Assuming that either the State or the Defense invoke the Rule of Sequestration once the trial begins, the question has been raised:
Should George and Cindy Anthony, as next of kin to Caylee Anthony, be allowed to stay in the courtroom during the trial or should they be required to sequester themselves outside of the courtroom during the trial until excused from their subpoenas.
There are two competing sources of law that are implicated when answering this question: constitutional law and statutory law.
Art. I, § 16(b), Fla. Const. Rights of accused and of victims.
On one hand, the Florida Constitution provides that the “victims of crime or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide victims, are entitled to the right to be informed, to be present, and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.”
Importantly, this right does not endow the State Attorney, as the prosecuting authority for the State of Florida, with any rights to object to the presence of the victim or the next of kin to homicide victims.
George and Cindy Anthony: Kinfolk or Next of Kin?
As soon as I posted this piece, I was informed that FogHorn LegHorn had filed a motion objecting to George and Cindy Anthony’s presence and I received numerous posts from readers wondering why or how George and Cindy could even be considered Next of Kin, when Casey is obviously her next of kin.
Well, Florida Statute 732.103 defines how a person’s next of kin is determined. The short version is that Casey Anthony is technically Caylee’s next of kin. But since since Caylee has no other siblings and her father is dead, George and Cindy Anthony would be the next “kin” in line after Casey.
Under normal circumstances, victim advocates would argue that Judge Perry should apply a liberal interpretation to the term “next of kin” and consider any relative who could potentially be next of kin under the statute to be next of kin for purposes of Art. I, s. 16. But since this is not a normal case, many of the so called victim advocates would not want that definition to apply because it would allow George and Cindy to sit in on the trial.
Nevertheless, even if Judge Perry were to apply a strict interpretation to the definition of next of kin, George and Cindy’s attorney can and should argue that they become the next of kin under Florida’s “Slayer Statute.” This statute holds that if Casey Anthony is convicted of Caylee’s death, she is excluded from being considered next of kin under Florida Statute 732.802. (Killer not entitled to receive property or other benefits by reason of victim’s death.) As a result, by operation of law George and Cindy become next of kin under Florida Statute 732.103.
Fla. Stat. 90.616 Exclusion of witnesses.
On the other hand, Florida Statute 90.616 states: “At the request of a party, the court shall order witnesses excluded from a proceeding so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses except, [] in a criminal case, the victim of the crime, the victim’s next of kin, or a lawful representative of such person, unless, upon motion, the court determines such person’s presence to be prejudicial.”
This statute is more commonly referred to as The Rule of Sequestration and a literal reading of the statute mandates that once invoked, a witness to a proceeding – other than the “victim, the victim’s next of kin, or a lawful representative of such person” – must remain outside of the courtroom so they cannot hear testimony of other witnesses.
Importantly, once the rule of sequestration is invoked it only applies to witnesses not related to the victim. This means that even if the rule is invoked, the victim or next of kin are still entitled to stay and watch the proceedings.
If you read the statute closely, in order to exclude the victim or next of kin, the person invoking the Rule of Sequestration must also make a second motion to exclude the victim or next of kin and allege that their continued presence would be prejudicial.
What this means is that even if the State or Defense invokes the Rule of Sequestration, Cindy and George Anthony would be not by default be required to leave. Rather, either the State or Defense would have to make a specific motion asking that they be required to leave and have the court determine that their presence would be prejudicial (to whom though, the State or the Defense).
Constitution trumps Statutes
Well have no fear, I am pleased to advise you that George and Cindy Anthony should be allowed to remain in the courtroom for the entire trial.
In Beasley v. State, 774 So. 2d 649, 668 (Fla. 2000) the Florida Supreme Court was presented with an almost identical question, but with greater constitutional importance. This is because the defendant, who is the only party constitutionally authorized to object to the victim or next of kin’s presence, invoked the rule of sequestration specifically as to the victim’s daughter and son, both of whom were key witnesses in the case. The trial court denied the defense request and ruled that the daughter and son could both remain in the courtroom.
