logicalgirl
Peace Hawk
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 0
I am getting sooo annoyed at Baez for this argument - and bringing it up at this late date - get real Baez - you blew it - no evidence!
2011.07.03 TRIAL Day Thirty-four - STATE CLOSING ARGUMENTS
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
Tuffy
Not really that tough...
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 6,178
- Reaction score
- 21
:rocker: No evidence or INFERENCE! woohoo
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,947
I agree ... omg ... JB is absolutely unbelievable ! He is really pushing it !:banghead:
Good Morning ... and Justice for Caylee !
Happy Fourth of July
:fireworks::fireworks::fireworks:
rosepetal1065
Ive got splinters..in the windmills of my mind....
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,695
- Reaction score
- 13
The inmate...looks upset that her story is not being told...should have took the stand...too late now.
Velouria
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 35
ITA. I didn't see a gyno until I was in college and went to the University clinic myself. Of course, ICA didn't go to school, but there are numerous places she could have driven that little ol' Sunfire to for a free or low cost exam - if she'd had any intention of behaving in a responsible manner.
lowens1975
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 847
- Reaction score
- -10
You think JA is giving closing for the state??
deelytful1
*~a mere mortal~*
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,927
- Reaction score
- 14
Lighting a candle now....
nursebeeme
Registered User
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 53,158
- Reaction score
- 211
You guys ROCK!!!!!!:rocker: Can you believe that we are to closing arguments?!!
Steft50
Having Fun
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 717
We are retired military and I put my daughter on the pill for reasons other than sexual activity and they wouldn't do a pelvic or pap on her until she turns 18 unless there is medical reason to do so. She's 18 this year so we'll see if she gets the embarrassed shock of her life this year! Nothing unusual about her physcial exam record imho.
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
8:31
HHJBP: Ya'll ready to proceed with the charge conference?
Yes, sir.
HHJBP: We'll start with the standard jury instructions and then we'll proceed to the requested jury instructions.
HHJBP:Introduction of final instructions - any objections? State - no. Defense
Introduction to Homicide - agg child abuse would not be a lesser of count 1. It's a separate charge.
HHJBP: Can't find the Defendant guilty of both agg. manslaughter?
JA: I think the Jury can find guilty on both.
HHJBP: The reason it was charged that way was because it contained elements that were not in the indictment - thus you needed to charge her.
HHJBP: Did ya'll read through all instructions that were provided to you in writing? I will assume you have reviewed the all from soup to nuts
JA: I wasn't aware. We were all under the mistaken impression...
HHJBP: I guess you all were mistaken. So, I guess I will wait until noon to do the charge conference. But we can continue..
HHJBP: Justifiable Homicide.... You are going to need to fashion something because the question is going to come up about agg manslaughter and those other counts.
HHJBP: Justifiable Homicide - excusable homicide - any other changes?
JA - no there are no other changes that I am aware of.
HHJBP: First degree murder? No changes that the state is aware of. I believe the state requested the addition -
DEFENSE: Because the state is seeking the ultimate verdict, the instruction as written -
HHJBP: Parker v State and Shaw v Arizona. This instruction meets the requirement and will be given.
HHJBP: Felony murder 1st degree? Defense: as given - simply agg child abuse requires multiple and separate instances, we believe there should be an additional finding - Brooks case
HHJBP: Do you agree Caley is dead? Yes
2a and 2b call in to issue the same thing
LDB: Merger issue in Brooks is a legal issue for the Court as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict based on separate issues. This issue is in flux in this state. Various district courts have disagreed.
DEFENSE: This is an ongoing issue. Right now the law that agg child abuse is an underlying felony. One instance of agg child abuse merges into the murder charge.
HHJBP: Court will give 2a as written without any additional instructions. 2b will given in the alternative. 3a - I don't think the rest apply.
HHJBP: agg child abuse? Defense: "Wilfully" definition is lacking.
HHJBP: You want the definition for "wilfully" in there? Yes.
LDB: This most tracks the indictment.
HHJBP: Ya'll going to need to make sure someone brings you a sandwich at noon if you want to get this jury instructed today. That's why I suggested we come in yesterday at noon. Have you found 16.1. Anyone asking for 1.a.?
LDB: No, it's 1.e. That is how it is charged in the indictment in Count 2.
