Caylee Marie Anthony #176 12/20/10 - 1/4/11

[trimmonthelake]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/22/1984978/anthony-wants-sex-questions-prohibited.html
Posted on Wednesday, 12.22.10

Anthony wants sex questions prohibited at trial
 
The Associated Press

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Attorneys for Casey Anthony want a judge to prohibit testimony about her sex life with a witness during her murder trial next year.

Anthony's attorneys filed a motion Wednesday asking that sex-related questions from an interview detectives had with Anthony Rosciano not be allowed during trial.

Detectives asked Rosciano whether Anthony was "clingy" when she had sex, whether they used protection, whether Anthony had any sexually transmitted diseases and where they had sex. Defense attorneys say the questions are irrelevant.

Anthony is charged with first-degree murder for the death of her 2-year-old daughter. She has pleaded not guilty and says a baby sitter kidnapped Caylee.

Anthony's trial is scheduled to begin in May.

[trimmonthelake]

Bill Sheaffer
http://www.wftv.com/video/26246223/index.html

[Fanny Mae]

2010.12.22  Motion in Limine Regarding Any/All Testimony and Evidence that may convict said client.

Submitted by: Nut44x4 lol

Dadgomit NUTT!! You foxed me good! I've been waiting for the new motion to post.......then I read back and saw who submitted it.   

[Girlzrock]

 

Late Tuesday, Casey's lead defense attorney, Jose Baez, filed six motions asking Chief Judge Belvin Perry to exclude key evidence and testimony in the murder case. The attorneys said certain pieces of evidence are "irrelevant and scandalous."


Well, yeah.  Her behaviour is scandalous.  I think a persons character (what are they capable of?) is definitely germane to whether they are possibly guilty or not guilty.    So scandalous yes, irrelevant, not so much.

[Fanny Mae]

Late Tuesday, Casey's lead defense attorney, Jose Baez, filed six motions asking Chief Judge Belvin Perry to exclude key evidence and testimony in the murder case. The attorneys said certain pieces of evidence are "irrelevant and scandalous."


Well, yeah.  Her behaviour is scandalous.  I think a persons character (what are they capable of?) is definitely germane to whether they are possibly guilty or not guilty.    So scandalous yes, irrelevant, not so much.

I think it is relevant too. I am sure when Casey is presented in court, we will not recognize her as the person we all know. She will be dressed demurely and the defense will speak of her as an innocent damsel who is still virginal (except she had Caylee) and never did a thing wrong in her life......

[Scatty]

Bill Sheaffer
http://www.wftv.com/video/26246223/index.html

Thanks Trimm

[trimmonthelake]

Saw this posted at WS. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123356

Just heard on the local news that a hearing has been scheduled for January 3, at 1:30 p.m. to hear these motions.

[Ono]

TRIMM, thanks for all the links and motions. 

Can you imagine Judge Perry..........   

   Poor guy ...  herding cats at Christmas time!

[Ono]

Thanks Trimm for all the links to documents......Looks like they are all signed by Jar-head which means any hearings regarding them we will be tortured listening to Mumbles Mason......ughhhhhh

Wonder if he'll get all c*cky with Judge Perry????
I think (I hope) JP is at his frustration limit with the duhfense clowns.

I'm thinking we may see that volcano eruption sooner, rather than later.  It's a tad overdue. lol

[Ono]

2010.12.22  Motion in Limine Regarding Any/All Testimony and Evidence that may convict said client.

Submitted by: Nut44x4 lol

 

[Ono]

IMO, the statements about Casey lying to and stealing from people show that through her life, she showed little regard for others.  She didn't care who she stole from or who she lied to as long as she benefited. She doesn't care that she stole Caylee's life and has told the most outrageous lies to cover it up. I think this needs to be allowed.  She is a convicted felon for stealing while her daughter was lying in the swampy woods....this just has to come into play during the trial, I would think.

I agree.

[Scatty]

Isn't tomorrow, Dec. 23, the deadline JP gave for defense and State to produce all summaries and CVs from any expert witnesses? I wonder if they'll include Dr. Lee? If they don't, I think that means he's going to be out of the picture, right?