In upholding the trial court’s ruling, the Court went on to explain that there “are only two bases upon which a defendant may object to the trial court’s decision not to apply the rule of sequestration to a witness who is the victim’s next of kin.”
- First, that the witness has [or will] change key testimony to conform to the evidence presented.
- The prejudice potentially caused by emotional reactions of the victim’s family members.
The Court found that the first basis did not apply because “the witnesses’ testimony had been memorialized in prior depositions.” Meaning, that if there was any change in testimony, the witness could be impeached with the prior deposition. Thus any potential prejudice would be outweighed by the benefit of impeaching the witness.
In the Anthony case, both George and Cindy Anthony have testified multiple times and are subject to being impeached with any of those transcripts. Moreover, they have been present for almost every evidentiary hearing to date. Thus the likelihood of the defendant being prejudiced is unlikely.
And while there are numerous arguments that could be made that the State might be prejudiced by George and Cindy Anthony’s presence during the trial; the simple answer is that the State does not have standing to object under Article 1, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution – only the defendant does.
As to the second basis, the Court found that the trial judge maintained vigilance so that the “defendant” was not prejudiced by emotional outbursts of the victims next of kin and that the court even admonished them twice during the proceedings. So while some of you will annoyingly complain about Cindy Anthony’s sneers and looks, this is not the type of behavior that the Court is concerned with or would even consider prejudicial.
They Should Stay…
So ultimately, it is my opinion that George and Cindy Anthony should be allowed to stay in the courtroom and the only party who even has grounds to object to their presence would be Casey Anthony.
But, with the way Judge Perry is ruling against the defense, I wouldn’t be surprised if he found a way to rule against them remaining in the courtroom if the State did object. I wouldn’t be surprised if he overruled their objection filed today and agreed to allow George and Cindy to remain in the courtroom during the trial.
73 responses to “Should they Stay or Should they Go?”
OMG – Welcome back Mr Hornsby! Your absence has not gone unnoticed – but I looked at your case load, and saw you’ve been a busy guy in Courtrooms this past month. Now, off to read your article. Just wanted to say ‘you’ve been missed’!
Rumor has it the defense is filing a motion to keep Cindy and George sequestered until after their testimonies. Guess we’ll find out soon if it’s true.
Yes, FogHorn LegHorn filed a motion this afternoon.
05/05/2011 Objection
Defense; to Motion for Relatives of Victim to be Excused from the Rule of Sequestration
Have you read it (since you said Foghorn)?
Then that means that Casey is making the request? Why? So they (GA/CA) don’t get caught shaking their heads in unbelievable denial, when the Defense starts with the abuse allegations?
Can’t wait to read that motion! And see the GA/CA response. Could get real interesting.
I just read it
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27793003/detail.html
Interesting!
I came here for your legal analysis and opinion, laughed for almost 10 minutes before I could read the whole thing! Funny and smart, keep it coming! If I ever need a lawyer in Florida, you da man!
Caylee’s living next of kin is the one on trial. Her (cough. choke) mother. The grandparents are her next of kin, and the reasoning does not apply..
Are George and Cindy really considered “next of kin”? I know Casey is, but I thought Judge Eaton said George and Cindy as grandparents are not.
Florida Statute 732.103 defines how a person’s next of kin is determined. Casey is technically Caylee’s next of kin and, since Caylee has no other siblings and her father is dead, George and Cindy Anthony are after Casey.
However, under Florida Statute 732.802, George and Cindy’s attorney can argue that they become the next of kin because if convicted, Casey is excluded from being considered next of kin under Florida’s “Slayer Statute.” (Killer not entitled to receive property or other benefits by reason of victim’s death.)
Sorry Mr H, but I don’t see how arguing what could occur AFTER a conviction is handed would be seen as relevant . Surely the issue is who is viewed as next of kin DURING the trial.
