The latest "Gotcha" is that River Cruz will testify that GA said Caylee's death was an accident. Note the following quote from this story:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28302102/detail.html
"Typically, testifying about what someone told you is hearsay and not admissible, but Local 6 legal analyst Mark OMara said Holloways testimony would be allowed.
OMara said Holloways testimony could be used to impeach previous testimony by George Anthony that he knew nothing about Caylee drowning."
What say our legal experts? Does this get in as impeachment?
I agree with AZ: If George told Cruz he picked Caylee's dead body from the pool, her testimony about that statement would come in as impeachment [contradicting his prior testimony that he knows nothing about the circumstances of her death].
But, if Cruz's testifies to the statements by George that she mentioned when interrogated by the police, she will not testify that George said that. The transcript of that interrogation is available, and you can read it for yourselves. She referred to two statements by George. The first, which he told her early on, when Casey was initially taken into custody, is the one the defense wants the jury to hear. He did not claim to have witnessed anything, or that Casey told him anything. Cruz says he uttered words to the effect that "it was an accident". But if you read those words carefully and in context, you will see clearly that he meant "it must have been an accident", which is something very different.
But if you have any doubt as to the meaning of his first statement, the doubt will be resolved by the second one. He told Cruz about an incident, after Casey was released from custody and living in the Anthony home, when George angrily confronted Casey -- I think he said he shoved her against a wall and had his hands on her throat -- and he accused her killing Caylee and demanded that she move out of his home.
If the defense calls her to testify about the first statement, the second statement will come in [as impeachment, if nothing else]. That will be very, very unfortunate for Casey. As you can imagine, testimony offered to prove a statement by the defendant's father, to the effect that he believes his daughter is guilty, is ordinarily not admissible. For a host of reasons. If offered to prove the defendant
is, in fact, guilty, it lacks foundation. If offered to prove he
believes she is guilty, it is irrelevant. And it is also extremely prejudicial.
But here, once Baez has Cruz testify about George's first statement, I don't see how the judge can keep the second statement out, since it clarifies or contradicts first statement. Thus, calling Cruz will result in admision of George's otherwise inadmissible statement, that he believes his daughter killed his granddaughter.
The only rational explanation I can think of for calling Cruz is that Baez expects her to repudiate what she told the police and testify, instead, George told her [for example] he found Caylee's body in the pool and it really was an accident. But if that's it, Baez is taking a huge risk. Whether Cruz lied to the police, or she's willing to lie to save Casey [or get back at George], how can Baez trust her when she says how she'll testify at trial? [After all, the reason we admit prior inconsistent statements is that it proves the witness is not trustworthy.] And, even if she testifies as she said she would, her prior inconsistent statements to the police [together with all the other stuff the prosecution has on her] will be admissible to impeach her, so little would have been gained.
Makes no sense to me.
