Motion In Limine To Exclude Mental Health Experts

[ZsaZsa]

BBM. I was entertaining the theory that ICA said she would talk to them AS LONG AS they said there is nothing wrong with her. I bet she's been fuming for 2 1/2 years about being called "bizarre" (although she didn't blink when HHJS said that), a sociopath, etc.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I'm wondering where Ann Finnell stands in all this?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Kathi Belich and Bill Sheaffer- "the State is onto them and is shutting it down".
http://www.wftv.com/video/27525949/index.html

 

[logicalgirl]

Kathi Belich and Bill Sheaffer- "the State is onto them and is shutting it down".
http://www.wftv.com/video/27525949/index.html

What I particularly like about this video - besides Bill S.'s comments of course - is wftv is being much more blunt in their summary. They show that beautiful picture of Cayley, say ICA is accused of murdering her daughter, stuffing her in the trunk of her car (with a shot of ICA's car) and dumping her body....(with a shot of where she dumped the body).

Excellent to see at least one of the media has finally taken the gloves off, and making the description both real and brutal!

 

[miimaa]

I guess Baez is trying his best to get his client acquitted without her ever taking the stand...:maddening:

I also believe, ICA would not allow any mental health examination so the best he could do is offer up her statements to police and find that ace in the hole...it won't fly...JA will shut it down, before it begins...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

So are you saying these mental health people DID NOT even speak to KC but formed opinions on her statements alone? WTH.... I don't understand what the DT is trying to do by not having them interview her in person. It is apparent to me that KC creates her own reality and absolutely has mental issues - IMO diminished capacity is a good fit. I believe she is somewhat retarded but was able to get by on her looks and sex. KC received attention and was taken care of via flirting, etc. and lying to females pretending to befriend them. IMO learned behavior from childhood and the result of an indulgent upbringing / lack of discipline / 'all for show' mother.

 

[TxLady2]

Excuse my ignorance but why would it be considered hearsay if it is statements from Casey to these mental health experts themselves? That's certainly not the legal definition of hearsay, unless I am mistaken.
However, I can't see why the prosecution would object to the defense introducing these experts, if they are indeed experts in their field, since they want their own expert's testimony regarding the air samples allowed, and that is not a recognized methodology in the science field.
I say bring them on. If the prosecution has a strong enough case, it should not worry them at all.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

So are you saying these mental health people DID NOT even speak to KC but formed opinions on her statements alone? WTH.... I don't understand what the DT is trying to do by not having them interview her in person. It is apparent to me that KC creates her own reality and absolutely has mental issues - IMO diminished capacity is a good fit. I believe she is somewhat retarded but was able to get by on her looks and sex. KC received attention and was taken care of via flirting, etc. and lying to females pretending to befriend them. IMO learned behavior from childhood and the result of an indulgent upbringing / lack of discipline / 'all for show' mother.

I'm not saying anything, this is the State.....you should watch the above video it lays it out perfectly...It appears these MHP are using ICA's statements and offering up her state of mind/consciousness of guilt from those statements made to LE...they never examined her...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Softail]

Just thinking about this.... You don't suppose JB and CM are going to try to tell Judge Perry..... "Yeah, Yeah, Casey will testify... so you have to let it in". Only to back out of that later? :waitasec:

We all know how trustworthy they are, as with their stipulations. How the heck would that work? If they lie, and these "experts" are allowed to testify, but then they DON'T put Casey on the stand? Could that happen?

 

[krisskross]

What I particularly like about this video - besides Bill S.'s comments of course - is wftv is being much more blunt in their summary. They show that beautiful picture of Cayley, say ICA is accused of murdering her daughter, stuffing her in the trunk of her car (with a shot of ICA's car) and dumping her body....(with a shot of where she dumped the body).

Excellent to see at least one of the media has finally taken the gloves off, and making the description both real and brutal!