Richard, shouldn’t your last sentence read ‘if the DEFENSE did object?’ I could be wrong. Having hard time following. Thanks.
When I originally wrote the post I thought only the State would object, shows how wrong I am.
Okay. Thanks for the legal breakdown of it. I personally don’t see them as ‘next of kin’, more ‘extended family’, and as primary witnesses, felt they would be sequestered.
(Moreover, they have been present for almost every evidentiary hearing to date. ) George has been to very few of the pretrial hearings. I think he’s the loose canon, as shown in his statements and emotions in his last testimony.
I still think Perry won’t take their head shaking and other facial looks too lightly. There was a case I read about recently, that the jury was annoyed with a lawyer? shaking his head, and the case was declared a mistrial due to that. It wasn’t an outburst – just something the jury noticed and brought to the Judge’s attention. I’ll have to see if I can find the case law on that again.
I was really hoping the rule would be invoked, and won’t give up hope just yet. It would drive Cindy insane not to be in the limelight of the courthouse cameras everyday. Not to be able to give those News at 6 sound bytes about her precious innocent daughter. It would literally drive them insane.
Just like Lippman’s public plea today for Jose to answer them about the jail visit. “Lippman said his public statement in the media is a last resort.
“I hate to have to do it this way. This is my last resource at this point,” he said.” Lippman pointed out that Anthony’s lead attorney, Jose Baez, has had time in the last week to appear at a public forum and do national television interviews, but lamented that Baez would not take the time to address George and Cindy Anthony’s request.”
They are desperate people on a mission, imo
Thanks again for your legal take on these things! I get the feeling you’re not happy with JP’s rulings in the last sentence, lol. Hope you get back on the air soon with your legal analysis.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27793003/detail.html
Here is the defense objection filed today.
The defense objection to the motion is in a pdf on wesh.com right now.
Thanks, I read it.
I respectfully disagree with you on this one. In prior court rulings the grandparents were not considered “next of kin.” The only way I believe they can stay is if George is the father, then the court would allow him to stay.
If I were the defense attorneys I would would not want either of them in the courtroom because they are both loose cannons and could quickly destroy any defense they plan to use.
I believe they will be sequestered. Won’t be long now until we find out.
LOL – here I was sliding in to say I was going to disagree with you on both points but I’m too late – you have already changed your mind on part of it.
I still think CJBP will sequester them for most or all of the trial. He doesn’t consider them next of kin to the victim and he will not stand for having his courtroom disrupted during this trial. I think he “has their number” as far as courtroom behavior. And this new DT motion arguing against the motion to excuse will simply add fuel to the fire.
Must admit I was surprised that the Florida constitution does not include a legal definition of next of kin. But generally the rule is the nearest living blood relative. Given Caylee’s paternity is unknown, next of kin is Casey Anthony. Well the Coroner’s office recognized her as such when releasing Caylee’s remains.
Unfortunately for the A’s their track record doesn’t bode well for honest un-influenced testimony. Therefore, I think the Judge will treat George and Cindy Anthony firstly, as material witnesses and secondly close relatives.
Not agreeing here with you. First question I have is how do we know Caylee’s father is deceased ? It was my understanding no one even knows who the father is. We are only told by the Anthony’s who are pretty deceptive that Caylee’s dad has passed on. OR did I miss that information when it came out they have proof for who the father is?
My problem with the Choice number two is …if she’s convicted. Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? Until she is convicted Casey is still next of kin.
Personally it is my vision they’ll remove themselves from the court room. They do not appear one bit mentally stable.
Florida Statute 732.103 defines how a person’s next of kin is determined. Casey is technically Caylee’s next of kin and, since Caylee has no other siblings and her father is dead, George and Cindy Anthony are after Casey.
However, under Florida Statute 732.802, George and Cindy’s attorney can argue that they become the next of kin because if convicted, Casey is excluded from being considered next of kin under Florida’s “Slayer Statute.” (Killer not entitled to receive property or other benefits by reason of victim’s death.)
