Casey's appeal on the 4 charges of lying to police

[logicalgirl]

Sorry for the late reply. I was referring to the fact that the judge kept asking LF what amount of time would deem FCA "unarrested". LF said she wouldn't have appealed if three weeks had elapsed between the time CA was handcuffed and the time she lied to the police. He kept asking her to narrow down what she believed a sufficient amount of time would be and she kept saying she couldn't say.

(I hope I explained that in a way that made sense. Virus-brain thinks I did, but virus-brain has been known to be wrong before. )

No that's great thanks - I knew you were making a good point but I was "missing" it is all with my own foggy brain.

It's weird but I was so tense during the hearing - I was aware I was over reacting and then realized because of the shock of the not guilty verdict - I was listening this time from a position of fear - that a similar thing would happen.

That's why I keep clarifying what people are saying....thank you!:great:

 

[AZlawyer]

Here are the three arguments presented by Casey's attorneys on appeal:

1. Casey's lying statements (about working at Universal, leaving Caylee with Zanny, telling Juliet & Jeff about the kidnapping, and getting a phone call from Caylee on July 15) should be thrown out because she was in custody and being interrogated without having been given her Miranda rights. This argument includes her written statement, which was prepared after the handcuffing episode, as well as her statements to Yuri at the house and to the detectives at Universal. IMO the "right answer" here, although reasonable judges could disagree, is that anything she said after the door was closed at Universal and she was accused of lying should be thrown out, and everything she said before is OK. I haven't gone through the statements recently to see how much she said before vs. after the door was closed.

2. Casey's 4 lies were really just one big lie, and it is unconstitutional to prosecute her for each sentence of the lie. IMO this is a pretty good argument but doesn't matter much. One conviction, four convictions, whatever--she's already done the time. Possibly it might make a difference for restoration of rights (e.g., the right to vote).

3. HHJP should have required the jury to find that the lies were material--i.e., that they were about something that mattered to the investigation. An immaterial lie by Casey might have been, "Well, I remember I had a glass of water that morning." IMO "I work at Universal" might have been an immaterial lie--and maybe the "Juliet & Jeff" one too, although LE did have to try to track them down to corroborate Casey's story. The other two lies seem pretty material to a missing child investigation--who last had the child and when the parent last heard from the child. But the question on appeal is not whether the lies were material but whether HHJP should have TOLD THE JURY they needed to find that the lies were material before convicting Casey on those lies. IMO this is a possible "technicality" that could result in reversal of the convictions. There is nothing crystal clear in the law stating that the lies must be material, but it does seem like a reasonable argument.

 

[ZsaZsa]

AZLawyer- one of the legal analysts for WOFL indicated she might escape any consequences of her comments about Zenaida during the civil case, if her statements re Zenaida were obtained 'illegally' - is that so?
What about her comments to 911 and her comments during jail visits?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Kathy Belich reports on the appeals.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/casey-anthony-appeal-lying-conviction-tuesday/nTpR3/

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Here are the three arguments presented by Casey's attorneys on appeal:

1. Casey's lying statements (about working at Universal, leaving Caylee with Zanny, telling Juliet & Jeff about the kidnapping, and getting a phone call from Caylee on July 15) should be thrown out because she was in custody and being interrogated without having been given her Miranda rights. This argument includes her written statement, which was prepared after the handcuffing episode, as well as her statements to Yuri at the house and to the detectives at Universal. IMO the "right answer" here, although reasonable judges could disagree, is that anything she said after the door was closed at Universal and she was accused of lying should be thrown out, and everything she said before is OK. I haven't gone through the statements recently to see how much she said before vs. after the door was closed.

2. Casey's 4 lies were really just one big lie, and it is unconstitutional to prosecute her for each sentence of the lie. IMO this is a pretty good argument but doesn't matter much. One conviction, four convictions, whatever--she's already done the time. Possibly it might make a difference for restoration of rights (e.g., the right to vote).