HHJBP: Defense? We think 1.a. doesn't apply.
HHJBP: There is no evidence that anyone wilfully tortured? Not charged.
HHJBP: Count 2 - victim under the age of 18? Correct? Yes.
HHJBP: Definitions - besides wilfully and aggravated child abuse? You want any others? Defense: just wilfully.
HHJBP: False info to a LE? And we will get back to the agg child abuse.
LDB: Will the jury be getting a copy of the indictment?
HHJBP: Yes, the rules require that.
DEFENSE: We object to this. This case is a case of initial impression. We argue that each instance of false statement should not stand alone.
HHJBP: Would that not be a motion to dismiss at the time the plea be entered as now? Which requires a Motion to Dismiss was filed.
LDB: It was not filed as to this count - only to 1,2 and 3 and Judge Strickland denied that motion.
HHJBP: There is evidence of an accidental drowning, there is some inference that can be drawn. If there is an argument about that, let me hear it now. Hearing none - fine.
There is absolutely no evidence that the defendant was sexually molested by her father or her brother. If someone sees that evidence, let me know now.
JB: I would submit that the evidence that the Jury could draw inference would be the paternity test done by the FBI, and that ICA was not taken to an OB/GYN until she was 19. It is common knowledge that one is asked during such an exam that one would be asked about sexual activity.
HHJBP: Is there record evidence about that?
JB: This is common knowledge. We ask Jurors to draw on common sense.
HHJBP: Did LA testify?
JB: Yes.
HHJBP: Did anyone ask him if he crept into his sister's room and attempt to molest her?
JB: I think both sides for strategic reasons decided not to. In addition, the Jury can draw inference from the hidden pregnancy and the reasons behind that. There was also evidence about ICA's sexual background and behavior. It is also common knowledge that children of sex abuse grow up to be promiscuous and lack boundaries - also lying and compartmentalized. There is no more evidence that this child was given chloroform than ICA was sexually abused. Both require inferences. If the jury is going to hear about chloroform and duct tape suffocation, then they should be permitted to hear inferences about this. TL's testimony that they shared secrets, deep secrets - the testimony that this has to do with child abuse - we have a good faith basis.
HHJBP: You've got one more minute.
JA: We don't agree. Innuendo is not evidence. Further more there is no evidence to connect this alleged molestation to anything in this case.
HHJBP: The court finds no facts in evidence or reasonable evidence that either LA or GA molested or attempted to molest ICA!
JA: Would the Court restrict the state from pointing out to the jury the failure of the defense from proving that from opening statement?
HHJBP: Burden shifting? If the Defense opens the door and makes a comment that requires a reasonable counter comment. The burden of proof is on the State. If they remember, they remember - if they don't, they don't.
HHJBP: Instruction regarding Dr. Rodriguez - WR was called as a defense witness. Through no fault of either, he was not able to complete his testimony and it is not to be considered in deliberations.
DEFENSE: We agree with instructions as drafted.
HHJBP: Anybody need to take a quick one before we get started? 5 minutes.
HHJBP: Ya'll ready to proceed with the charge conference?
Yes, sir.
HHJBP: We'll start with the standard jury instructions and then we'll proceed to the requested jury instructions.
HHJBP:Introduction of final instructions - any objections? State - no. Defense
Introduction to Homicide - agg child abuse would not be a lesser of count 1. It's a separate charge.
HHJBP: Can't find the Defendant guilty of both agg. manslaughter?
JA: I think the Jury can find guilty on both.
HHJBP: The reason it was charged that way was because it contained elements that were not in the indictment - thus you needed to charge her.
HHJBP: Did ya'll read through all instructions that were provided to you in writing? I will assume you have reviewed the all from soup to nuts
JA: I wasn't aware. We were all under the mistaken impression...
HHJBP: I guess you all were mistaken. So, I guess I will wait until noon to do the charge conference. But we can continue..
HHJBP: Justifiable Homicide.... You are going to need to fashion something because the question is going to come up about agg manslaughter and those other counts.
HHJBP: Justifiable Homicide - excusable homicide - any other changes?
JA - no there are no other changes that I am aware of.
HHJBP: First degree murder? No changes that the state is aware of. I believe the state requested the addition -
DEFENSE: Because the state is seeking the ultimate verdict, the instruction as written -
HHJBP: Parker v State and Shaw v Arizona. This instruction meets the requirement and will be given.
