Defense Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents

[Leila]

You all make very good points about why people who once considered ICA to be a friend should feel they "must" or "should" testify. I hope they realize it is not black and white, and like Jennyb says, are not heartless or vindictive if they do not testify. It is after all the responsibility of the courts and the jury to decide her fate. I would particularly not like to see any of them testify if they are still carrying any influence or repercussions of their involvement with ICA into their current life. I suspect that would include all of them because how quickly can someone shake off this kind of tentacle like association with a so called friend.

I also wanted to add to my comments above re Cindy and the jury, that while the jury is able to observe Cindy as the caring mother and grandmother, they will also see ICA's court room behavior of "Hi Jose - this is soooo exciting! Baby, what baby? Stop those meanies from saying bad things about me, stop it right now!" etc., that is her normal hearing "self".

And the results of that comparison will not benefit ICA. Then go to penalty and try to blame both the evidence and ICA's demeanor a result of ICA's upbringing? Uh uh. Epic fail - IMO.

This is again, not me defending CA's behavior on any level, but projecting ahead to what I suspect the jury may observe.

And this may be the case, with Cindy appearing in court every day for the trial, it won't escape the jurors that Cindy is there showing love and concern for her daughter, and that her daughter won't acknowledge her presence. It may be difficult for the defense during the penalty phase to portray Cindy as a controlling, demanding mother, who covered for her daughter's crimes, and lies to protect her.

But, if George continues with his current pattern of not showing up in court for hearings and only appears at trial when he has to testify, the defense may find it easy to throw him under the bus.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Yes, I remember this also Aedrys - we had at least six solid ones. But what I didn't realize until I was copying that quote is the jury members can pick any one (each) of the aggravating factors, and as long as a majority have picked one (and don't have to all agree on which ones) it is enough to recommend a death sentence. And I agree - what an azzhat he was for "demanding" the list.

Honestly, if I was Baez I'd be sweating blood so close to the trial with what he's up against. Which is why I can't figure out why he is still smirking. He's like his client with the inappropriate emotions!

That is just his natural disposition- swaggering, cocky and boastful.
It pizzes people off and will influence the way people (as in a Jury) look at his client.

 

[logicalgirl]

The list of things the State can and cannot argue or mention during the penalty is amazing long, as is the list for the Defense.

We are going to have ourselves a fine old time and many many very long discussions coming up I suspect!:waitasec:

We'll be keeping AZLawyer very busy asking for "translations" for these rules, I'm guessing!:rocker:

 

[logicalgirl]

Some bits and bobs......

For example:

6.13.27 Compare The Defendant To Worse Killers Argument

It is inappropriate for a defendant to argue that his murder is not so bad if compared to those of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson or some other notorious killer. The Court has stated"...defense counsel's argument to the jury regarding the sentences of specifically identified killers in other capital cases was not relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence for the appellant's role in the instant murder.

6.13.25 The defendant may not argue there is residual or lingering doubt about the guilt of the defendant.

6.13.18 The Supreme Court of Florida has unequivocally held lack of remorse arguments to be improper. In Pope v. State (827) the Court stated, "for these reasons we hold that henceforth lack of remorse should have no place in the consideration of the aggravating factors. Any convincing evidence of remorse may properly be considered in mitigation of the sentence, but absence of remorse should not be weighed either as an aggravating factor or as an enhancement of an aggravating factor.

 

[Aedrys]

And this may be the case, with Cindy appearing in court every day for the trial, it won't escape the jurors that Cindy is there showing love and concern for her daughter, and that her daughter won't acknowledge her presence. It may be difficult for the defense during the penalty phase to portray Cindy as a controlling, demanding mother, who covered for her daughter's crimes, and lies to protect her.

But, if George continues with his current pattern of not showing up in court for hearings and only appears at trial when he has to testify, the defense may find it easy to throw him under the bus.

It could be that he's stopped showing up at the hearings so that he can show up for trial. The jury isn't going to care about the hearings. They are only going to care about what they see at the actual trial. I can see George stepping away from the hearings so he can go to the trial and still support her. In fact, the A's shiny new lawyers might even be recommending he do that. And since they can't make Cindy stop going, they're giving her hints on what to do and how to act. I don't blame him for not going to the hearings anymore. He needs to heal his wounds and make himself ready to face that trial. Not that I feel a whole lot of sympathy for him, but he doesn't strike me as someone that's just going to let Casey throw him under the bus come trial time. It's okay right now with just hearings going on, but a hearing is not going to decide the whole trial. Talk is just talk right now. Nothing is going to matter until it comes out at trial.

 

[logicalgirl]

It could be that he's stopped showing up at the hearings so that he can show up for trial. The jury isn't going to care about the hearings. They are only going to care about what they see at the actual trial. I can see George stepping away from the hearings so he can go to the trial and still support her. In fact, the A's shiny new lawyers might even be recommending he do that. And since they can't make Cindy stop going, they're giving her hints on what to do and how to act. I don't blame him for not going to the hearings anymore. He needs to heal his wounds and make himself ready to face that trial. Not that I feel a whole lot of sympathy for him, but he doesn't strike me as someone that's just going to let Casey throw him under the bus come trial time. It's okay right now with just hearings going on, but a hearing is not going to decide the whole trial. Talk is just talk right now. Nothing is going to matter until it comes out at trial.

You could be right Aedrys because those are all good points. And there might be a simpler answer. It may be that George simply needs the money some kind of a job will bring into the house - because he does not have the kind of position that will pay him for stress leave, and somehow I doubt CA is handing over "walking around money" to him. And he could also be "saving up" so he can attend the trial full time.

For the kind of job George takes, I doubt his employer will let him "off" to attend hearings, and then deal with the emotional turmoil George must bring back to the job with him each time there is a hearing.

Plus I think he doesn't have CA's unfailing strength to support ICA, and I suspect he is mega PO and embarrassed about the abuse statements ICA has leveled at him. All IMO of course.