Wasn't it a WFTV crew Baez threw out of his office during an early presser. I think the gloves have been off for a long time. And Kathy Bellich's style of reporting is to look for the news not just parrot sound bites from Baez and Co, in the hope of some future exclusive. Kathy Bellich went after the Millsteads, she found Sky Cruz, she discovered the Henkel duct tape on a poster of Caylee, she sought out co searchers of Laura Buchanan. She exposed Andrea Lyon's tricks of the trade. Ms Bellich is a tenacious terrier of a reporter I would hope never to have on my heels. Love her or loath her..........her editors seem to approve.

 

[krisskross]

Just thinking about this.... You don't suppose JB and CM are going to try to tell Judge Perry..... "Yeah, Yeah, Casey will testify... so you have to let it in". Only to back out of that later? :waitasec:

We all know how trustworthy they are, as with their stipulations. How the heck would that work? If they lie, and these "experts" are allowed to testify, but then they DON'T put Casey on the stand? Could that happen?

I think the whole strategy behind this is to keep her off the stand. But if neither of these Doctors can offer a professional opinion, as to why ICA behaved as she did, why should they be allowed to testify to anything. :waitasec:

 

[MD MOMMY]

They didn't diagnose her with anything...case closed. There is no way this will be allowed in IMO. If so, every single criminal out there would be attempting to pull this off. It isn't happening. Nice try boys!

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_3kxeT_ZeY&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Chiquita71]

I know!!! What a surprise! I've never believed that KC suffered from any personality disorders or mental health conditions. Working in the justice system for 30+ years, I learned a long time ago that some people are just bad.

RespectfullyQuoted SoCalSleuth :tyou:

Thank you for offering your experience. It does carry weight for me that you say you believe some people are "just bad." I have to think that sometimes, I guess I want to give or have a reason for why people do terrible things to other people...so thank you for adding to my information. :hug:

So, is Casey a sociopath? Wouldn't the dr.s that gave her mental examinations know if she was one? (I am ignorant to these things, obviously) Do people get diagnosed as being a "sociopath" or is it just traits that can be seen in some people that are "sociopathic?"

I want to unwrap myself from the "sociopath" speak here and say: wouldn't professionals have to find, by definition, something wrong with Casey Anthony? KWIM? Isn't a person who does something as "bad" as killing her child, by definition make them insane? I have kind of asked that before, I don't mean insane as in like it is a defense for what she did-or why she did it...

but compared to "you or me"-isn't she insane? Or how can it be said that there is nothing wrong with her? This is you and me talking, I understand that for the law she has to be deemed either responsible-knowing from right and wrong or insane-not knowing right from wrong. But for practical conversation, how can she have a "normal" psychology?

Is that how we define who is sane and who is insane, not knowing the difference between right and wrong? Would the dr.s say someone is a narcissist? Or say they have narcissistic tendencies? Is that something a dr. would testify to?

I have not read the whole thread( :tsktsk: ) but from what I have gathered, Casey would have to get on the stand about what the dr.s were saying about her or it would be hearsay? Oh, and I was confused about what was "secret" at the last hearing, I thought it was for the heart shaped sticker but it is for this, okay. Got that now. :loser:

If, Jose was able to get these drs on the stand and they are able to say that Casey was suffering(though no fault of her own)from some kind of mental distress or phase(maybe from being molested, or how her mother treated her, etc.)and that is what explains her behavior those 31 days and her behavior since then...

then the SA would get to cross examine, yes? (I don't know to ask any more about that, it just occurred to me as I was asking my questions).

Do we officially recognize "sociopathic" people? Psychopaths? Are there people in jail who are known as a official diagnosis as "sociopath?" When do they get that dianosis? Is it or has it ever been a factor in a criminal trial, or any trial? TIA.

I will read the rest of the thread now. :thumb:

:read:

 

[strawberry]

Just thinking about this.... You don't suppose JB and CM are going to try to tell Judge Perry..... "Yeah, Yeah, Casey will testify... so you have to let it in". Only to back out of that later? :waitasec:

We all know how trustworthy they are, as with their stipulations. How the heck would that work? If they lie, and these "experts" are allowed to testify, but then they DON'T put Casey on the stand? Could that happen?