The Honorable Judge Perry has seen, firsthand, the hostility of George and Cindy in the courtroom, called to his attention by Linda Drane Burdick as she was attempting to question them.
He has observed Cindy Anthony changing her testimony under oath. JMHO–keep them out of the courtroom, until after their testimony is completed and they are released from further testimony. He who should not be trusted.
Let ’em in! They won’t be able to control their mouths, faces or bodies for more than 30 minutes anyway. Heck, they’ll be furiously chomping their gum from the first minute. At which point Judge Perry can toss them out on their ears. Problem solved.
Richard THANK YOU for the huge laugh! Foghorn Leghorn!!!! I will never be able to look at Cheney Mason again without thinking “Boy, I say boy….”! LOL
Ha, you are right on!
Richard Hornsby said
“But, with the way Judge Perry is ruling against the defense, I wouldn’t be surprised if he found a way
to rule against them remaining in the courtroom if the State did object.I wouldn’t be surprised if he overruled their objection filed today and agreed to allow George and Cindy to remain in the courtroom during the trial.”***
I take it you feel this Judge is showing a predudice against this defense team.
I think Judge Perry has a little ego problem and sometimes his articulation could be better, but I cannot fault the man on his extensive knowledge and reliance on case law, logical thinking and accompanying explanations of his his rulings. I guess that’s why he has only ever had one ruling PARTIALLY reversed.
So sorry for above bad use of the strike facility lol
Hope you can still read it Mr H et al
The real problem as I see it is they could cause a mistrial. It has happened a number of times when relatives have made statements in front of the jury in a courtroom. I think this is the first really smart thing the defense has done.
What this tells me is if you read the motion – they are going to throw one or both of them under the bus and accuse them of the murder. I am betting on George because he had an extra set of keys to the car and his whereabouts cannot be verified some of the time. He has set himself up for it with the lies he has told to protect KC. It is a real gutsy move, but I see it as their only option at this point. I predicted this over 2 years ago on WS and got banned for it.
turbothink I have missed you on WS! I have been wondering where you have been.
It seems to me that Judge Perry has the power and legal right to banish both Cindy and George from the courtroom except for any period during which their testimony is required. The rules of courtroom decorum have already been published which clearly prohibit those in the courtroom from chewing gum and from making any gestures to indicate their approval or non-approval of what is discussed while the court is in session.
Based on their record to date, it can be predicted that the Anthonys will be unable to conform with these specific rules of the court and, therefore, can and should be declared to be in contempt of court and banished from the courtroom except when their testimony is required.
Since Judge Perry has thus far chosen to ignore these recurring contemptuous actions on the parts of the Anthonys, does it follow suit that he will ignore them as well throughout the trial? I would hope not!
I have practiced extensively as a law and motion attorney in California, not Florida, so I am not as knowledgeable about Florida law as you are. Nonetheless, it seems to me that Judge Perry could easily find that Cindy and George are not Caylee’s “next of kin” and thus not legally entitled to be present, if that is what he wants to do.
First, because Caylee’s father is either out there somewhere or, if he is really dead, by operation of law next-of-kin status passed to Caylee’s paternal grandparents upon his death per Florida Statute Section 732.103(2) and (4)(a).
Second, because Florida Statute 732.802(5) states: “A final judgment of conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional for purposes of this section.”
It would be premature for the Anthonys to claim next-of-kin status based on the mere possibility that Casey will be convicted of murder at the end of her trial. Thus, to enforce their next-of-kin right to attend Casey’s criminal trial PRIOR to Casey being convicted of murdering Caylee, the Anthonys would have to obtain a court determination “by the greater weight of the evidence” that Casey’s killing of Caylee was “unlawful and intentional.” As the moving party, they would have the burden of proof on this issue. It would be pretty astonishing for the Anthonys to do this if their purpose in attending Casey’s criminal trial is to show their support for Casey’s innocence.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Well, I guess the jail visit is out, right?
