Defense doesn't want GA & CA in the courtroom....why?

[allycat1208]

On topic: I thought its only Casey that does not want her family in the courtroom?

 

[allycat1208]

Beach ......Thanks for info. Sorry

 

[beach]

[/b]
BBM
Hi Beach- I know this may sound silly and I really have nothing to support my thought other than the defense, even though it appears that they are dropping balls, really can't be this inept. Something tells me that their motion to exclude the Ant's was half assed on PURPOSE. Why though? Why make a stink if what you really were trying to accomplish was the opposite effect?

Something is fishy fishy here............and there and every where.

Hi janine

It doesn't sound silly at all! You may be spot-on.

This late in the game, one thing I have finally promised myself is to quit trying to make sense of why the DT does what they do. It makes my head hurt. I just decided to give myself a break and :whiteflag: that debate.

They are an enigma. The choices they make remain a mystery to me.

We will soon find out if there really is a method to their madness and I cannot wait for the promised "AHA!" moment!!!

 

[beach]

Beach ......Thanks for info. Sorry

No problem! We are here to help! Feel free to PM me or the mod of your choice if you have any other questions.

(you can find all the mods listed at the bottom of the forum homepage.)

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I was stunned speechless when Judge Perry granted the Anthony's Motion to be allowed to stay in the courtroom, at the Hearing on Friday! I was under the misunderstanding (from Lippman's original motion) that if either the State or the Defense objected, it would not be allowed. So, when the Defense objected (I thought the State would object), I thought it was a done deal -- no Anthonys in the courtroom during the trial. I was shocked at how quickly Judge Perry dismissed the Defense objection. I thought the Anthonys were a classic case of what the Rule of Sequestration was designed for. After all, the State asked that they be kept outside of the Frye Hearings until after they testified, and Judge Perry ordered it immediately.

However, after reading Hornsby's article (after the ruling on Friday),
http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/05/should-they-stay-or-should-they-go/

I have come to realize that I was wrong in my assumptions and that Judge Perry simply ruled on the law, and it was a simple, cut and dried issue for the Judge -- no wiggle room either way. Judge Perry was not feeling sympathetic toward the Anthonys, or using any other rationale, other than following the law.

I believe Judge Perry already had his ruling ready to announce, before he even heard Lippman's arguments on Friday, and before Lippman added the Beasley case to his Motion (on advice of Hornsby). Judge Perry knows very well what the relevant Florida Statute says.

According to Florida Statute 90.616 Exclusion of witnesses - when the Defense objected - they were supposed to also file a separate Motion outlining in what specific ways the Defense would be prejudiced if the Anthonys remain in the courtroom (mere facial gestures does not cut it), and then the Judge would rule on whether or not the Judge agreed that their presence would prejudice the Defendant. The Defense did not even file the mandatory second Motion.

In addition, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in the Beasley case, there are only two reasons the Defense could object - (1) witness will change his testimony ..... (2) emotional reactions of the victim's family members would be prejudicial.

But .... even if the witness changes their testimony, they can easily be impeached by prior testimony in depositions, so that is not enough reason to keep them out of the courtroom.

Hornsby said: "...State does not have standing to object under Article 1, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution – only the defendant does..."

Hornsby: "...trial judge maintained vigilance so that the “defendant” was not prejudiced by emotional outbursts of the victims next of kin and that the court even admonished them twice during the proceedings. So while some of you will annoyingly complain about Cindy Anthony’s sneers and looks, this is not the type of behavior that the Court is concerned with or would even consider prejudicial...."

So, Judge Perry ruled the way he did because it is the LAW, according to Florida Statute and the Florida Supreme Court ruling in the Beasley case, and as he said the Defense did not give him evidence that the Defense would be prejudiced (enough to keep the Anthonys out). And the State (Ashton) did not object because the State is not allowed to object, by law. And if (when) the Anthonys change their testimony, they will be impeached by their prior testimony, and if (when) the Anthonys make an unacceptable outburst in court, they will be removed on orders of the Judge.

:tyou::tyou:


BBM: I was surprised also by HHJP's decision. It felt to me like the Ant's were getting "special treatment".

But after reading your "excellent" explanation here, I have a much better understanding, and also, I realize now "WHY" the SA did not object because I was surprised when they didn't.


B&RBM: If the Ant's do "change" their testimony, which will NOT be a "surprise" "surprise" ... do you know if they could not only be "impeached" ... but charged ... like "perjury" ?

TIA !

 

[Snaz]

BBM

I surely hope so. And I tend to believe it.

I know I am in the minority thinking this, but I cannot believe that George will sit by and allow them to imply he was a child molester or that he would ever hurt little Caylee. NEVER. I just do not see him sitting still for lies like that. Sure, he wants to keep Casey out of Death Row, but not if he has to say he molested her or the baby. Or even worse, that he harmed or killed the child. He will not be able to sit in the audience and listen to accusations like that. IMOO

Katydid, you are not alone. I do not believe for one second that George will accept responsibility for anything to save ICA. He may want her to walk away from these charges, but not at his own expense. George just doesn't strike me as the "selfless" kind.