[trimmonthelake]

Isn't tomorrow, Dec. 23, the deadline JP gave for defense and State to produce all summaries and CVs from any expert witnesses? I wonder if they'll include Dr. Lee? If they don't, I think that means he's going to be out of the picture, right?

That was my understanding.   

[trimmonthelake]

http://www.wesh.com/news/26248474/detail.html
6 Motions Filed In Casey Anthony Case
Motion Seeks To Block Statements About Anthony's Sexual Relationships
POSTED: 2:50 pm EST December 22, 2010
UPDATED: 3:25 pm EST December 22, 2010
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Six motions were filed on Tuesday that attorneys for Casey Anthony said will protect their client's right to a fair trial.

The motions seek to prevent a jury from hearing statements provided to detectives regarding Anthony's sexual relationships with Anthony Rusciano and Anthony Lazarro.

Attorneys Jose Baez and Cheney Mason say the inquiries are improper.
"Previous sexual relationship between Mr. Lazarro and Miss Anthony is wholly irrelevant and a violation of Miss Anthony's right to privacy," Baez said.

Baez and Mason said it's the same case with statements from Rusciano.

In another motion, defense attorneys want to prohibit a table knife from being discussed at trial. Investigators said they found such a knife in Anthony's car.

"There is no evidence which links the knife to the commission of any of the charges," the motion stated.

Anthony was charged with first-degree murder involving the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony.

Caylee's remains were found in a wooded area not far from the Anthonys' home in December 2008.
The defense also wants to block testimony from Texas EquuSearch President Tim Miller, who told a detective and others that he thought Casey Anthony on particular occasions was about to indicate on a map where Caylee's body was located.

Anthony's attorneys said such speculation is unfounded, irrelevant and immaterial and should in no way be admitted or testified to by any witness.

Judge Belvin Perry has slated a hearing for Jan. 3 on all six motions.

[trimmonthelake]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-casey-anthony-defense-sanctions-20101222,0,6473260.story
Prosecutors call for sanctions against the Casey Anthony defense
By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel

5:06 p.m. EST, December 22, 2010
A prosecutor in the Casey Anthony case is calling for legal sanctions against the defense for failing to follow a court order and provide detailed information about the pending testimony of expert witnesses.

In a newly filed motion, Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton argues, "the state would contend that the defendant is in deliberate non-compliance with the court's order as to certain of their listed experts and that sanctions to address the non-compliance are necessary."

Ashton notes that the defense has said expert Dr. Henry Lee "will render opinions on…crime scene analysis, collection and preservation as well as recovery."

But he says the defense team's inability to summarize so-called "false claims" by crime scene investigators that Lee will rebut "is disingenuous and just plain laughable."
If Dr. Lee has no opinions that would impeach the testimony of any witness, then compliance with this court's order would require a statement to that effect," Ashton argued. "If he has relevant opinions, the court's order requires that they be listed and the facts supporting them be clearly stated."

Ashton also questions what opinions Dr. Werner Spitz would offer and whether they differ from those of Orange-Osceola Chief Medical Examiner Jan Garavaglia.

Likewise, Ashton questions what defense experts Kathy Reichs and William Rodriguez will state to "'rebut false claims raised by the State's forensic anthropologists,' which cannot be known until they testify. Again a disingenuous and laughable claim."

"The intent of the defense to defy the authority of this court to issue orders of discovery is crystal clear," Ashton wrote.

The motion also questions the testimony of DNA expert Richard Eikelenboom.

"Once again, it is impossible to determine which of the over thirty experts and a dozen crime scene technicians that the witness will allegedly rebut," Ashton says. "The excuse provided is laughable and indicative of the deliberate attempt to flaunt the rules and intent of discovery and this court's order."

He adds that with all the witnesses mentioned in his motion "the information provided is in fact no information at all. It is impossible to depose and prepare for testimony to be provided by these witnesses with the information currently provided by the defense.
Ashton noted that Florida rules of criminal procedure allow the court to prevent parties from calling witnesses or introducing certain evidence if they fail to follow discovery rules. He also cites rules stating an attorney can be subject to "contempt proceedings" and costs by violating discovery rules.