3. HHJP should have required the jury to find that the lies were material--i.e., that they were about something that mattered to the investigation. An immaterial lie by Casey might have been, "Well, I remember I had a glass of water that morning." IMO "I work at Universal" might have been an immaterial lie--and maybe the "Juliet & Jeff" one too, although LE did have to try to track them down to corroborate Casey's story. The other two lies seem pretty material to a missing child investigation--who last had the child and when the parent last heard from the child. But the question on appeal is not whether the lies were material but whether HHJP should have TOLD THE JURY they needed to find that the lies were material before convicting Casey on those lies. IMO this is a possible "technicality" that could result in reversal of the convictions. There is nothing crystal clear in the law stating that the lies must be material, but it does seem like a reasonable argument.

Question on #1 - Does it matter that FCA asked the police to help her find Caylee, as opposed to them coming to her? Why should she expect Miranda warnings if she was asking for help to find her daughter? It seems like she's playing both sides. Isn't this a dangerous precedent for future cases?

 

[RR0004]

Here are the three arguments presented by Casey's attorneys on appeal:

1. Casey's lying statements (about working at Universal, leaving Caylee with Zanny, telling Juliet & Jeff about the kidnapping, and getting a phone call from Caylee on July 15) should be thrown out because she was in custody and being interrogated without having been given her Miranda rights. This argument includes her written statement, which was prepared after the handcuffing episode, as well as her statements to Yuri at the house and to the detectives at Universal. IMO the "right answer" here, although reasonable judges could disagree, is that anything she said after the door was closed at Universal and she was accused of lying should be thrown out, and everything she said before is OK. I haven't gone through the statements recently to see how much she said before vs. after the door was closed.

2. Casey's 4 lies were really just one big lie, and it is unconstitutional to prosecute her for each sentence of the lie. IMO this is a pretty good argument but doesn't matter much. One conviction, four convictions, whatever--she's already done the time. Possibly it might make a difference for restoration of rights (e.g., the right to vote).

3. HHJP should have required the jury to find that the lies were material--i.e., that they were about something that mattered to the investigation. An immaterial lie by Casey might have been, "Well, I remember I had a glass of water that morning." IMO "I work at Universal" might have been an immaterial lie--and maybe the "Juliet & Jeff" one too, although LE did have to try to track them down to corroborate Casey's story. The other two lies seem pretty material to a missing child investigation--who last had the child and when the parent last heard from the child. But the question on appeal is not whether the lies were material but whether HHJP should have TOLD THE JURY they needed to find that the lies were material before convicting Casey on those lies. IMO this is a possible "technicality" that could result in reversal of the convictions. There is nothing crystal clear in the law stating that the lies must be material, but it does seem like a reasonable argument.

Bless you...I heard the judge say so many mistruths that I was very confused about the sequence of events. Thanks for laying everything out so clearly, AZ.
Ps- Did you watch the hearing? If you did, what did you think?

 

[wonders]

No that's great thanks - I knew you were making a good point but I was "missing" it is all with my own foggy brain.

It's weird but I was so tense during the hearing - I was aware I was over reacting and then realized because of the shock of the not guilty verdict - I was listening this time from a position of fear - that a similar thing would happen.

That's why I keep clarifying what people are saying....thank you!:great:

LG I think you have hit the nail on the head once again. We expect FCA to get away scotfree and it does build fear in us. Thank you so much for always showing me what I feel but can't put a finger on it.

 

[wonders]

Here are the three arguments presented by Casey's attorneys on appeal:

1. Casey's lying statements (about working at Universal, leaving Caylee with Zanny, telling Juliet & Jeff about the kidnapping, and getting a phone call from Caylee on July 15) should be thrown out because she was in custody and being interrogated without having been given her Miranda rights. This argument includes her written statement, which was prepared after the handcuffing episode, as well as her statements to Yuri at the house and to the detectives at Universal. IMO the "right answer" here, although reasonable judges could disagree, is that anything she said after the door was closed at Universal and she was accused of lying should be thrown out, and everything she said before is OK. I haven't gone through the statements recently to see how much she said before vs. after the door was closed.

2. Casey's 4 lies were really just one big lie, and it is unconstitutional to prosecute her for each sentence of the lie. IMO this is a pretty good argument but doesn't matter much. One conviction, four convictions, whatever--she's already done the time. Possibly it might make a difference for restoration of rights (e.g., the right to vote).