If the A’s get special treatment, or allowed to go where no once else have ever gone before, I don’t think that is right at all. What is good for a goose, should be good for the gander. Lets face it, the A’s don’t have it in this case. If they are witnesses, why should they be given a special meal. They aren’t the grieving grandparents that some what to paint. If they are grieving it is for the beloved daughter, who would throw them under the bus in a heart beat. The A’s have lied and covered-up for KC and aren’t law biding citizens. Love and not Condoning , doesn’t apply in this case. If anything they should be on trial for their tactic’s and actions. I don’t think the A’s want to talk to KC to talk over the good ole days, when they sat in front of the TV with a bag of pop corn.
I hope Richard will answer this for me if he’s able to respond or any one else that has legal defense background and experience
Do you think they will try to out and out say George is the killer or just tap dance around it and try for reasonable doubt? how will this work when they’ve had 3 years to go to LE and say “hey my client didn’t do this her dad did, you need to investigate the dad.”
So can you give us any idea, insight into how they plan to play that out
and what are the chances they could actually get away with this to a jury
seems to me this could really backfire and blow up in their faces, it’s not like they are the brightest stars in the galaxy not to mention that it would require excellent orating skills, both Baez and Mason have the orating skills of a 2 year old
So can you weigh in on this please, how would they play this out and what are the odds they can sell this b.s.
Hi Lil,
Although I do not have a legal background, I would just like to say that I believe, as you, that throwing George under the bus would most likely backfire. The jury would see right through it, and conclude that if Casey would hurt her father this way, for her own selfish gain, then she would clearly be just as capable of hurting her daughter for the same reason. This woman lacks the ability to emotionally connect to anyone, and this will ring strongly with the jury. What I cannot wrap my head around is that Casey will be alienating the only people that would want to visit her in prison, and the only hope she has of getting money for commissary items for her life-long prison sentence. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face…
I literally LOL’D @ the Foghorn Leghorn reference. I cannot think of a better comparison.
Thank for keeping it real Mr. Hornsby. I love your blogs and have obtained a better knowledge of a foreign judicial system.
I would seriously love to see these two ‘big mouth schnooks’ impeached.This whole family puts the ‘f’ ‘u’ in dysfuctional.
Well, that’s that. No Anthonys in the court. Do you think that they knew the defense would file the motion? In other words, is there some reason, or method to the madness, for this to happen with the Anthonys working in concert with the defense, or were the Anthonys only concerned about themselves? I ask because, in the past, correspondence between the defense and the Anthonys was clearly calculated.
….I would seriously love to see these two ‘big mouth schnooks’ impeached.This whole family puts the ‘f’ ‘u’ in dysfuctional……
LMAO…that’s a good one!! 🙂 can I steal it? lol
Here is my personal invitation to say, “I told you so!” 😀
Good call, Richard!
btw, in case you missed it -Mark Lippman gave you credit when he was interviewed outside the courtroom. (aired on InSession)
Credit where credit is due.
Nice call. I still wonder what everyone was really up to.
Agatha thanks for responding appreciate your thoughts on this
hope Richard weighs in on it too though
biggest mistake the defense has made was not trying to get a plea for her
i see this as a prime example of egos outweighing common sense the have put their own interest of having a “case of a lifetime” before that of their client, the entire time they have known full well they cannot win this one and knowingly gone forward with an absolute “joke” of a defense. I hope in the end it is revealed that they did try to convince Casey that a plea was in her best interest, it MIGHT give me some comfort knowing they didn’t sell her out and weren’t truly this incompetent but did the best with what they had to work with, that positively refused anything less than trying to get off of this murder charge scott free
Maybe Richard or some of the legal analysts on some news sites will weigh in on how they plan to go about Pin the tale on George” and what they think will happen when they try to.
