Procedure and legal questions

[bunnyphoenix1]

I dont know about anyone else but I have a lot of questions about law and procedure.Can our legal eagles help?

1. Why are there so many interviews where LE has spoken off tape first, and metioned things that they dont want on tape. Shouldnt it all be recorded? Is it normal procedure to have a casual chat detailing all events, and only recording certain parts of that info?

2.Would the issues discussed in the chat, and not recorded be included in a statement that we havent yet seen? would there be any official record of the statements made, or is it good enough that the officer heard it?

3. Are the FBI and OSCO seperate entities? I kept hearing about the hairbrush issue and people saying CA lied to a fedral officier, but from what i understand she gave the items to OSCO, not FBI. so does this mean that once FBI are involved anything said to OSCO becomes a fedral issue?

4. Does OSCO share all of their information regarding the case with FBI, and vice versa? For example if a witness contacted FBI and spoke with them, would they share that with OSCO?
5. I know that LE can legally lie to a suspect to try to get to the truth, but can they legally do the same with a witness? what are the boundaries of this?

6.If a statement or other document is not signed, or has errors is it admissable in court?
(ETA) 7. why would the case have been referred to the sex crimes unit?

OK, i have heaps of other questions, but thats probably enough for now.
TIA to anyone answering my questions.:blowkiss:

Re #2, where I come from, when interviewing a suspect, you would basically be required to record the entire interview for it to be admissible in court, unless you can show good reason why that was not done. If you have pre-interview discussions, eg organizing interpreter etc, you would makes notes of those discussions and seek to have the person adopt those statements during the course of the electronically recorded interview. Re a witness, the procedure is not the same and the recording need not be made. But I would expect police to keep notes of all conversations with any witness, and I would subpoena all their notes etc.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Just a bit of a minor correction here. When this all first happened and Cindy made the call about Caylee being missing, Detective Yuri Melich was not with the sex crimes unit. He was in the missing persons unit - and if I remember correctly that unit also handled child abuse. The confusion could have come from that fact that at the time this first came down Detective Samara Melich was in the sex crimes unit. Detectives from various units were assigned to help out on this case as it grew and grew. Detective Samara Melich did a couple of interviews related to this case and that might be how it was thought that Detective Yuri Melich was in the sex crimes unit.

IIRC, Melich said at the Bond Hearing that he was with the sex crimes unit? He was asked some questions about it. Or is my memory going?

ETA. My memory is going! Just re-listened to it and he clearly says he's with child abuse & missing persons.

 

[JBean]

IIRC, Melich said at the Bond Hearing that he was with the sex crimes unit? He was asked some questions about it. Or is my memory going?

Detective Yuri Melich testimony

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Detective Yuri Melich testimony

Thank you...I'd already found it to test my memory, and my memory is NOT GOOD! Macushla has a far better memory than I.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Just my opinion, but JB would be seriously remiss if he didn't have a jury selection specialist on the defense team.

The prosecution will probably want to see some people with young children on the jury who will be horrified at Casey's lack of emotional response to her daughter being missing, and her failure to report her missing child to the police. They may want to have grandparents on the jury who have responsible adult children and young grandchildren, as they will have a strong opinion on Casey's failure to be responsible, and her priority of partying over parenting. They will want to have jurors who have a strong sense of right/wrong.

The defense may want people with no children, who may not be able to strongly identify with the role of a parent. They may want young un-marrieds, who more closely identify with the lifestyle of the 20-something group.

Interesting thoughts! Where I come from we are not allowed to question jurors....we have to pick them just based on looks, which is crazy! It is also illegal to ask jurors questions about the case after it finishes, so we have very little insight into our juries. I'd love to do some research on jury selection.

I find it interesting that you think the defence may want childless jurors. And I think you are probably right. But I can also see a flipside to it. As someone who is childless myself, perhaps I can't strongly identify with the role of a parent, but I think that also means I may be less forgiving to the parent(s) because all I see is a beautiful innocent child and can't understand at all how a parent could harm it, whereas people who have had to raise toddlers may be more sympathetic to how hard it can be on someone?

 

[TxLady2]

My turn for a couple of questions about issues that have been nagging at me......

#1- While on the stand as a witness, can CA/GA be called out on their changing stories?

- From the 911 call on 7/15 "It smells like there was a dead body in the damn car!"
- From various other televised interviews- Pizza!

- Admitting to purposely giving the wrong brush to the investigators

- Things she said to Casey's friends (sociopath, etc) and others (wanting to seek custody)
- Comments that Casey was a great mother who would never hurt Caylee


- GA during LE interviews expressing his concern about what Casey may have done
- GA changing his story for the cameras


It goes on and on- I understand that what was said to Casey's friends during the first hours could be considered heresay, however, if there are a couple or more witnesses to her comments, as I believe there are, would that make them admissible?

