Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by Blaise, Dec 11, 2009.
Did you attend today's hearing?
Some observers said that Mrs. Anthony passed a note to KC in court today (through Baez, I think.) Is that allowed?
Why didn't Jeff Ashton name the substance prepared and administered to Caylee by the killer?
IMO it was a tissue, but still, is that allowed?
Today, Andrea L asked the court to approve the destruction / taping over of jail video taken during her clients visitations. I can only anticipate that LKB, JB, and AL, will argue for bench notes from FBI labs, experts etc...They will then argue against any evidence or testimony that can not be "backed up" with said bench notes. We know this is coming because LKB has already requested the Procedures and Policies and made specific mention of bench notes. Is it possible that Andrea's request for destruction of public records could hurt any argument the defense has relating to bench notes, as she seems to have advocated for records destruction that would benefit her client? Seems you can't have it both ways. Additionally, she didn't ask for destruction of tapes only after the SA, LE, and defense team had evaluated them. She only mentioned the jail personnel ruling out security issues. THoughts??
Can't the defense approach the SA and request a meeting to discuss their client's pleading out?
Yes. They can. But irregardless of that...does KC want to cop to the fact that no phantom nanny bopped her on the head in the park when Caylee was allegedly kidnapped from her..nevermind while KC was "searching for Caylee" she was buying beer and lingerie from Target? My main question in this thread would be...when the odds are so obviously stacked against your client...why finger Kronk as a SODDI?
I am very confused about the first motion heard this morning concerning Dominic Casey. Can you explain in layman's terms the difference between a deposition and an investigative hearing?
It is my understanding that Baez cannot attend an investigative hearing (if SA serves subpoena), but if Baez places DC on the defense witness list, he will be able to attend??
I am not sure I understand how either scenario will play out?
Actually, you have it 100% correct. Even while a criminal prosecution is pending, the State Attorney is free to continue to "investigate" the case just like the defense is.
However, while a defendant cannot compel a "potential" witness to talk to them, the state can. So if the state knows of a "potential" witness, and that witness does not want to voluntarily cooperate, the state can issue an "investigative" subpoena.
If the witness appears pursuant to the investigative subpoena, but knows nothing; the state is not required to list the person as a potential witness. However, if they end up knowing something, then they are required to list the person as a potential witness.
At this point under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, the defense is then entitled to question the witness. If the person does not want to "voluntarily cooperate" with the defense, then the defense can subpoena the person for deposition. Because a deposition by definition is an interview by compulsion of court order (subpoena). However, the State has the right to attend the deposition - whereas the defense did not for the investigative subpoena.
On the flip side, if a defendant lists a witness, the State can issue a deposition subpoena, but not an investigative subpoena. The logic being that if the state could subpoena witnesses listed by the defense without the defense present, the State could threaten or intimidate the witness into changing their story - thus the right for the defense to be present.
So if Baez wanted to guaranty his right to be present, he would only need to list DC as a potential witness.
It takes two to tango...
Apples and Oranges. That is really what it boils down to. So my answer is no, lab tests go directly to the credibility of the testing procedures. Videos of Casey Anthony constitutionally protected attorney meetings do not.
Technically, there is no law that prohibits such conduct. Don't forget, she was in a courtroom not a jail when handed the item. So as long as she is not given illegal contraband, no laws are being broken - security policies maybe, but no laws.
Nope, but I was interviewed by WESH afterward, and apparently part of my interview will be used on NBC prime time tomorrow! Hope I didn't have a bad hair day...
Did you have time to view any of the clips from today's hearing as of yet and if so, would love to hear your comments regarding them. Thanks.
Um, most of my thoughts involve something that rhymes with "Casey Anthony is tucked," so you can just imagine what my comments would involve...
Are you implying that the defense was never offered a plea deal?
No, I am implying that there may very well no longer be a plea deal on the table.
I mean think about it, if the State is seeking in "good faith" the death penalty based upon what they discovered after Caylee was found, what other offer do you think they would make?
Hmmm...after a small bit of leg swinging thought...it is doubtful that a plea at this point could be entertained...much less offered. I would imagine the SA's office via LE has a potentially explosive piece of evidence (which may not rate too high on the NG bombshell meter) that would negate an accidental death. JMO. But TY for answering my question.