Ashton says the state will reserve its request for specific sanctions until a hearing is held, but noted that any sanction should enable the state to prepare for trial in a timely way; ensure that the defense will "refrain from future violations of discovery;" and protect Casey Anthony's "right to a fair trial and an adequate defense."

Casey Anthony is accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter in 2008. Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in Caylee Marie's death. She remains held without bail at the Orange County Jail. Her trial is scheduled for May.

[Scatty]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-casey-anthony-defense-sanctions-20101222,0,6473260.story
Prosecutors call for sanctions against the Casey Anthony defense
By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel

5:06 p.m. EST, December 22, 2010
A prosecutor in the Casey Anthony case is calling for legal sanctions against the defense for failing to follow a court order and provide detailed information about the pending testimony of expert witnesses.

In a newly filed motion, Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton argues, "the state would contend that the defendant is in deliberate non-compliance with the court's order as to certain of their listed experts and that sanctions to address the non-compliance are necessary."

Ashton notes that the defense has said expert Dr. Henry Lee "will render opinions on…crime scene analysis, collection and preservation as well as recovery."

But he says the defense team's inability to summarize so-called "false claims" by crime scene investigators that Lee will rebut "is disingenuous and just plain laughable."
If Dr. Lee has no opinions that would impeach the testimony of any witness, then compliance with this court's order would require a statement to that effect," Ashton argued. "If he has relevant opinions, the court's order requires that they be listed and the facts supporting them be clearly stated."

Ashton also questions what opinions Dr. Werner Spitz would offer and whether they differ from those of Orange-Osceola Chief Medical Examiner Jan Garavaglia.

Likewise, Ashton questions what defense experts Kathy Reichs and William Rodriguez will state to "'rebut false claims raised by the State's forensic anthropologists,' which cannot be known until they testify. Again a disingenuous and laughable claim."

"The intent of the defense to defy the authority of this court to issue orders of discovery is crystal clear," Ashton wrote.

The motion also questions the testimony of DNA expert Richard Eikelenboom.

"Once again, it is impossible to determine which of the over thirty experts and a dozen crime scene technicians that the witness will allegedly rebut," Ashton says. "The excuse provided is laughable and indicative of the deliberate attempt to flaunt the rules and intent of discovery and this court's order."

He adds that with all the witnesses mentioned in his motion "the information provided is in fact no information at all. It is impossible to depose and prepare for testimony to be provided by these witnesses with the information currently provided by the defense.
Ashton noted that Florida rules of criminal procedure allow the court to prevent parties from calling witnesses or introducing certain evidence if they fail to follow discovery rules. He also cites rules stating an attorney can be subject to "contempt proceedings" and costs by violating discovery rules.

Ashton says the state will reserve its request for specific sanctions until a hearing is held, but noted that any sanction should enable the state to prepare for trial in a timely way; ensure that the defense will "refrain from future violations of discovery;" and protect Casey Anthony's "right to a fair trial and an adequate defense."

Casey Anthony is accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter in 2008. Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in Caylee Marie's death. She remains held without bail at the Orange County Jail. Her trial is scheduled for May.

  Go Jeff!! 

[Magic Eyes]

2010.12.22  Motion in Limine Regarding Any/All Testimony and Evidence that may convict said client.

Submitted by: Nut44x4 lol

This is the funniest thing I have read in days, besides, of course all of the other Motion In Limine's, lol.  If they really want anyone that has ever known Casey to lie or steal to not show up or testify, the courtroom would be empty.  Not even her own attorneys could be there.  She really needs one of those Alice in Wonderland courts because this just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser...........................

OFF WITH HER HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hugs, Magic 

[Northern Rose]

I am     Mr. Ashton right now!

[trimmonthelake]

 

[trimmonthelake]

http://www.wesh.com/news/26248474/detail.html
6 Motions Filed In Casey Anthony Case
Motion Seeks To Block Statements About Anthony's Sexual Relationships

POSTED: 2:50 pm EST December 22, 2010
UPDATED: 4:50 pm EST December 22, 2010
<snipped>
Meanwhile, prosecutors in the case have filed a new motion that claims the defense has deliberately avoided providing information about what their experts plan to testify about.

The prosecution wants the court to impose sanctions on the defense to force them to comply with the judge's order to disclose the information.