Judge Belvin Perry released three more orders today, all denying the defense motions in limine.
First is the Order Denying Motion To Preclude Phantom "Heart Sticker" Evidence. The defense had claimed that since the examiner had destroyed the evidence either inadvertently or in bad faith, it can not be used in trial. The judge explained that this situation came between the cases cited in the defense motion.
...The defense has presented nothing to establish that the state either intentionally or negligently lost or disposed of evidence or that the evidence was unavoidable consumed. Ms. Fontaine's testimony would consist of a description of something she observed while she was examining the duct tape for latent fingerprints.
Therefore, Ms. Fontaine will be able to testify to what she saw on the duct tape, although she can't say it was a sticker.
Judge Perry ruled on both motions concerning hair-banding in his Order Denying Motion To Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Post Mortem Banding) And Amended Motion In Limine For Hearing On The Unreliability Of Scientific Testimony By Karen Lowe On Post-Mortem Hair Banding.
He cited the NY case which the prosecution brought to his attention. My favorite part of the decision was when Perry indicated that
The court notes that Mr. Petraco's, Dr. DeForest's, and Faye Ann Springer's qualifications as an expert in the field of forensic science are not subject to dispute.
He also indicated that Karen Lowe, the FBI hair and fiber analyst had read the peer-reviewed journals going back to 2008 and was going to testify that the hair was "consistent" with post-mortem banding. It will be up to the jury to decide whether or not to believe the testimony.
The judge also issued an Order Denying Motion In Limine To Exclude All Evidence Relating To Canine Searches and Alerts.
In his decision, the judge went into great detail as to other cases, Trejas v State (Texas), Clark v State (Maryland), and Harris v. State (Florida). Without mentioning any of the testimony presented in this case, Perry felt that there was no reason to keep the cadaver dog evidence out.
There have been other motions filed lately as well.
George and Cindy Anthony's attorney, Mark Lippman, recently filed a whopping 15 page motion with a memorandum attached making the document a 96-page long read. The Motion For Relatives Of Victim To Be Excused From The Rule Of Sequestration And Memorandum Of Law.
If you recall, there was a hearing where George and Cindy both testified. At that time, Lippman argued for them to be present as next-of-kin to the victim. Judge Perry made a comment which mentioned "changing stories" and refused to excuse them from the rule.
Bill Sheaffer, as usual has made comments about this in a conversation with Kathi Belich. It can be found at WFTV. Just expect a slow load on this, it's obviously very popular. Sheaffer thinks that the chances are "slim" and noted that there would be a risk to the defense if they are in the courtroom.
Thanks to Muzikman, we also have a defense motion, Motion to Reconsider Trunk Stain Motion.
In this motion, the defense pretty much tells Judge Perry that he probably got mixed up during the hearing because
The arguments for this specific motion where (sic) held at the conclusion of several scientific related hearings in which evidence was admitted on a variety of motions. It would be easy to overlook what the Court believed to be presented for one motion, but was actually being presented for multiple motions as is the case here.
Baez then went through the arguments that were presented. I still don't understand why he keeps insisting there was enough food in that garbage bag to produce fatty acids! When it comes into the trial, the CSU people will testify to the total lack of rotting garbage in the bag and to the not-so-terrible odor that emanated from it.
I wonder if Baez still believes all the stuff Henry Lee said early on during the "Nancy Grace" show.
I had absolutely no trouble during the hearing sorting out what was what. I wonder if Judge Perry will take umbrage at what Baez said!
While I'm at it, I should also mention a Motion In Limine filed by the defense on April 21.
In it, the defense argued that the pictures could not come in because they cannot be used to show consciousness of guilt. The only problem I see with that motion is that, as many others have already said, the prosecution never said that COG was the reason they wanted them admitted! Valhall already has a great article about it at the Hinky Meter, it's a must read if you already haven't!
So far, we have no hearing date and it wouldn't surprise me if the defense filed some more motions before next week. Let's face it, there are only 8 weekdays between now and jury selection.