2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't seen this posted. WFTV just announced Lee will also testify on the 15th along with CA. Not yet posted on www.wftv.com
 
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-911-calls-argument-20100618,0,1646148.story
excerpt
"She "declared that she only made that up in an effort to cause the police to come more quickly to her residence for investigation," according to court documents.
Prosecution said there's little doubt about Cindy's tone and statements during the third 911 call because it came after Casey's "revelation" — Caylee's alleged kidnapping.
"Cindy Anthony's statements made during the last 911 call were made under the stress caused by the event," the prosecution has argued."
 
Hornsby says the Defense got it ALL wrong in their Motion regarding the 911 calls.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2010/06/911-whats-your-emergency/

excerpt from R. Hornsby:
"What is abundantly clear to me is that although he is semi retired, (
with time to do so ), Mr. Mason has not familiarized himself with all of the
prior things that have went on in the case. He made statements on the
courthouse steps as well as in his document (that wasn't recorded still
yesterday morning that I could find), that are simply not historically or
factually correct. I sat at my desk in shock reading the document, it was
replete with wrong information from top to bottom!!!!"
 
So that means that the state as well as HHJP will not buy her "I wanted to get them there faster" reason to keep them out of the trial.? The state has come up with an all too perfect reason, the progression of Casey's story (lies) during those few minutes between all three phone calls. Diggity.
 
Sparky said:
I haven't seen this posted. WFTV just announced Lee will also testify on the 15th along with CA. Not yet posted on www.wftv.com
Click to expand...

Lee and Cindy testifying? *thud*

*wakes up* OMG!!!!! This will be a hell of a hearing! I wonder why George isn't testifying as well? Damn, I may have to take the whole day off for this hearing!

At least we'll get to see Lee and if he's still on Casey's side at this point, which sadly, I think he will be. I am not getting my hopes up. I wonder what Casey's reaction will be at seeing him for the first time in so long?

Still, I can't wait for this hearing! It'll have more fireworks than the 4th of July!
 
ThinkTank said:
Excerpt from Prosecutor LDB's statements in the State's filing:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html

LDB wrote: "The truth of the matters asserted by Cindy Anthony in any of her 911 calls is not the issue. Cindy Anthony's insisting that she was getting law enforcement involved to locate Caylee, gave the defendant motive to fabricate alternate theories for the location of the child. Statements made by Cindy Anthony that immediately precede Casey Anthony's statements are relevant to show Casey's state of mind when making her statements to her mother or to the police. The fact of the calls as well as the content of the calls give context to the defendant's responses and set forth the circumstances in which the defendant "created" the kidnapping story after denying there was any problem locating Caylee Marie Anthony. These fabrications demonstrate consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant, guilt being the ultimate material issue."
Click to expand...

And THIS is exactly where the defense is going to BOMB and what RH was referring to in his blog. The defense is going in prepared to rebut the "excited utterance" and/or "spontaneous statement" exception to hearsay and that is not at all what the SA is asserting in their motion.

That was also EXACTLY what Linda Drane-Burdick was trying to get through CM's pompous hard head at the hearing on 6/21 when she said, (para) "The defense doesn't understand the basis of our motion."

I don't know whether to :banghead: or :floorlaugh:
 
Aedrys said:
Lee and Cindy testifying? *thud*

*wakes up* OMG!!!!! This will be a hell of a hearing! I wonder why George isn't testifying as well? Damn, I may have to take the whole day off for this hearing!

At least we'll get to see Lee and if he's still on Casey's side at this point, which sadly, I think he will be. I am not getting my hopes up. I wonder what Casey's reaction will be at seeing him for the first time in so long?

Still, I can't wait for this hearing! It'll have more fireworks than the 4th of July!
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if Lee RE-hired the attorney he dismissed a while back??? Luka?

And .... if the State issued the subpoenas for Cindy and Lee .... we can assume that the Inmate will be FURIOUS that her mother and brother have been forced to testify at this Hearing. She can THANK her stellar Defense team for asking for this "evidentiary" Hearing though.
 
My money is on the SA issuing these subpoenas.
 
The SA is going to mop the floor with Cindy. It will be interesting if the SA questions CA about the defenses motion "2010.03.08 Motion to exclude hearsay, gossip, innuendo" where it basically accuses Cindy of being under "no stress" of Caylee going missing because she had not been staying at the house for 31-days.

The requirements for an excited utterance as interpreted by Florida Courts are:

1) The declarant must have experienced or witnessed an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement.