meant to say “casey positively refused”
I see that you are operating behind the scenes — you got credit where criedt was due — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dqx_H9GjAc
Richard, Mark Lippman seems like he’s got something on the ball….seems decent enough too….he can’t possibly last long in any type of sustained relationship with the A’s!!!!! 🙂
Mark is a class act and for those that are wondering, Mark started at the Public Defender’s Office shortly after I did back in 2001. we worked together for a long while in Osceola County PD’s office. And yes, I sent him the citation to the Beasley case yesterday. InSessions has asked me to come on this morning and one of the issues I was to talk about was the Anthony’s motion, while researching the issue I came across Beasley and immediately sent the cite to Mark. I then composed this blog post.
Also, I have seen a few people speculate that I was one of the two supposed media analysts that Mason claims “asked to be on the defense team.” Let me unequivocally state that I have never asked, inquired, or approached ANY member of Casey Anthony’s defense team about being involved with her case in any way. The only time I have ever communicated with Baez was on a state wide listserve in response to a list wide email he sent out. Many of you know the email I am referring to. As for Foghorn, I have never spoken to him in my life, except briefly at the NACDL seminar he spoke at in 2007 (I did not even speak to him at a news interview we were both on about the case in 2008.)
Also, I personally think Mason lied about the “Analysts” wanting to be on the team. I know for a fact that he trid to recruit Judge Eaton to work on the team for “free” but the judge declined. As for Scheaffer and other analysts, I have no knowledge, but personally I doubt any respected attorney approached Baez or Mason about being involved, as Baez has had a radioactive reputation from day one.
As for Mason’s altruistic claims about working on Casey’s case pro bono because he believes in her cause; any respected attorney who was interested in doing pro bono work would do it for a person who actually deserved it, not for a person who already had a $200K slush fund and numerous “high profile” attorneys working for free.
Bottom line, Mason most likely lied through his teeth.
Richard…I haven’t always spoken kindly to you, but at this point in time, I truly believe what you have posted. I now feel you are one of a few honest defense attorneys, who would speak your own mind and not that of just a defense attorney. Other than your open dislike of Bill S., you seem to be an honorable guy. If I ever needed an attorney, I would now definitely call on you. By the way, you looked great on InSession. Kuddos to you. Mitzi
I think he’s apt to do that…I think he’s a wingnut!! – the man drives me insane!!!
…lie through his teeth that is – Mason –
guess i’m the only one that wants to know how the defense would play out throwing George to the wolves (sigh)
Lil, I”m not an attorney but it will probably go something like this. George has giving testimony that he last saw Caylee (with Casey) on June 16, 2008 as he watched them drive off together in Casey’s car. That makes him the last person to see Caylee alive as a sighting anyone will attest to. Now the defense can state, allude to or imply that George was lying as part of the “cover-up” of his killing Caylee (somehow) and that he forced Casey to go along with the cover-up and to never tell what he did. The defense will say that George has been sexually abusing Casey her whole live (remember she stated this in a letter to another inmate though I personally think it’s a lie) and that Casey was in fear of the wrath of her father if she didn’t comply with his orders
Now the way I personally think something like this will fail is that the taped visits of Casey with her parents show that Casey was in charge and quite capable of playing her parents that she never cowed to them and that also George was never demeaning or controlling towards her.
Richard, I wish George and Cindy would be required to sit on the prosecution side of the courtroom as “next of kin” of the victim. When they sit on the defense side, it is as “next of kin” of the defendent. Why should they get to have it both ways?
Momshrink – I totally agree with you. If they successfully argued the whole ‘next of kin’ legality as Richard says, then they should be required to sit on the Prosecution side, as next of kin to the victim, Caylee. That is, afterall, the basis of the motion argued and won.
I’ll shut up now, as that whole ruling, including this article, reminds me of how hypocritical and slimy defense attorneys are. Sorry Richard. Not feelin the love right now.
I wonder, as events are unfolding;will they want to sit in the courtroom at all, given the lies Casey has been telling apparently..they sure as heck haven’t been at Jury selection.