HHJBP: Felony murder 1st degree? Defense: as given - simply agg child abuse requires multiple and separate instances, we believe there should be an additional finding - Brooks case
HHJBP: Do you agree Caley is dead? Yes
2a and 2b call in to issue the same thing
LDB: Merger issue in Brooks is a legal issue for the Court as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict based on separate issues. This issue is in flux in this state. Various district courts have disagreed.
DEFENSE: This is an ongoing issue. Right now the law that agg child abuse is an underlying felony. One instance of agg child abuse merges into the murder charge.
HHJBP: Court will give 2a as written without any additional instructions. 2b will given in the alternative. 3a - I don't think the rest apply.
HHJBP: agg child abuse? Defense: "Wilfully" definition is lacking.
HHJBP: You want the definition for "wilfully" in there? Yes.
LDB: This most tracks the indictment.
HHJBP: Ya'll going to need to make sure someone brings you a sandwich at noon if you want to get this jury instructed today. That's why I suggested we come in yesterday at noon. Have you found 16.1. Anyone asking for 1.a.?
LDB: No, it's 1.e. That is how it is charged in the indictment in Count 2.
HHJBP: Defense? We think 1.a. doesn't apply.
HHJBP: There is no evidence that anyone wilfully tortured? Not charged.
HHJBP: Count 2 - victim under the age of 18? Correct? Yes.
HHJBP: Definitions - besides wilfully and aggravated child abuse? You want any others? Defense: just wilfully.
HHJBP: False info to a LE? And we will get back to the agg child abuse.
LDB: Will the jury be getting a copy of the indictment?
HHJBP: Yes, the rules require that.
DEFENSE: We object to this. This case is a case of initial impression. We argue that each instance of false statement should not stand alone.
HHJBP: Would that not be a motion to dismiss at the time the plea be entered as now? Which requires a Motion to Dismiss was filed.
LDB: It was not filed as to this count - only to 1,2 and 3 and Judge Strickland denied that motion.
HHJBP: There is evidence of an accidental drowning, there is some inference that can be drawn. If there is an argument about that, let me hear it now. Hearing none - fine.
There is absolutely no evidence that the defendant was sexually molested by her father or her brother. If someone sees that evidence, let me know now.
JB: I would submit that the evidence that the Jury could draw inference would be the paternity test done by the FBI, and that ICA was not taken to an OB/GYN until she was 19. It is common knowledge that one is asked during such an exam that one would be asked about sexual activity.
HHJBP: Is there record evidence about that?
JB: This is common knowledge. We ask Jurors to draw on common sense.
HHJBP: Did LA testify?
JB: Yes.
HHJBP: Did anyone ask him if he crept into his sister's room and attempt to molest her?
JB: I think both sides for strategic reasons decided not to. In addition, the Jury can draw inference from the hidden pregnancy and the reasons behind that. There was also evidence about ICA's sexual background and behavior. It is also common knowledge that children of sex abuse grow up to be promiscuous and lack boundaries - also lying and compartmentalized. There is no more evidence that this child was given chloroform than ICA was sexually abused. Both require inferences. If the jury is going to hear about chloroform and duct tape suffocation, then they should be permitted to hear inferences about this. TL's testimony that they shared secrets, deep secrets - the testimony that this has to do with child abuse - we have a good faith basis.
HHJBP: You've got one more minute.
JA: We don't agree. Innuendo is not evidence. Further more there is no evidence to connect this alleged molestation to anything in this case.
HHJBP: The court finds no facts in evidence or reasonable evidence that either LA or GA molested or attempted to molest ICA!
JA: Would the Court restrict the state from pointing out to the jury the failure of the defense from proving that from opening statement?
HHJBP: Burden shifting? If the Defense opens the door and makes a comment that requires a reasonable counter comment. The burden of proof is on the State. If they remember, they remember - if they don't, they don't.
HHJBP: Instruction regarding Dr. Rodriguez - WR was called as a defense witness. Through no fault of either, he was not able to complete his testimony and it is not to be considered in deliberations.
DEFENSE: We agree with instructions as drafted.
HHJBP: Anybody need to take a quick one before we get started? 5 minutes.
- Status