OT but Eleanor Odom, the Attorney that NG frequently has on her show, says she would put on display two large photos for the Jury to see, as she makes her opening statement. One would be of Caylee as her usual adorable little self.
Alongside it would be a photo of the remains as found in a swamp. She would not mention the photos, but let them speak, and much more eloquently than she ever could.
This question was asked and answered by our verified lawyers in the ask the lawyers thread its post 647 here is what was said:
After reviewing some Florida case law (but by no means doing a complete search), I do not think the SA will be permitted to do this. Here's an excerpt from a case (Buckner) in which the court found there was NOT a problem with photos of the victim, but you can tell from the reasoning that something more than this MIGHT very well be a problem:
In his final guilt phase argument, Buckner asserts that extrajudicial evidence created undue sympathy which warranted a mistrial. During a break in the guilt phase, a juror told the bailiff that she saw spectators holding up photographs. An investigation revealed that one spectator held up a collage of photographs of the victim; several rows back, family members of the victim held up two eight-by-ten photographs of the victim. Apparently, none of the jurors saw the eight-by-ten photos, but two of the jurors saw the collage of small photos. Of the two jurors, one stated she thought it was inappropriate that the family held up photographs and that the incident would not influence her in any way; the other juror stated that she saw the photographs but refused to look at them and that the incident would not influence her decision.
After this incident, Buckner moved for a mistrial, arguing that this incident exposed the jury to a blatant appeal for sympathy and consequently deprived Buckner of a fair trial. The trial judge denied the motion.
Under certain circumstances, prejudicial exhibition of emotion may deprive a defendant of a fair trial. Woods v. Dugger , 923 F.2d 1454 (11th Cir. 1991) (where prejudicial exhibition "extreme," new trial warranted). Moreover, it is inappropriate for a judge to inquire into the emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors. State v. Hamilton , 574 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1991). However, a judge may objectively look to the extrinsic factual matters disclosed to the jury and then determine whether there was a reasonable possibility that the breach was prejudicial to the defendant. Id . at 129. In this case, a few of the jurors saw the photographs for a brief moment only and even then, saw them only from a distance; the photographs consisted of nothing more than the victim pictured with other individuals; and none of the jurors who saw the photographs could identify who was depicted in the photographs. On these facts, there is no reasonable possibility that the jury's brief exposure to the photographs may have changed the outcome of the proceeding. See , e.g. , Burns v. State , 609 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1992) (widow crying three times in courtroom insufficient to prejudice jury). Consequently, we find this claim to be without merit.
.................fran