I think that is what their motion is about. I think they are saying they want the non-psychiatrists :giggle: to testify ony after ICA does so they cannot do that.

 

[Softail]

Oh Brother! The defense wants these experts to answer hypothetical questions, based on a hypothetical person.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27530793/detail.html

Friday should be very interesting. :yes:

 

[strawberry]

There is also a difference between not diagnosing her as anything and as diagnosing her as normal, KWIM? They would have to do inventories and extensive testing to diagnose her so did they just not have enough info to dx, or did they dx her as normal?

 

[strawberry]

Oh Brother! The defense wants these experts to answer hypothetical questions, based on a hypothetical person.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27530793/detail.html

Friday should be very interesting. :yes:

Thank you! That answers my question as to whether they responded to the Motion for Examination. But now they have to respond to the Motion in Limine as well, correct?

 

[Softail]

Thank you! That answers my question as to whether they responded to the Motion for Examination. But now they have to respond to the Motion in Limine as well, correct?

I believe this is their response to the motion in Limine. On WFTV's site, they have the Prosecution's motion in Limine, and the above response next to it. :waitasec:

 

[krisskross]

Excuse my ignorance but why would it be considered hearsay if it is statements from Casey to these mental health experts themselves? That's certainly not the legal definition of hearsay, unless I am mistaken.
However, I can't see why the prosecution would object to the defense introducing these experts, if they are indeed experts in their field, since they want their own expert's testimony regarding the air samples allowed, and that is not a recognized methodology in the science field.
I say bring them on. If the prosecution has a strong enough case, it should not worry them at all.

I'm no expert but I think her statements are considered hearsay as she told these things to others outwith court proceedings, She is unlikely to take the stand, so can't be cross examined on them. If these statements are being offered for "the truth of the matter" and she can't be cross examined on them by the State, then they are surely hearsay.

Right now nobody really knows what the experts have stated in their reports but Jeff Ashton seems to be clearly signalling that these doctors are not offering any sort of medical condition/ diagnosis of Casey. The inference is they would merely be speaking her words.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

3.202. Expert Testimony of Mental Mitigation During Penalty Phase of Capital Trial: Notice and Examination by State Expert

(a) Notice of Intent to Seek Death Penalty. The provisions of this rule apply only in those capital cases in which the state gives written notice of its intent to seek the death penalty within 45 days from the date of arraignment. Failure to give timely written notice under this subdivision does not preclude the state from seeking the death penalty.

(b) Notice of Intent to Present Expert Testimony of Mental Mitigation. When in any capital case, in which the state has given notice of intent to seek the death penalty under subdivision (a) of this rule, it shall be the intention of the defendant to present, during the penalty phase of the trial, expert testimony of a mental health professional, who has tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, in order to establish statutory or nonstatutory mental mitigating circumstances, the defendant shall give written notice of intent to present such testimony.

(c) Time for Filing Notice; Contents. The defendant shall give notice of intent to present expert testimony of mental mitigation not less than 20 days before trial. The notice shall contain a statement of particulars listing the statutory and nonstatutory mental mitigating circumstances the defendant expects to establish through expert testimony and the names and addresses of the mental health experts by whom the defendant expects to establish mental mitigation, insofar as is possible.

(d) Appointment of State Expert; Time of Examination. After the filing of such notice and on the motion of the state indicating its desire to seek the death penalty, the court shall order that, within 48 hours after the defendant is convicted of capital murder, the defendant be examined by a mental health expert chosen by the state. Attorneys for the state and defendant may be present at the examination. The examination shall be limited to those mitigating circumstances the defendant expects to establish through expert testimony.

(e) Defendant’s Refusal to Cooperate. If the defendant refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the state’s mental health expert, the court may, in its discretion:

(1) order the defense to allow the state’s expert to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant’s mental health expert; or

(2) prohibit defense mental health experts from testifying concerning mental health tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant.
http://www.joffelaw.com/state-rules/3-202.html

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Does anyone know if the defense experts met with casey to do an assessment or were they just observing the case, etc. and opining?