I wonder how lkely they are to sit on the defense side while hearing that the family – Cindy, George, and Lee – abused Casey physicall, verbally and sexually as well as using her as a pawn for parental misconduct and not teaching her coping skills, etc.
I am sure they will blame the defense team, not Casey for these charges. It is very sad, but clearly we can see that Casey was never held accountable for anything. Parents are pointing blame for anything and everything at others, not Casey.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the input and for your honesty. I truly feel that when you speak it’s from the heart and mind with no agenda whatsoever other than to expose the money changers and liars. 🙂 At first I wanted the Anthonys out of that courtroom for the duration other than when they are called. I felt that they don’t deserve to be in there for one second. However in thinking about it a little more, 1) I want them to hear every last word of the evidence against Casey and also hear how that baby died. and 2) I don’t think they will last the first day if Judge Perry holds to his word on facial expressions, shaking of the head and more. So let ’em in!
Every time Casey puts on her fake tears and once in a blue moon some real drops, it’s for herself and never Caylee. Same with the Anthonys, they show that to us every day in every way.
Thanks for being there for us Richard and for being there for Caylee.
——reminds me of how hypocritical and slimy defense attorneys are. ——
…….you paint an entire profession based on the antics of what is in reality a small minority? ..who, by the way, would be azzholes regardless of their chosen career path…
Do you think that the reason that the defense objected to the Anthonys being in courtroom is that Casey is going to take the stand?
Secondly, kudos to Lippman for finally getting the Anthonys to stop doing media tours. He must be a hell of a persuasive attorney. No one before him was able to accomplish this feat.
Richard
What do you think of the plea that was offered today. Do you think that signals some weakness in the prosecutions case?
What plea? Where is that reported?
Thank you for the link.
I don’t feel that the prosecution’s case is weak or has holes or that they necessarily feel that but even a strong case can lose if the right type of jury is picked. So getting the plea and confession is always safer.
It’s also possible that the defense had asked for a plea and the prosecution said sure but it’s going to be harder then you are asking for it’s going to be “X” and that was too much for her. I can see the defense asking for something like “10 or 15 years out in 8” and the prosecution saying “no way, LwoP and she spills the beans”.
What ever the plea deal was, she probably should have taken it. :/
From my understanding, that was a standard question from the Judge to the inmate at the start of a trial…
Great post! I always enjoy reading your blog. I wish you would write more often!
However, I see a double standard. You’re implying that CA and GA can be in the court room if the prosecution doesn’t object, while saying they (the prosecution) have no grounds to object? I fully understand what you’re trying to get at, but I think you underscore the seriousness of that point.
Just some honest feedback… I look forward to your blog posts, they’re very informative, entertaining and well written. However, I think you miss an opportunity to discuss some of the major flaws in the criminal justice system by withholding your opinion sometimes. Granted this is a pop culture case no one is going to think about in a year, but all of the flaws in the criminal justice system will remain. Or to put it another way, we all know Casey Anthony is a murderer, it doesn’t mean that innocent people don’t exist.
I understand the idea that you don’t want to get on the wrong side of some future client or judge. However, if I can read between the lines as a 1st year college student, I think they can too. Consider loosening your tie just a bit.
-Sincerely [Redacted]
I don’t understand the procedures in Florida. Why do all the jurors have to go before the judge to discuss hardship issues? In other states, the jurors are weeded out by court staff before they even see the judge. It seems like a gigantic expense to operate this way. At least the most obvious cases of hardship could be excused before hitting the courtroom. Any thoughts?
Interested
I think two things are operating here. This jury will be sequestered and for a fairly long time. I think that most jury duty cases are resolved within a few days.
I appreciate your reply, but I think that you misunderstood my point, which was: the judge shouldn’t have to waste time, money and effort on jurors who have *obvious* (and insurmountable) hardships, those that could be easily recognized and determined by court employees firsthand, and thus those people could be excused, before having to go before the judge. The longer everyone is in court, the more money it costs.
