Motion In Limine To Exclude Mental Health Experts

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.

The definition of hearsay is complex and has a number of exceptions. Out-of-court statements of a PARTY that are "admissions against interest" are an exception to the hearsay rule in Florida, read down to 18(a): http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC803.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0090-%3ESection%20803#0090.803 .

In the case of this exception relating to an "admission against interest," the "unavailability of the declarant"--Casey Anthony (if she chooses not to take the stand she is "unavailable")--is "immaterial" under the terms of the rule. So it does not matter that she could not be cross-examined about the out-of-court statements. Hence the big fight about the 911 tapes (for example).
 
Isn't it incredible from the viewpoint of an outsider that a woman who is proclaiming her innocence of *murdering her own toddler* won't even take the stand to testify?

Really: think about that. If I was in jail on a DP or murder charge, and I was genuinely innocent, there would unfortunately be NOTHING that my DT could say to keep me from the stand. I wouldn't care if it would make extra work for them, or that they may advise me to keep my mouth shut. I wouldn't be able to sit silently for the thought of a single person thinking I may be guilty- I would literally go down screaming my side of the story from the rooftops. I would never be able to sit by twiddling my thumbs or playing with post-it notes and pads of drawing paper while the world kept turning all around me determining the rest of my life without my voice being heard.

She truly just doesn't give a fig. This whole issue of entitlement goes right down to, "you had better do something to get me off!" without her participation in cleaning up her own mess that she made. Everyone has been doing it for years- since the day she was born. And if the chloroform is what ended up killing Caylee, in a way I think it's just one more demented, cowardly manner she got what she wanted- in her head SHE didn't do it: the chloroform did it. It wasn't like the child was shot or strangled (sorry for the graphic imagery) which would have been a physical act of aggression using her hands; rather it was a "soft" murder in the sense that she chose a manner that was sort of one step removed from the grisly details of death. Caylee probably only looked like she was sleeping, so in her sick head it doesn't really "count" as a "real" murder. No wonder she doesn't care about her defense. If she's not a "real" murderer, then of course she's entitled to somebody getting her off. Just like she's been entitled to everything in life; be it stolen items from Target paid for by somebody else, to not having to spend eternity in a jail cell, which cramps her fabulous partying lifestyle.

She cares about her defense because she knows even if the chloroform did it, she manifested it and THAT's why she's not willing to tell the truth..........to testify in her own defense. She HAS no defense no matter how you look at it.
 
Does anyone know if the defense experts met with casey to do an assessment or were they just observing the case, etc. and opining?

What do you mean by "defense experts"? I take it you mean the mental health experts. I took the news report to mean that they had observed her and found her behavior normal. This is their opinion only. I also understood that during the depos of these "experts", it was JA that caught the issue of the defendant at some point must testify on her own behalf in order for these "expert" opinions to be admitted at trial. Am I going in the right direction on this?
 
Does anyone know if the defense experts met with casey to do an assessment or were they just observing the case, etc. and opining?

From the article at WFTV:

"According to prosecutors, the new defense experts are basing their opinions only on what Casey has told them. So even if she were to take the witness stand, their opinions still might not be admissible."


http://www.wftv.com/news/27525942/detail.html
 
From the article at WFTV:

"According to prosecutors, the new defense experts are basing their opinions only on what Casey has told them. So even if she were to take the witness stand, their opinions still might not be admissible."


http://www.wftv.com/news/27525942/detail.html

Gotcha. I'm not sure but I think they are saying these new defense experts are not the State's mental health experts?
 
Ok so basically JB wants two people to testify as to why they think ICA acted like she did after she murdered her child. They are not experts that have examined her. Isn't this like JB calling two people from a message board who are PRO defense and came up with a reason why ICA acted like she did right after her child went missing? Really? So if the Judge allows this, maybe the SA can get two witness on the stand to say "I've watched all the hearings, read all the Depo's, and my opinion ICA is a cold and calculated Killer, who has no mental impairments but rather is a compulsive LIAR who killed her daughter because she wanted to party and be with her BF without the responsibility of this ball and chain attached to her" LOL
 
Gotcha. I'm not sure but I think they are saying these new defense experts are not the State's mental health experts?

Correct. These are the "experts" that the defense wanted to add at the last minute. At one of the recent hearings, judge Perry allowed the prosecution to depose them, and look at their "reports". Friday's hearing will discuss this matter.
 