2) The statement must have been made while under stress caused by the event

3) Statements must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent

Factors a judge should consider to determine whether the necessary excitement or stress is present are the age of the declarant, the physical and mental condition of the declarant, the characteristics of the event an the subject matter of the statement

Cynthia Anthony is not a child, in good physical and mental health, and even though she found out upsetting news, the subject matter of the calls are things she had been dealing with for some time. The same considerations are true for Casey Anthony, and though she is younger, she was not in danger of any physical harm at the time of making the call and calmly explained the events to the 911 operator

In addition, the statement in the 911 calls do not meet all three requirements for an excited utterance, namely the second and third requirements. Cynthia Anthony was still not under the stress of her car being stolen or her granddaughter going missing. Her car had been returned and her granddaughter had not been staying at the house for thirty-one days.

Furthermore, there is a significant amount of time between the two calls, giving Cynthia Anthony time to reflect and regain her composure before calling again to supplement the first call. Time also could have passed between the moment that Casey Anthony informed her mother that the child had been missing for thirty-one days at the moment 911 was called. There is no evidence that Cynthia Anthony was under stress of a startling event

I would love for the SA to read this to CA, on the stand, sentence by sentence and see if she agrees that she was under "no stress" and "even though she found out upsetting news, the subject matter of the calls are things she had been dealing with for some time."
 
ThinkTank said:
It will be interesting to see if Lee RE-hired the attorney he dismissed a while back??? Luka?

And .... if the State issued the subpoenas for Cindy and Lee .... we can assume that the Inmate will be FURIOUS that her mother and brother have been forced to testify at this Hearing. She can THANK her stellar Defense team for asking for this "evidentiary" Hearing though.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm wondering if getting this supoena means he's retained his old lawyer, or did both go through Conway?

I also wonder if there will be anger at CA for the incest lies in her letters. That can't sit well with him. I wonder if he'll ignore his whole family, or just Casey. Or worse case scenario, I am going to gag if it's a lovey dovey family reunion. Oh please. Like anyone is going to believe that.

I'm also wondering how big of a headache Conway has right now, and if he's hit the sauce yet. Knowing how those two were the last time they were on a stand, he's got to be worried about them this time too. There's no guarantee they are going to behave and not act inappropriately up there.

Btw, it has to be the SA that issued the subpoenas. There is no way, unless Baez truly has no brain, that the defense would possibly want to turn the courtroom into a circus again. That won't look good for Casey or her family. He would be crazy to be the one to issue those subpoenas. But the SA, oh yes, I can definitely see them wanting to tear the two apart on the stand to give them a glimpse of what's to come at trial. SA so issued those subpoenas.
 
JSV said:
I don't know which side issued the subpoena .
Click to expand...
I dont know either but if I had to guess it would be SA but its just a guess and I could very well be wong:crazy:
 
To understand the State's Motion and why they will win it (actually has nothing to do with an excited utterance) RH explains it perfectly in his "911 - What's your emergency?" blog that ThinkTank linked earlier. Even if you don't want to read the entire blog (which is very good!) the section sub-titled "Applying the Hearsay law to the 911 calls", (about 1/2 way down) goes to the heart of the SA's actual motion.

And the SA has case law on their side! :dance:

If only CM and JB did their homework as well as RH....:angel:

Richard Hornsby explains the SA's motion HERE
 
Mrs G Norris said:
2 years to the day since she made the call....It's a shame she wont stand up for the truth and what happened to Caylee, but I look forward to watching her commit perjury.
Click to expand...

But the weird thing is, in Cindy's mind it won't be perjury.:crazy: I am so hoping that LDB or someone from the SA's office will manage to trip her up when they point out her former statements in the depos.
What a preview to the trial this is going to be!
 
beach2yall said:
To understand the State's Motion and why they will win it (actually has nothing to do with an excited utterance) RH explains it perfectly in his "911 - What's your emergency?" blog that ThinkTank linked earlier. Even if you don't want to read the entire blog (which is very good!) the section sub-titled "Applying the Hearsay law to the 911 calls", (about 1/2 way down) goes to the heart of the SA's actual motion.

And the SA has case law on their side! :dance:

If only CM and JB did their homework as well as RH....:angel:

Richard Hornsby explains the SA's motion HERE
Click to expand...

And it boggles the mind to remember that MASON/the DEFENSE asked for this Hearing on the 15th!
They pretty much forced the Prosecutors to subpoena Cindy and Lee to testify!
The Inmate has only her "boys" to thank for this!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4453441...se-Regarding-Admissibility-of-911-Calls_FILED
Defense Motion asking for the evidentiary Hearing on the 911 calls
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 3,226 (members: 150, guests: 3,076)

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
3,076
Total visitors
3,226
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,296
Messages
17,966,867
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top