The Anthonys can say anything they want to in front of the camera, they cannot be held responsible for that. Cindy did not say there HAD BEEN a dead body in the car, she said it smelled like there was. Later on, she amended that to the smell of rotting pizza, and added that she was saying what she did to get the SD's attention, to get them out there, since they had not followed up on her first two calls.
As for what Casey's friends testify as to what she said, they could have a dozen people say the same thing, but it cannot be proved she said it, unless someone had the foresight to record it. Common sense will tell you she did not make the exact same statement to 12 different people, so someone would be testifying that someone else told them she said so-and-so, and that is hearsay. Not all witnesses tell the truth on the stand... some will state what they believe to be the truth, but some will outright lie, just because it can't be proved one way or the other.
Cindy's statements that Casey was a good mother and loved Caylee are what Cindy chooses to believe. Same for George's statements. They are allowed to think what they want to, because they are her parents. But the bottom line is whether their statements to the investigation team are consistent as to facts. But again, not everyone has a photographic memory of events and details, so I believe they will be given some "wiggle room."

 

[Kat]

I do have a legal question and I hope that someone here can help me find the answer. I don't even know where to begin to look.

There is a thread where we are discussing evidence and what evidence that we have seen from the doc dumps will help convict KC.

In those doc dumps are two tests that I wonder about. 1. The death band on the hair
2. The gases from the trunk

I want to determine if they will be allowed into court as evidence being that even though they were conducted at highly respected labs they are still considered new science, so to speak.

In many states, tests as the ones I listed above must stand up to the Frye standard. In which, simply put, the majority of scientists of a specific field agree by consensus that it is acceptable in scientific standards. Bottom line, the majority of scientists in that field agree that this is standard testing and the results can be trusted.

There is also what is called the Daubert standard in which the judge has to know enough science to know whether the test is based on scientific method. Bottom line, the judge must know enough science to determine if this standard testing and the results can be trusted.

So my question is two fold.
1. Which standard does FL use?
2. If FL uses the Frye standard, are the tests that resulted in the death band and the trunk gases to new?

TIA for helping me to find the answers to these questions, because I am curious as to what will be allowed into court and won't be allowed. Just because I have the highest regard for the Body Farm and the FBI labs doesn't mean that those test results will automatically be admitted.

 

[Macushla]

Thank you...I'd already found it to test my memory, and my memory is NOT GOOD! Macushla has a far better memory than I.

Trust me bunnyphoenix - my memory is pitiful - just ask DH I live in the Orlando area and with all the info about the case on the local news, newspapers and 'heard round the 'hood' - there are just a few things that stick in my mind, and this info was one of them!

 

[Kat]

I found it, after digging through the internet. FL uses the Frye standard. Now my question is will the hair evidence and the trunk gases be allowed?

"Interpretation of Frye:


Where novel scientific evidence is at issue, the Frye inquiry allows the judiciary to defer to scientific expertise precisely as to whether or not it has gained "general acceptance" in the relevant field. The trial court's gatekeeper role in this respect is conservative, thus helping to keep "pseudoscience" out of the courtroom"

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3210/3210lect01a.htm

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Trust me bunnyphoenix - my memory is pitiful - just ask DH I live in the Orlando area and with all the info about the case on the local news, newspapers and 'heard round the 'hood' - there are just a few things that stick in my mind, and this info was one of them!

If yours is pitiful, what does that make mine? LOL. I actually thought I had a vivid recollection of him giving evidence about it!

I think a lot of us feel like we are half living in florida these days...I am more likely to be able to tell you the local Florida weather forecast on any given day, than the forecast where I live!

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I found it, after digging through the internet. FL uses the Frye standard. Now my question is will the hair evidence and the trunk gases be allowed?

"Interpretation of Frye:


Where novel scientific evidence is at issue, the Frye inquiry allows the judiciary to defer to scientific expertise precisely as to whether or not it has gained "general acceptance" in the relevant field. The trial court's gatekeeper role in this respect is conservative, thus helping to keep "pseudoscience" out of the courtroom"

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3210/3210lect01a.htm

Nice sleuthing!

I expect there will be lengthy legal argument re the admissibility of this evidence. From what I understand (just going by the THs) it has been admitted in Courts outside Florida. I think it will probably pass the test in that regard, but where I come from, there might still be scope for the defence to argue it out on the basis that the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence outweights it's probative value, if when seeing all the reports it is determined that the probative value is not that high or questionable or if the evidence is otherwise unreliable. It would be great for a Fla. attorney to give us some input on that. I don't think we've seen the final reports re that evidence yet, have we?

 

[essies]

I asked this on the the Questions thread so I guess I'll ask here too. How do you make yourself inelligble to be called to the stand at trial medically or any other way for that matter? Can a psych doctor evaluate you and deem that you are too emotionally unstable to take the stand?:waitasec:

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

The Anthonys can say anything they want to in front of the camera, they cannot be held responsible for that. Cindy did not say there HAD BEEN a dead body in the car, she said it smelled like there was. Later on, she amended that to the smell of rotting pizza, and added that she was saying what she did to get the SD's attention, to get them out there, since they had not followed up on her first two calls.
As for what Casey's friends testify as to what she said, they could have a dozen people say the same thing, but it cannot be proved she said it, unless someone had the foresight to record it. Common sense will tell you she did not make the exact same statement to 12 different people, so someone would be testifying that someone else told them she said so-and-so, and that is hearsay. Not all witnesses tell the truth on the stand... some will state what they believe to be the truth, but some will outright lie, just because it can't be proved one way or the other.
Cindy's statements that Casey was a good mother and loved Caylee are what Cindy chooses to believe. Same for George's statements. They are allowed to think what they want to, because they are her parents. But the bottom line is whether their statements to the investigation team are consistent as to facts. But again, not everyone has a photographic memory of events and details, so I believe they will be given some "wiggle room."