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2006/401-600/06-549_JurisAns.pdf

State Vs Hickson
starting on page 10 (6 on document)

this appellate issue is if the MHE can testify to battered spouse syndrome. The defense can either present evidence from an expert who examined her, then admit to an examination by the state or use an expert who has not examined her to testify about the syndrome in general or answer hypthetical questions then the state may present their own expert to testify to generalities and hypotheticals...

Justice for Caylee
 
Ok so I am confused. Why would the DT want ICA to be deemed "normal" and lacking any mental health issues? I thought they wanted dissociation/ugly coping/PTSD, etc? Am I mixed up or something?
 
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.

Hearsay is a statement made out of court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in it. Therefore, KC's statements out of court to mental health experts if used to prove the truth of the statements is classic hearsay.
 
Does anyone know if the defense experts met with casey to do an assessment or were they just observing the case, etc. and opining?

I just re-listened to bond hearing with Judge Strictland, posted on the 1st page of this thread. He ordered a psychological evaluation by Dr. Jeff Danziger and Dr Alan Burns, at 1:29 in the video. So to answer your question, Dr. Danziger has evaluated her at least one time!
 

Right. I'm with ya. I think the way it was on the WFTV website is misleading. The reponse to the Mental health expert is actually next to the Motion in Limine. So, they have the repsonse next to the wrong motion, so to say.
 
Hearsay is a statement made out of court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in it. Therefore, KC's statements out of court to mental health experts if used to prove the truth of the statements is classic hearsay.

An admission against interest of a party opponent is an exception to the hearsay rule in Florida (as in most other jurisdictions). Unavailability of the declarant is immaterial. It's exception 18(a) at this page: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC803.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0090-%3ESection%20803#0090.803
 
Ok so I am confused. Why would the DT want ICA to be deemed "normal" and lacking any mental health issues? I thought they wanted dissociation/ugly coping/PTSD, etc? Am I mixed up or something?

Oh you are not alone! I thought they were going for PTSD too! Color me confused as well. The only thing I am getting out of this, is that the prosecution is saying these "experts" should not be allowed at all!

As usual - I just don't "get" what the defense is trying to say. :waitasec:
 
There is a more subtle issue about statements made to experts. Experts may rely on hearsay not subject to any of the exceptions in formulating an opinion if the hearsay is something that experts would typically rely upon. The expert's opinion comes in, and the hearsay comes in but not as substantive evidence but solely as part of the basis for the opinion. In practice this can be a difficult distinction for a finder of fact (that is, the jury) to make.
 
Does anyone know if the defense experts met with casey to do an assessment or were they just observing the case, etc. and opining?

I think Danziger was the original one who was ordered by HHJS to evaluate her. I thought someone found Weitz on a visitor log but I could be wrong.

ETA: Maybe I am wrong about Weitz. It looks like she has had psychologist visits as listed by Think Tank but I don't see Weitz:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132730"]Psychologists Dr. Jeffery Danziger; Dr. Alan Berns; Dr. William Weitz; Dr. Harry Kro - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
Oh you are not alone! I thought they were going for PTSD too! Color me confused as well. The only thing I am getting out of this, is that the prosecution is saying these "experts" should not be allowed at all!

As usual - I just don't "get" what the defense is trying to say. :waitasec:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/c...9_JurisAns.pdf

BBM...the below paragraph is what they are trying to say...These MHE are offering their opinions never examining ICA only using her statements...using generalites and hyptheticals....I thought this was a criminal trial, not a civil one..I don't think I'd want generalities or hypothetics used if standing trial for premeditated murder...this is playing russian roulette...JMHO

State Vs Hickson
starting on page 10 (6 on document)

this appellate issue is if the MHE can testify to battered spouse syndrome. The defense can either present evidence from an expert who examined her, then admit to an examination by the state or use an expert who has not examined her to testify about the syndrome in general or answer hypthetical questions then the state may present their own expert to testify to generalities and hypotheticals...

Justice for Caylee
 
What is that in non-legal English please? :seeya:

Casey Anthony is a "party" to this case because she is the defendant.

If she chooses not to testify she is "unavailable."

If she says something out of court that tends to harm her in the case (an "admission"):

her statement is admissible at the trial as evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule, even if she doesn't testify at the trial.

Did that help?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
4,371
Total visitors
4,546

Forum statistics

Threads
592,424
Messages
17,968,619
Members
228,765
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top