I believe if the defense starts implying George could be guilty of anything, he will have an apoplectic fit.

 

[MissJames]

I think what they are really afraid of, is not that the Anthony's will be 'impeached' by prior testimony (as was stated time and again at the hearing), as the Anthohy's have given lengthy statements (to LE and the media), depostitions, and sworn written statements, in the case previously.

I believe what the defense doesn't want is for the Anthony's to start telling the ENTIRE truth about their daughter and the events leading up to June 16, 2008 and after. The truth so far, that in defense of their daughter they have glossed over, prettied up, or changed entirely (Casey and Cindy are BFF... Casey was a wonderful mother, we trusted her completely with Caylee... we had no reason not to believe our daughter (wth?)...that sort of thing). If the A's know the defense team is gunning for them, from the beginning (ie the opening statement by the defense), we may just see a brand of honesty never seen before in the history of the Anthony family... and if that happens, ICA is going down harder and faster then she would with the States case alone. God help ICA if GA and CA finally turn on her and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help them God! MOO

Cindy's co-workers and Shirley Plesea will be very credible witnesses and will be exposing Cindy's truth . I don't expect Cindy to behave badly during their testimony,but it will be interesting to see her reaction.

I think Cindy may be able contain herself for the trial. The meds will help.

George will not last long,IMO. He has a very short fuse. I think he'll blow during LE's testimony.

 

[MissJames]

[/B]
BBM
Hi Beach- I know this may sound silly and I really have nothing to support my thought other than the defense, even though it appears that they are dropping balls, really can't be this inept. Something tells me that their motion to exclude the Ant's was half assed on PURPOSE. Why though? Why make a stink if what you really were trying to accomplish was the opposite effect?

Something is fishy fishy here............and there and every where.

Possibly an appeal issue? The parents being ejected or behaving badly might influence the jury .The DT could go back and say "we wanted them to stay out and were denied.Their actions influenced the jury"
It's a stronger case if they are on record objecting.

 

[lowens1975]

I know there is no 'proof' there was a fight between Cindy and Casey. But from what we KNOW about that day, it is only common sense there would have been one.

Cindy is visiting her Father in the hospice, as he is very frail. It is Father's Day and she is enjoying a family visit. And what is she met with? The upsetting news that her pathetic daughter has STOLEN from her grandparents for the second time. And Grandma was about to call the police this time. Cindy had to beg her Mother not to turn Casey in, and she promised to repay her mother immediately.

OF COURSE THERE WAS A FIGHT THAT NIGHT. I might have choked my daughter out too if she had stolen from my parents like that.

I am pretty confident a very big fight happened that night.

CA denies a 'fight'..ok..for the sake of argument, then call it a 'heated exchange'. I doubt CA was giving ICA room to argue with her. IMO, whatever was said between those two was the defining moment in this case. It tripped some sort of 'manic switch' in Casey. It's one of those things that I hope to see CA pinned to the witness chair and given no other choice but the tell the truth about.

 

[jandkmom]

Cindy's co-workers and Shirley Plesea will be very credible witnesses and will be exposing Cindy's truth . I don't expect Cindy to behave badly during their testimony,but it will be interesting to see her reaction.

I think Cindy may be able contain herself for the trial. The meds will help.

George will not last long,IMO. He has a very short fuse. I think he'll blow during LE's testimony.

I hope one of the first questions asked is "what kind of meds are you on", if that is allowed. Since in her last testimony CA tried to blame her changing testimony on the fact that she was on medication, she should have to tell what she is taking. LDB will hone in on that she CA said she told LDB that she had changed her medicine I think CA will last a while. After all, her and ICA are a lot alike according to their conversation in one of the video meetings at the jail.

GA is another story. He seems to have trouble controlling his anger. I think the first time that he is "challenged" he will lose it and won't be able to sit there quietly.

IMO JA and LDB were playing nice in the hearings to get their testimonies in, but at the trial they will be more aggressive in their questioning. The first few times that they start questioning they may be more gentle, but by the end of the trial, it will be full force. If they aren't able to question ICA about what happened, GA and CA are the closest that they will get to finding out the truth and no amount of preparation will have them ready for JA and LDB at their best Go team Caylee!!!!!

 

[ZsaZsa]

Cindy's co-workers and Shirley Plesea will be very credible witnesses and will be exposing Cindy's truth . I don't expect Cindy to behave badly during their testimony,but it will be interesting to see her reaction.

I think Cindy may be able contain herself for the trial. The meds will help.

George will not last long,IMO. He has a very short fuse. I think he'll blow during LE's testimony.

It will be interesting to see the other's reaction if only one of them is accused of killing Caylee. Will they sell each other down the Suwannee?

 

[sharpar]

It will be interesting to see the other's reaction if only one of them is accused of killing Caylee. Will they sell each other down the Suwannee?

Yes - because its every man for himself - they talk about support but it
rarely ever happened in that home. Doing nothing is not support and
most of their "care" could be called enabling which is abuse not support.

They dont give a fig who is under the bus or tied to railroad tracks as
long as it is not KC the paragon of motherhood.