right there. How do they expect to be taken seriously with carp like this?

I also love the juxtaposition of this motion with their motion for Jill Kerley's testimony.
 
LolaMoon08 said:
Quoted from motion

The same considerations are true for Casey Anthony, and though she is younger, she was not in danger of any physical harm at the time of making the call and calmly explained the events to the 911 operator

:furious:

I am not a lawyer but I can tell you that they will not get the 911 call thrown out.
Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped for space:

LolaMoon I could not agree with you more on all counts. Something about this bolded in red statement really bothers me. I thought KC and her family were in DANGER from the kidnapper nanny? Isn't that why she didn't call 911 or tell anyone except for non-existent people for 31 days? Because she was in DANGER?!!! Careful Baez....your messing with your own defense strategy.

ETA: I'd like to add that after re-reading this motion, I'm further appauled at the repeated attempts to say that at the time of the 911 call, it was "NOT" an emergency, that they were calmly providing information to assist in an investigation. Bull corn! It was an emergency when a toddler has been kidnapped, no matter the length of time it took the tot mom to get found out and a 911 call made! Additionally, aren't you only suppose to call 911 if it's AN EMERGENCY? Don't they ticket people for abuse of the 911 system? Ok, now I'm just blabbering...sorry.
 
Quoted from Motion:

There is no proof here that Cynthia Anthony or Casey Anthony did not engage in a reflective thought process as they reported the fact that Caylee Anthony had been missing for thirty-one days

They? There is no they. Casey never reported Caylee missing. She didn't even want to talk to the 911 dispatcher.

The statements of Cynthia and Casey Anthony during the 911 calls are in narrative form, recalling events that happened in the past and not the fact that anything is happening right at that moment.

How could Cindy be recalling that Caylee was missing when she had just found out? Casey may have been recalling past "events" because she was the only one on the face of the planet to know that Caylee was missing prior to July 15th, 2008. What happened right at that moment was Cindy finding out and reporting it to LE.

Cindy better start talking because it looks like the blame train is heading her way.
 
Isn't this, like so many of JB's motions, a bit premature?
 
In the now famous words of Mrs. Drane-Burdick...."It is a farce...it does not even come close to meeting the legal requirement."

This is just as silly as them expecting the judge to
throw out the top count of the indictment,
allow special privacy for Casey, mom and pop during the jailhouse visits,
drop several of the fraud charges,
throw the prosecutors off the case,
to deem LP, Tony and Tracey to have an agency relationship with Baez,
hold the fraud trial after the murder trial,
to hold a private funeral for Casey's folks in the jail,
asking for an ex parte hearing,
let Mr. Casey off the hook from being deposed,
expecting the judge to take the death penalty off the table,
Baez saying setting a reasonable bond would resolve the dilemma of Casey being put on probation ..
and well..pretty much every other motion they have filed.:snooty::furious:

I hope the judge asks them where the heck their witness list is, soon.
 
kew17 said:
Respectfully snipped for space:

LolaMoon I could not agree with you more on all counts. Something about this bolded in red statement really bothers me. I thought KC and her family were in DANGER from the kidnapper nanny? Isn't that why she didn't call 911 or tell anyone except for non-existent people for 31 days? Because she was in DANGER?!!! Careful Baez....your messing with your own defense strategy.
Click to expand...

You are so right!

This bothered me...

Cynthia Anthony was still not under the stress of her car being stolen or her granddaughter going missing

I can not believe that they are comparing a missing car to a missing baby.

They are really coming down hard on Cindy in this motion. It seems they are trying to paint her as a woman who, within hours, was completely over her granddaughter missing and made that 911 call based on a past vendetta against Casey.
 
Yes and Cindy would do well to brace herself, they will come after her with no mercy if they feel they have no other options. If she thought she felt betrayed before......just wait 'till the penalty phase..it is going to be brutal.

I want Casey's comments she made to Tracey to come in. Big time. There are so many, but here is just one that is sooooo telling.
Talking about the hair found in the trunk with the death band having to belong to either Casey or Caylee...Casey responded with a smirk. "Well..I'm alive."
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Pp8s9nxAg[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLfqKz1TQOE[/ame]


This is the definition of hearsay:

www.lectlaw.com/def/h007.htm - Cached
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 222 more.
Total: 4,178 (members: 223, guests: 3,955)

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
3,955
Total visitors
4,178
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,571
Messages
17,955,251
Members
228,540
Latest member
unimog
Back
Top