December 22, 2010
WESH has announced thatJudge Belvin Perry has slated a hearing for Jan. 3 on all six motions. "
Muzikman has made my day yet again! This afternoon, the defense filed a slew of Motions in Limine to exclude certain evidence and types of testimony of the trial. I am literally writing this as he is posting them to DocStock!
The first motion is entitled Motion In Limine To Prohibit The Introduction Of a Table Knife And Any Testimony Related Thereto As Allegedly Found In The Defendant's Automobile.
This motion refers to the knife Cindy Anthony found in the car. She took it into the house, washed it, and put it away. The knife was tested and nothing of evidentiary was found. The motion itself is less than one page long. There is, however a Memorandum of Law that goes on for the remainder of seven pages of the document.
I don't think there will be a big issue about this one.
The next is a Motion In Limine To Preclude Testimony Or Alleged Statements Of Witness Anthony Lazaro (sic) Connected To Inquiries, Conversations, Or Interrogations By Corporal William Edwards Related To Sexual Relations With The Defendant.
Yes, you read that one correctly!
In the motion, the defense team goes after Corporal Edwards by saying:
The witness Anthony Lazaro (sic) was "interviewed" by Corporal William Edwards in this cause.
During the questioning, said Corporal improperly inquired of the witness pivate and personal matters regarding his alleged sexual relationsip with the Defendant.
The subject matter and the questions and responses given in said interview are not relevant or material to any issue in this case and, further, are scandalous and incompetent and should not be allowed in any aspects of this case.
Again, the motion was a mere page long followed by a detailed Memorandum which pointed out that the prejudicial nature of the testimony would outweigh the probative value.
That could possibly be true. However, when Anthony Lazzaro takes the stand, there is no reason he cannot tell the court how many nights Casey stayed overnight without Caylee. I think the jury could figure it out all by themselves.
Next up is a remarkably similarly named Motion In Limine To Preclude Testimony Connected To Questions And Responses Of Witness Anthony Rosciano (sic) In The Interview By Corporal Yuri Melich And Sergeant John Allen Related To Sexual Relations With The Defendant.
Similarly, the witness's name is misspelled! It Anthony Rusciano!
The wording here was identical to the Anthony Lazzaro motion, just change the names of the interviewers. Again, there is a longer Memorandum to explain it all out in detail. In this one, however, there was mention made that Melich asked this Anthony if he knew any of his other classmates who "hooked up" with Casey. Oh my.
Again, the prejudicial vs. probative comes into play.
The next motion speaks to Tim Miller's account of Casey and the Map. Entitled Motion-in-Limine-Regarding-Speculation-as-to-Defendents-Knowledge,
1. Texax Equusearch President, Mr. Tim Miller, has purportedly stated his "opinion" to investigative Detective Allen, and/or others, that he thought that the Defendant was on particular ocasions,...about to mark on a map where the body was".
2. Such speculation is totally unfounded, irrelevant, and immaterial, and should in no way be admirtted or testified to by any witness.
Again, it's a one page motion followed by a more detailed explanation of the motion.
Moving on, the next motion in limine is the Motion In Limine Regarding Testimony Of Neighbor Brian Burner In Reference To Shovel.
You can literally change the word "knife" to "shovel" to read this one.
The shovel has not been linked by witness or any forensic evidence whatsoever to any aspect of this case and, accordingly, is irrelevant and immaterial.
The memorandum of law goes on for nearly eight pages explaining why the shovel isn't material to the case.
The last motion filed had me puzzled when I read the title. The Motion In Limine Regarding Any Testimony That The Defendant Has A History of Lying And/Or Stealing. Could the defense REALLY expect this trial to be free of lies or thefts by the defendant? Well, I read the actual motion and this is what it says:
COMES NOW THE Defendant, CASEY MARIE ANTHONY, by and through her attorneys, J.CHENEY MASON and JOSE BAEZ and moves this Court for entry of its Order in Limine prohibiting the State of Florida from soliciting from any witness in the State's case in chief regarding any testimony of the Defendant having a history of lying or stealing, and as grounds therefore shows:
1. Various investigative reports in this case have attributed to the Defendant's father, George Anthony, and to other expended family members assertions that the Defendant has a history of lying and/or a has a history of stealing.
Considering the many lies she told to the investigators, considering how elaborate they were, and considering she is facing charges of lying to LE at this very trial makes me wonder why a history of lying would not be germain to the case.
2. In addition to the following Memorandum in support of this Motion, Defendant shows that any such allegations would not be relevant or material to any issue in dispute in this case, and that any potentially probative value, under Section 90.401(I), would be outweighed by the prejudicial impact of such improper character evidence, in violation of 90.403.
My goodness! How could any of Casey's friends even take the stand without indicating Casey lied to them? The lies are so intrinsically entwined in the many stories she told to different people. Casey's intricate web of lies is the foundation of her life both before and after Caylee went "missing"
Friends, I'd love to hear what you have to say about these motions!
Also, consider this: how many more motions in limine does the defense have up their sleeves? Just remember every piece of evidence collected in this case.
Click Orlando was the first to break the news of these motions in the media. Their story ended with the following:
The state attorney’s office will not comment on pending motions, but if ordered, they will have to reveal to Judge Perry whether they think any of the testimony should be allowed into evidence and, if so, why.
There are going to be some VERY interesting hearings as the Court goes through these motions!
Again, many thanks to Muzikman for getting down to the courthouse and posting these motions at Websleuths. Also my thanks to FRG for the heads up!