3. HHJP should have required the jury to find that the lies were material--i.e., that they were about something that mattered to the investigation. An immaterial lie by Casey might have been, "Well, I remember I had a glass of water that morning." IMO "I work at Universal" might have been an immaterial lie--and maybe the "Juliet & Jeff" one too, although LE did have to try to track them down to corroborate Casey's story. The other two lies seem pretty material to a missing child investigation--who last had the child and when the parent last heard from the child. But the question on appeal is not whether the lies were material but whether HHJP should have TOLD THE JURY they needed to find that the lies were material before convicting Casey on those lies. IMO this is a possible "technicality" that could result in reversal of the convictions. There is nothing crystal clear in the law stating that the lies must be material, but it does seem like a reasonable argument.

I want to thank this post personally as it make's perfect sense. I am more convinced now than before that she will win this appeal.
One thing is for certain she's going to have a heavy debt in Karma to pay back.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I watch 'The First 48hrs' on A&E network, which follows police as they start murder investigations. Invariably there is a person of interest or suspect in their Interrogation room, being questioned sometimes for hours. I don't ever see them cautioning the person until they decide to arrest/charge them,
so how come the info they get is OK but we are supposed to believe that
Casey's statements were obtained illegally ?

 

[watcher9]

Here are the three arguments presented by Casey's attorneys on appeal:

1. Casey's lying statements (about working at Universal, leaving Caylee with Zanny, telling Juliet & Jeff about the kidnapping, and getting a phone call from Caylee on July 15) should be thrown out because she was in custody and being interrogated without having been given her Miranda rights. This argument includes her written statement, which was prepared after the handcuffing episode, as well as her statements to Yuri at the house and to the detectives at Universal. IMO the "right answer" here, although reasonable judges could disagree, is that anything she said after the door was closed at Universal and she was accused of lying should be thrown out, and everything she said before is OK. I haven't gone through the statements recently to see how much she said before vs. after the door was closed.

2. Casey's 4 lies were really just one big lie, and it is unconstitutional to prosecute her for each sentence of the lie. IMO this is a pretty good argument but doesn't matter much. One conviction, four convictions, whatever--she's already done the time. Possibly it might make a difference for restoration of rights (e.g., the right to vote).

3. HHJP should have required the jury to find that the lies were material--i.e., that they were about something that mattered to the investigation. An immaterial lie by Casey might have been, "Well, I remember I had a glass of water that morning." IMO "I work at Universal" might have been an immaterial lie--and maybe the "Juliet & Jeff" one too, although LE did have to try to track them down to corroborate Casey's story. The other two lies seem pretty material to a missing child investigation--who last had the child and when the parent last heard from the child. But the question on appeal is not whether the lies were material but whether HHJP should have TOLD THE JURY they needed to find that the lies were material before convicting Casey on those lies. IMO this is a possible "technicality" that could result in reversal of the convictions. There is nothing crystal clear in the law stating that the lies must be material, but it does seem like a reasonable argument.

Thanks for all you do in helping us to understand the law so well.

I found a transcript of the 911 call which Casey was on before the police even arrived so she wasn't in custody at that time.

She claimed the nanny had Caylee and that the nanny's name was ZFG on that call. She also claimed on that call she did get to speak to her daughter for about a moment on that day.

IMO she might can get out of the working at Universal and the Jeff and Juliet lies if they were not spoken before the handcuffing but she can't get out of the other two, can she?

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/crime/article/194785/82/CASEY-ANTHONY-TRIAL--Transcript-of-911-call-

 

[RANCH]

Thanks for all you do in helping us to understand the law so well.

I found a transcript of the 911 call which Casey was on before the police even arrived so she wasn't in custody at that time.

She claimed the nanny had Caylee and that the nanny's name was ZFG on that call. She also claimed on that call she did get to speak to her daughter for about a moment on that day.

IMO she might can get out of the working at Universal and the Jeff and Juliet lies if they were not spoken before the handcuffing but she can't get out of the other two, can she?

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/crime/article/194785/82/CASEY-ANTHONY-TRIAL--Transcript-of-911-call-

Was KC convicted of lying to the 911 dispatcher? I don't think so. Her lying to the dispatcher could be used in the civil suit but I don't think that it has anything to do with the appeal. JMO.

