Posted on 07/12/2011 7:49:20 AM PDT by Red Badger
A Florida judge is considering whether to unseal a jailhouse video of acquitted murder suspect Casey Anthony that was considered so "highly inflammatory" that it would have made it difficult to give her a fair trial.
The video shows Anthony reacting to news reports that a child's body had been found in a swampy area near the Anthony home.
The tape reportedly shows Anthony double over and start to hyperventilate when Orange County jail officials told her a meter reader had stumbled upon the remains near Suburban Drive, according to an Orlando Sentinel article from 2009.
At the time of the Dec. 11, 2008 video, the body was not identiifed to be the remains of her 2-year-od daughter Caylee. Positive identification came eight days later.
The court took what is called an "unusual step" and sealed the video on June 17, 2009 claiming that allowing the public to see it would be "highly inflammatory," and that the court "could not absolutely protect the defendant's right to a fair trial," according to the order to seal document.
Casey Anthony, 25, was acquitted last week of charges of killing her daughter Caylee and is scheduled to be released from jail this Sunday after serving out the remaining sentence for lying to law enforcement officers about Caylee's disappearance.
Orlando television station WKMG-TV Local 6 filed the request to unseal the video last week on July 6 just before the verdict came down. The station argued in its filing that "Now that the trial has started and the jury is sequestered, no prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial could incur."
While other pieces of evidence could be seen as damaging, the court said that "no other item comes to mind that would carry a similar inflammatory impact."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
So protecting the guilty from a conviction has become the definition of “fair trial”?
Will this fuel the fire of vigilante justice for some borderline kook? Please note, I said borderline.
Internet chat says they found other bones in other places ( a park, etc.) and there was no reaction by Casey. She was ho-hum. When they told her they found bones in the swamp - she freaked.
They did not say your baby’s body has been found. They said a body has been found at a certain location. Her getting upset shows that she knew where the body was and probably thought she would be convicted. Kind of dumb on her part, huh?
We don't know the wording, but the investigator might not have said, "We found your baby," but "We just found some remains at such and such an address." In that case, her reaction might have clearly indicated that she knew for sure it was her daughter.
Just a guess.
And Nancy Grace will milk another month of Totmom Forever coverage out of it.
Videos can be interpreted many ways and the judge’s job is to make sure the jury is presented with a fair presentation of evidence. Judge is probably right on this one.
It shows a pattern of behavior. That's what they use in sexual assault trials (such as Monica-Gate).
When a child is molested, or a woman is raped, the first thing the investigators do is check the people in the area with molestation or rape records.
“Two teen aged girls who were in a street fight with another girl.
The two teens were charged, and so was the mother of the 2. Mom was charged for instigating and encouraging the girls to fight.”
Based on this evidence from your post alone, I would have voted to convict.
I don’t need 3 days of lawyer BS to make up my mind on a case like this.
But now, with no chance of a double jeapordy situation, there is no reason not to release it. I expect Nancy Grace will show it 5,000 times in the next month.
” I will always remember this. It wil always affect the juries I sit on in the future. “ <<
Your experience is a real concern. I would feel the same way. On the other hand, I sat on a grand jury where ham sandwiches can get indicted by the district attorney and it’s ruinous if they’re wrong, but in one case before the jury, I did ask for the accused to be scheduled to speak. I then had to be absent and missed his testimony altogether, of all things! However, after hearing him the other grand jury members did vote to drop the charges. Guess it cuts both ways for sure.
Let me see if I get this judges reasoning straight. There is evidence, in the form of this video, that might help establish her guilt, so the judge won’t allow it. Why allow any evidence for the prosecution then? Why not ban all “inflammatory” evidence that points to her guilt and stands in the way of a fair trial. Evidently this judge thinks a fair trial is one in which the defendant has no evidence against them at all.
It may have been because the ‘evidence’ was an action that took place many months after the suspected crime and therefore not linked to the crime itself. It would also be considered an act of self-incrimination. These are just theories, not opinion................
I think she should hook up with Joran van der Sloot.
They would make a cute couple.
It is inflammatory because it indicates she knew it was Casey before an identification has been made. Usually when bodies are found, the family hopes and prays is it not their missing child. They do not assume it is their child; just the opposite.
I have a feeling she is headed for more infamy in porn
“that might help establish her guilt”
It isn’t the courts job to ensure a guilty verdict. It is to ensure a fair trial. One of those responsbilities is to ensure any evidence for which there is no context should never be shown to the jury.
“It is inflammatory because it indicates she knew it was Casey before an identification has been made.”
It does? If you were missing a child and the news was reporting a body had been found near your home would you not assume it was your child? Of course you would, but that doesn’t mean you “knew” it was your child.
“”Some time after to trial, I found out that when we were out of the courtroom, the judge and lawyer were debating whether or not to allow evidence that incriminated the mom.””
That’s why it’s so irritating to hear Anthony’s defense team say that the jury saw the trial and the rest of us didn’t.
They were taken out of the courtroom so often and the cameras were still there so we could see the discussions and arguments taking place between the prosecution and defense. We got to see MORE than the jury did.
From some of the posts on these threads I’m beginning to wonder how “borderline” that would be.
Jurisprudence is a tricky thing and so is child-rearing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.