Motion to Delay Judge's ruling on the Video

New Posts

I think that the defense is wasting the court's time. What's the obsession with this stupid, jail house tape? I just think that this tape is the least of Casey's problems
 
jmfstl said:
Ok I believe this is what your looking for
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0527/19583157.pdf

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/05/case-against-casey-anthony-all-about.html
Click to expand...

Getting warmer. The one you are providing is not the latest. The Motion to Delay the Judges decision was just filed on or about June 8th.

He was going to rule on it but this new motion asks for another 60 days delay.

I contacted the Orlando Sentinel since they have filed their own Motion to Intervene-they want access to the video, and they said they didn't have a copy yet. Maybe they'll jump on it and post later.

If you come across it, please post.

Thanks much:) for your time.
 
I have been looking for that motion for the delay and cannot find it. Will keep looking.
 
I have searched every where possible and cannot find this information online only the media reports with no links to the actual motion.
 
Maybe thangs are fixin to happen. Sure hope so---I get so confused.

Also on Friday, the state filed an objection to Baez's request for Strickland to postpone his decision on whether to release the jail video.

In her objection, Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick stated that Baez's motion wasn't just to allow Andrea Lyon, a new defense lawyer working on the case, to get caught up.

". . . It became apparent that the delay requested is not for the benefit of Ms. Lyon, but for the purpose of continuing the defendant's effort to deflect attention from the evidence in the case and to focus on the unsubstantiated and irrelevant propaganda associated with her claims of government 'misconduct,'" the objection states

More here:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,2889369.story
 
Well, to me it sounds like the State is gittin tired of all the B.S.
 
I have searched hither, thither AND yon and haven't found that motion posted anywhere. I have EVERY motion in this case printed out and really hate it's not out there. Does anyone have an in with one of our sources to get it posted on a website? I've tried and no responses so far.

I would also love to see the motion filed in opposition by the State!
 
Seebra said:
I hope and pray you are right - because if the defense gets away with this, I fear there is no stopping them - kind of like when you let a kid (KC) get away with lying over and over again. It does spiral out of control.:waitasec:
Click to expand...

Seebra,
I so agree with you. I fear a Judge Lance Ito and the entire OJ fiasco reoccurance. I don't want the defense totally in charge of the trial. JB, AL, and BC are attorneys; they know the law. They did, however, get by with one 11th hour motion; why not continue pushing the button.
 
FWIW, Judge Strickland decided to seal the video. We know the prosecution asked him to hurry up and rule so as to have Baez quit wasting their time over it and move on to the real heart of the matter - the murder trial.

What I found interesting is his comment "it is not unreasonable to assume that many persons in the potential jury pool might view this video and develop a 'hardened' attitude in reference to the defendant's guilt".

Must be one heck of a video. Wonder if he will allow it at trial. :waitasec:
 
"While the court is loathe to shield any public record, an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory," Strickland wrote in his three-page order.

I found this statement also very interesting. I would like to read the 3 page order.
 
I think I remember reading somewhere that the prosecution were not planning on using it at trial. I will have to do some digging to find this source.
 
JWG said:
FWIW, Judge Strickland decided to seal the video. We know the prosecution asked him to hurry up and rule so as to have Baez quit wasting their time over it and move on to the real heart of the matter - the murder trial.

What I found interesting is his comment "it is not unreasonable to assume that many persons in the potential jury pool might view this video and develop a 'hardened' attitude in reference to the defendant's guilt".

Must be one heck of a video. Wonder if he will allow it at trial. :waitasec:
Click to expand...

BBM

Considering his statement .. "While the court is loathe to shield any public record, an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory," Strickland wrote in his three-page order.

.. I think, it is doubtful.
 
JWG said:
FWIW, Judge Strickland decided to seal the video. We know the prosecution asked him to hurry up and rule so as to have Baez quit wasting their time over it and move on to the real heart of the matter - the murder trial.

What I found interesting is his comment "it is not unreasonable to assume that many persons in the potential jury pool might view this video and develop a 'hardened' attitude in reference to the defendant's guilt".

Must be one heck of a video. Wonder if he will allow it at trial. :waitasec:
Click to expand...

I wonder that, too. I don't think he will.

"Given the nature and scope of the pretrial publicity, it is not reasonable to assume that many persons in the potential jury pool might view this video and develop a 'hardened' attitude in reference to the defendant's guilt,"

the public already HAS an opinion. I still don't get it.
 
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
Must be pretty bad for the Judge to nix it. Good enuff for me. I would still like to see it tho. Now if Judge S. would nip CA/GA BS in the bud and release the autopsy report.
 
JWG said:
FWIW, Judge Strickland decided to seal the video. We know the prosecution asked him to hurry up and rule so as to have Baez quit wasting their time over it and move on to the real heart of the matter - the murder trial.

What I found interesting is his comment "it is not unreasonable to assume that many persons in the potential jury pool might view this video and develop a 'hardened' attitude in reference to the defendant's guilt".

Must be one heck of a video. Wonder if he will allow it at trial. :waitasec:
Click to expand...

I hope we get to see it at some point!
 
Timothy Bailey Hennis was convicted of a rape and triple murder in Fayetteville and sentenced to death. He appealed the conviction and won a retrial because large, blownup photos of the victims (two of them were toddlers and their mother) of the autopsies were on tripod stands in the courtroom during the trial and the basis of the appeal was that it inflamed the jurors. In the second trial he was acquited. Now, he is going to be retried later this year by Military court for the three murders due to cold case investigators having dna tested of the crime and his dna matched.

So, it may be a good thing that the autopsy will not be made public. I can see Casey getting a retrial if it is shown.
 
I think that the prosecution will be allowed to present the video at trial if they so choose. The judge is making a wise decision here. This could likely be an appealable issue for KC/JB were it to be released to the public. Obviously, the video is inflammatory. The remains she was hyperventillating over had not been identified as Caylee's. But the state may not need to use the tape at all. Which if they choose not to, JB, cannot bring in all of his questioning of the guards...all of those depos he has so furiously been involved in of late.


Actually it is brilliant. The state probably never INTENDED to use the tape. But they knew JB would protest its release. So then JS sees the tape and says, "Heck guys...this tape is so indicative of that whackadoodle's guilt...that the public just can't see it and not go...wow so guilty that KC, like I, the judge did." They don't have to show the tape and they get wording from the judge that says it is inflammatory and shouldn't be seen by a pretrial jury pool. Sweet. Meanwhile, JB is hemming and hawing and taking all of these depos...and he won't be able to raise the issue AT trial about KC's cruel treatment because the state didn't first bring it in. BRILLIANT.
STATE: 1 JB: 0 HA!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 84 more.
Total: 2,514 (members: 85, guests: 2,429)

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
2,429
Total visitors
2,514
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,628
Messages
17,972,082
Members
228,845
Latest member
butiwantedthatname
Back
Top