 

[watcher9]

Was KC convicted of lying to the 911 dispatcher? I don't think so. Her lying to the dispatcher could be used in the civil suit but I don't think that it has anything to do with the appeal. JMO.

No she wasn't convicted of lying on her 911 call, but wouldn't any statements made after that have just been a repeat of what she had already said.
I admit I'm in over my head here.

 

[RANCH]

No she wasn't convicted of lying on her 911 call, but wouldn't any statements made after that have just been a repeat of what she had already said.
I admit I'm in over my head here.

I think that the appeal is about whether the lies that KC made to LE are admissible or not. The fact that she lied is not in dispute. JMO.

 

[watcher9]

Isn't the 911 operator considered LE?
The 911 calls were submitted as evidence.

 

[RANCH]

Isn't the 911 operator considered LE?
The 911 calls were submitted as evidence.

I don't think that a 911 dispatcher is necessarily a sworn peace officer.

Let me ask you a question Watcher. Do you feel that KC was in custody or under arrest when police officers questioned her? Or do you feel that she could have walked out of the room that she was in if she wanted? Personally I think that she could have. And I feel she was aware that she could leave the room if she wished.

If the appeal judges feel the same way as me, then KC looses her appeal.

MOO.

 

[watcher9]

I don't think that a 911 dispatcher is necessarily a sworn peace officer.

Let me ask you a question Watcher. Do you feel that KC was in custody or under arrest when police officers questioned her? Or do you feel that she could have walked out of the room that she was in if she wanted? Personally I think that she could have. And I feel she was aware that she could leave the room if she wished.

If the appeal judges feel the same way as me, then KC looses her appeal.

MOO.

No I don't think she was in custody or under arrest when LE questioned her and I don't think that FCA thought she was either. She was playing her game and getting away with it and enjoyed every minute of it, knowing she could lie her way out of any situation. She could have walked out if she wanted and I agree that she was aware that she could.

When they actually did take her in and took that booking photo with her grinning like a cheshire cat in her blue hoodie, that told it all. She was not afraid of LE or their "size" or their "guns." She believed LE was believing all her lies just like her parents always did and like her friends did too!

I too hope that the appeals court will rule against her and she loses her appeal.

 

[Jomo]

Isn't it illegal to give any false statement to the police? Didn't her written statement contain the same lies that she later repeated to investigators? She was not in custody when she gave her first written statement, was she?

I also wonder if first arrest for stealing and subsequent release on that same matter was (legally speaking) treated as a separate circumstance to the false statement arrest.

Haven't we seen in situations before where a criminal is cuffed, questioned, released and then immediately arrested for a separate issue upon stepping out the courtroom or station door?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer- one of the legal analysts for WOFL indicated she might escape any consequences of her comments about Zenaida during the civil case, if her statements re Zenaida were obtained 'illegally' - is that so?
What about her comments to 911 and her comments during jail visits?

I don't think this is correct, because IIRC Judge Munyon already threw out the part of the defamation case based on statements to LE and limited it to the jail visit statements. The jail visit statements were not obtained illegally and are not at issue in the criminal appeal.

Question on #1 - Does it matter that FCA asked the police to help her find Caylee, as opposed to them coming to her? Why should she expect Miranda warnings if she was asking for help to find her daughter? It seems like she's playing both sides. Isn't this a dangerous precedent for future cases?

No, it doesn't matter, and it's not a dangerous precedent, because to trigger Miranda rights she still has to have been (1) IN CUSTODY and (2) being INTERROGATED. Generally speaking, a mother going to the police for help finding her child will not be in custody and interrogated. In this case, IMO it became a close question once the door was closed at Universal and the detectives said, "We know you're lying to us. Tell us what happened to Caylee," or words to that effect.

Bless you...I heard the judge say so many mistruths that I was very confused about the sequence of events. Thanks for laying everything out so clearly, AZ.
Ps- Did you watch the hearing? If you did, what did you think?

I didn't get to watch it.

