2011.06.01 SIDEBAR THREAD Trial Day Seven

'Beach said:

I brought this over from the Trial thread to answer bobloblaw.

Baez was yapping impulsively yesterday and not thinking about the potential problems he was causing himself. He "opened the door" for the State to bring in all of Casey's prior felony convictions (6?). Previously, those had been inadmissable and the jury would have never been able to consider them. However, there is a specific jury instruction given right before deliberations that tells jurors that they MAY consider prior felony convictions while determining credibility, character of the defendant.

The State has a strong case and they are rolling right along now. IF they had stood by and fought for them to come in, HHJP would have allowed it. Cheney Mason knows that, too. There is case law backing it up from the FL Supreme Court.

The problem is: Casey would have a very, very, very good argument on appeal for Ineffective Counsel. They is a strong chance any conviction could be overturned and she would be granted another trial. Do they really want to have to try this monster of a case twice? Not unless they feel they absolutley must. Just not worth it.

Click to expand...

Softail said:

I still don't completely "get" why certain things that Casey told Amy are allowed in, and other things aren't. IE: Casey telling Amy that her mom is crazy was allowed, but Casey telling Amy that her dad had a stroke was not. :waitasec:

Click to expand...

Kentjbkent said:

Am SO confused right now...

Can someone quickly explain this mini hearing this morning....

Motion was concerning bringing in previous felony convictions?

But involved speculated father of Caylee and hearsay??

I am SO SO CONFUZED.....

Click to expand...

momtective said:

OMG now that is just ridiculous! You think those people were at a rock concert.

Click to expand...

goldleaf said:

I don't watch many trials, but I have never seen a DT openly state their client is a liar and make statements that show their client is a lazy, stupid, promiscous slacker. By talking about Caylee's paternity, brining up the fact that ICA did not even graduate from high school and could not hold down a job the DT keeps making things worse for ICA. But we are supposed to believe this far-fetched accidental drowning theory.

By talking about how much she lies, don't they realize that it is impossible to believe that ICA is telling the truth this ONE TIME? Oh, and coincidentally, the one time she is telling the truth is to save her own skin???

Is their defense "My client is a lying, stealing, unemployed, high school dropout who can't name the father of her child and therefore is too stupid to kill her daughter"?

Click to expand...

Mountain_Kat said:

JB needs to be careful here...this jury, I think, probably likes AH a good deal.

Click to expand...