I don't think that is right...at least it isn't right where i live (not USA). Where I live, you can cross examine on any inconsistent statements that a witness made and a jury is entitled to take those inconsistencies into account in determining the reliability, truthfulness, accuracy etc of a witness' testimony.

Re what Casey told her friends...it does not have to be recorded for it to be admissible in Court. They can testify as to what she told them, subject to the rules of evidence regarding relevance, hearsay etc. It is a matter for the jury to determine who is telling the truth.

I agree with your statement that "not all witnesses tell the truth on the stand"!

 

[Bev]

The only way you can make yourself inelligible to take the stand is to die.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I asked this on the the Questions thread so I guess I'll ask here too. How do you make yourself inelligble to be called to the stand at trial medically or any other way for that matter? Can a psych doctor evaluate you and deem that you are too emotionally unstable to take the stand?:waitasec:

Where I come from, this comes under the heading of "competence and compellability of witnesses". The basic rule, subject to exceptions, is that any person who has relevant evidence to give is compellable.

Psychiatric and doctor's letters are often presented to a court in an effort to explain an accused person's absence, or a witness' absence. In my experience, it takes a lot to get out of giving testimony. Doctors are sometimes brought into court and cross examined in relation to their opinion, when the person may be able to give evidence etc. Sometimes proceedings are adjourned to allow the person an opportunity to recover. Judges are aware that many use it as a ploy to get out of giving evidence as it is routinely tried (at least where I live).

Age, mental capacity, marriage etc are also issues considered in determining a person's competence and/or compellability.

 

[essies]

Where I come from, this comes under the heading of "competence and compellability of witnesses". The basic rule, subject to exceptions, is that any person who has relevant evidence to give is compellable.

Psychiatric and doctor's letters are often presented to a court in an effort to explain an accused person's absence, or a witness' absence. In my experience, it takes a lot to get out of giving testimony. Doctors are sometimes brought into court and cross examined in relation to their opinion, when the person may be able to give evidence etc. Sometimes proceedings are adjourned to allow the person an opportunity to recover. Judges are aware that many use it as a ploy to get out of giving evidence as it is routinely tried (at least where I live).

Age, mental capacity, marriage etc are also issues considered in determining a person's competence and/or compellability.

Thanks!! Now, I wonder if the witness is "under treatment" at a mental health facility are they able to be compelled? I remember Michael Jackson showing up in his pj's and that mob boss who used to wear his robe and talk to himself in public. I know they weren't in a mental health faciity but- IF you were under treatment and a resident in a facility, can the court make you come testify? And I'm not saying GA"S suicide scare was all an act-after 22 years with KC i'd be ready to be in treatment! Just wondering!!:waitasec:

 

[Bev]

Again, Essie, the only way to get out of testifying is to be dead.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Thanks!! Now, I wonder if the witness is "under treatment" at a mental health facility are they able to be compelled? I remember Michael Jackson showing up in his pj's and that mob boss who used to wear his robe and talk to himself in public. I know they weren't in a mental health faciity but- IF you were under treatment and a resident in a facility, can the court make you come testify? And I'm not saying GA"S suicide scare was all an act-after 22 years with KC i'd be ready to be in treatment! Just wondering!!:waitasec:

Again, interesting points, and these issues routinely arise in criminal proceedings. And I again want to stress that I am not from America...but, for what it's worth, where I come from....

Witnesses can get out of giving evidence if they have become incompetent and will never again be competent (in which case the lawyers could argue over the admissibility or otherwise of the statements they have already made/testimony already given). If the person will become competent in the future, and they are an important witness, the case may be adjourned until they recover. I have had experiences where witnesses (from my memory always police) have tried to get out of giving evidence because they were under psych treatment and I have seen doctors hauled into court to answer questions from judges, and then usually the judge has the final say.

In my experience, many accused persons are in psych wards in the prisons and are still required to attend court. It is not enough to be mentally ill.

If you are asking whether I think George will be able to get out of giving evidence, I'd say "not a chance" unless he has a stroke and can't speak or something tragic like that. Depression alone won't get him out of it.

 

[maryaok]

Does anyone know, say if the jury hands down a verdict of guilty and gives life in prison, can the judge overule that decision, and giver her something different; or could he even find her insane and have her committed despite doctor's opinions of her being competent?

 

[butwhatif?]

The only way you can make yourself inelligible to take the stand is to die.

Really? I'm shocked. What about if you're in a coma?....LOL.
Seriously though, what about someone who was suffering severe psychosis? Or alzheimers? If a doctor testified that they were not fit to testify, would the judge waste the courts time by getting them on the stand anyway?

Ohhhhh, duh me! I just figured out your post was in reference to GA's suicide attempt.