I watch 'The First 48hrs' on A&E network, which follows police as they start murder investigations. Invariably there is a person of interest or suspect in their Interrogation room, being questioned sometimes for hours. I don't ever see them cautioning the person until they decide to arrest/charge them,
so how come the info they get is OK but we are supposed to believe that
Casey's statements were obtained illegally ?

This might come as a shock, but sometimes TV shows are wildly inaccurate when it comes to the law. :floorlaugh: I've never personally watched the show, though, so I don't know if they tried to cover that issue somehow.

ETA: I should also mention that many suspects, upon being given their Miranda warnings, continue to blab on and on in hopes of convincing the police of their innocence.

Thanks for all you do in helping us to understand the law so well.

I found a transcript of the 911 call which Casey was on before the police even arrived so she wasn't in custody at that time.

She claimed the nanny had Caylee and that the nanny's name was ZFG on that call. She also claimed on that call she did get to speak to her daughter for about a moment on that day.

IMO she might can get out of the working at Universal and the Jeff and Juliet lies if they were not spoken before the handcuffing but she can't get out of the other two, can she?

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/crime/article/194785/82/CASEY-ANTHONY-TRIAL--Transcript-of-911-call-

The indictment accused her of giving the false information "TO YURI MELICH," not to the 911 operator. The appeals court cannot uphold the conviction based on some other similar lie for which she wasn't charged.

I don't think that a 911 dispatcher is necessarily a sworn peace officer.

Let me ask you a question Watcher. Do you feel that KC was in custody or under arrest when police officers questioned her? Or do you feel that she could have walked out of the room that she was in if she wanted? Personally I think that she could have. And I feel she was aware that she could leave the room if she wished.

If the appeal judges feel the same way as me, then KC looses her appeal.

MOO.

Honestly, there is NO WAY that Casey could have walked out of that room. She was going to be arrested. No question about it. IMO Yuri was trying to balance on the head of a pin at Universal. He didn't want to read her her Miranda rights, because he thought she would shut down if he did, but he needed to scare her into thinking she was in trouble in hopes of getting her to talk--so he tried to keep the situation ambiguous as to whether or not she was in custody and being interrogated.

Isn't it illegal to give any false statement to the police? Didn't her written statement contain the same lies that she later repeated to investigators? She was not in custody when she gave her first written statement, was she?

I also wonder if first arrest for stealing and subsequent release on that same matter was (legally speaking) treated as a separate circumstance to the false statement arrest.

Haven't we seen in situations before where a criminal is cuffed, questioned, released and then immediately arrested for a separate issue upon stepping out the courtroom or station door?

Her written statement is definitely at issue in the appeal. The argument there for custodial interrogation triggering Miranda rights hinges mostly on the handcuffing episode. The question isn't really whether she was handcuffed for a different crime, but whether she would reasonably still have felt like she was "in custody" when Yuri later talked to her about Caylee. IMO, she was not in custody for her written statement, but this is not a crystal clear area of the law.

 

[RR0004]

No I don't think she was in custody or under arrest when LE questioned her and I don't think that FCA thought she was either. She was playing her game and getting away with it and enjoyed every minute of it, knowing she could lie her way out of any situation. She could have walked out if she wanted and I agree that she was aware that she could.

When they actually did take her in and took that booking photo with her grinning like a cheshire cat in her blue hoodie, that told it all. She was not afraid of LE or their "size" or their "guns." She believed LE was believing all her lies just like her parents always did and like her friends did too!

I too hope that the appeals court will rule against her and she loses her appeal.

The photo of her grinning from ear to ear was, IIRC, a photo that LE said they would distribute with Caylee's (or something like that...lol). Now, who would be preening for a camera when there daughter was either a) allegedly kidnapped, or b) DEAD (according to her defense at trial). Sick, sick, sick.

 

[believe09]

Honestly, there is NO WAY that Casey could have walked out of that room. She was going to be arrested. No question about it. IMO Yuri was trying to balance on the head of a pin at Universal. He didn't want to read her her Miranda rights, because he thought she would shut down if he did, but he needed to scare her into thinking she was in trouble in hopes of getting her to talk--so he tried to keep the situation ambiguous as to whether or not she was in custody and being interrogated.

Absolutely agree.