The only “obvious” hardships are those statutorily mandated. All other hardships are at the discretion of the judge based upon the juror’s ability to render a fair verdict at the end of the trial. As a result, many of the “obvious” hardships would not be considered hardships if the trial were shorter. Thus the people must show up and let the judge exercise his discretion to find they meet a non-statutory hardship.
Good morning, Mr. Hornsby!
I have 2 questions I hope you can help me with.
1) What happens if Casey falls ill and can’t attend court – will this cause a delay?
2) If they can’t full seat the jury from Pinellas county can they use the qualified jurors from her and flesh out the jury some place else?
Thank you so much for considering my questions and I look forward to your response!
Kim
One more, if you don’t mind, sir.
Can Casey Fire Jose Baez now?
I don’t think that the defense is going to blame George or Lee, specifically, for sexual abuse during the trial. It can’t be proven and they only have Jessie Grund to corroborate the story, second hand. I think that they may allude to sexual abuse, from a family member, but never name that person (even an uncle etc., perhaps). I think that they are trying to influence the jury pool and the public at large. I do believe that they will introduce the dysfunction of the family, in general, and demonstrate it through Cindy and George’s past behavior, maybe even present, if they explode on the stand. The only thing that the defense will do in the first few minutes of opening statements, in my opinion, is admit that Casey lied during the month that Caylee wasn’t seen because she suffered from a harsh upbringing and PTSD. I’m guessing that they won’t even directly admit to an accident, especially without Casey taking the stand. They will throw it out as a possibility, amongst other things, such as stranger abduction. That is why I think the defense asked how the jurors would feel if innocence was still declared in the penalty phase, or no remorse, and if they could they get past that in sentencing. I don’t think that the revelations will be as dramatic or shocking as people are currently expecting. If they attempted this, directly attacking the family, it could severely backfire, as it may open up Pandora’s box; the Anthonys may respond with tales of Casey’s history of bad behavior and incorrigibility in spite of their repeated efforts.
It would be fascinating to see Casey on the stand, but I am backtracking now, thinking she won’t, because that is too risky.
Do you have any opinion on this?
Would you please explain on what grounds the Anthonys are suing Brad Conway?
He didn’t divulge any attorney client privilege and he wasn’t asserting anything directly about the Anthonys, he was opining a theory on what defense strategy will be, based on their comments in court. Is this a nuisance suit?
Good morning Mr. Hornsby. I’m not sure if your are still monitoring this blog but I do have a question about the jury. I understand that Judge Perry wants at least 15 jurors seated or this trial. My question is do all 15+ jurors sit in the jury box and are they aware if they are one of the “alternates”? If the identity of the alternates is kept confidential until it’s time to deliberate who gets to choose the 12 “voting” members?
I wish you would blog more often. I love hearing your opinions on this case. They are always right on the mark!
The first 12 agreed upon are the primary jurors. Every additional juror is considered an alternate, with the first alternate being picked being the first to take over if a primary juror is removed or can no longer served, if a second is removed, the second alternate takes over, etc.
The jurors themselves do not know if they are an alternate or primary juror during the trial. It is only once the closing arguments and jury instructions are read that the jurors find out their place in the pecking order.
Mr. Hornsby,
I am having a hard time understanding that “dirty laundry list” AF has presented during the jury selection. From my understanding, the defense team can’t present that in the case-in-chief, is that correct? JB keeps saying in the opening statements KC’s odd behavior will be explained, well but how? Will KC have to take the stand and explain one by one in that huge list?
Another question, the defense maintain her innocence, LKB told KC lied, will KC have to explain it was an accident and therefore she panicked and went out partying because she has a different way to cope with her loss? Maybe they will just point the finger at George and Mr. Kronk?
So far, in my opinion KC’s behavior can’t be just explained by pointing the fingers at her parents. Will jurors buy that?
Thank you Mr. Hornsby!