Appeal Hearing 1-8-13 Notes

Alrighty, just learned a little about the process. Each attorney has been given 15 minutes to state their arguments in front of 3 judges. The judges may ask questions of the attorneys. The judges have all the trial transcripts and copies of the attorneys written arguments. It should only take 30 minutes and no decision is expected today. The decision may take as long as 2 weeks.

I will try to post notes as the hearing goes on. In advance, pardon any typos

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Activity in the courtroom

Cheney Mason is there.
Female attorney....Elizabeth something? I think. Not sure on that.
Judges being seated
Elizabeth Fryer speaking for CA
Saying that CA was "arrested" when she was handcuffed and placed in the patrol car.
Judge already asking hard questions of Elizabeth
(This is hard to follow)
Eliza: She was arrested for stealing a credit card
Judge: (paraphrased) If she was arrested on a credit card charge but was being questioned about Caylees whereabouts. She was unhandcuffed and free to go about her business.
Eliza: There is no record of her being told she was free to leave.
Eliza: Coercive environment
(This is so hard to understand....)
(Judges asking legal questions)
Judge cites case that Supreme Court already ruled on.
IMO, Elizabeth is stumbling
So essentially Elizabeth is complaining that CA was arrested (for stealing credit cards) and was not read her rights so anything she said about Caylee is not admissable.
State attorney up now...
Judge questioning state about interview at Universal. Why is that not a custodial environment?
Judge: Clearly LE suspected CA at that time.
Judge: Didn't LE say something to CA about Caylee being in a dumpster ot buried. It was a classic interrogation.
Atty: She went voluntarily to Universal
Judge: Wasn't she escorted into the room for the interrogation?
Explain to me how it is non custodial at that time?
Was she free to leave?
Atty: She left....went freely to the police station via LE for photo lineup of ZFG.
Judge: Once LE knew she lied, they took her into the room and suspected she was involved. Smart policemen, suspected they knew she was involved.
Atty: they were doing classic interrogation techniques. LE knew her stories didn't add up. SHe was brought to Universal to see if her stores would add up.
Judge: What changed their mind....did she confess? Did they just feel that it was better to charge her and arrest her for lying at the police station? Free to go? She only had LE to take her whereever she wanted to go.
Atty: She could have asked that LE take her home
Written stmt, taped stmt, all full of lies.
Judge: Did any of the things she was convicted of, did they arise out of anything that happened at Universal?
(wow...they are jumping around, and judges asking questions....this is hard to keep notes for)
Judge: Your time is up
Atty: We ask that you affirm
Judge: Asking Eliza questions
Eliza: Handcuffing is a formal arrest.
Judge: You are not saying that everyone that is handcuffed is under arrest are you? They are detained.
She gave stmt in writing before handcuffing, then after handcuffing she gave another stmt.
Eliza: Coercive environment, heavey police present

Case over....

This was very hard to follow, lots of quick questions, legal cases noted, ers and ummms from Elizabeth...
But what I got is CA wants her convictions thrown out cuz she was handcuffed (arrested in her opinion) and never read her Miranda rights. So anything she said after being handcuffed is non admissable, therefore her convictions should be thrown out.

Thanks ChickenButt. It was short and sweet.
I love the Judge took Elizabeth Fryers time.

I thought the handcuffs were placed for the stealing of the car. Once they found out that the baby was missing they took them off and it was a whole new deal. JMO

Judge did say handcuffing does not mean arrest.

Thanks for the info CB I could not get it live at first.

My take was very disjointed...it was hard to follow. They were talking fast....lol and I am not that good of a typist. I thought the handcuffs were on for credit card theft. I guess it really doesn't matter, it wasn't about Caylee. Once that was brought up, the handcuffs were removed.

It did say that it was about the credit card theft but if I remember correctly they cuffed her because of the car theft at that time. I don't think they even knew about the credit cards yet. I don't think it matters either like you said that cuffing was not about Caylee.
I don't think Elizabeth Fryer did a great job. She is usually sharper than this.
I kind of got the impression that the judge might not be going for CA being intimidated and her rights not read.

I think Elizabeth Fryer was terrible. She hemmed and hawed a lot and seemed not to know how to answer the judges questions, which I thought were very pointed.

I think the appeal will fail. The judges didn't seem to be thinking that poor, little CA was in a "coercive environment" as Elizabeth stated. But, the judges questioning about the interview at Universal lead me to believe that maybe they need to think a little more about that questioning. I dunno...

I sure hope it fails.
I think it was a coercive environment but if your child is missing for 31 days it should be. I did not ever hear them threaten her though.
When the police told her she was free to leave Universal she could have. Even if I didn't have transportation and I wanted to leave I would have. She could have called Cindy. I am sure she would have picked her up.
I think that is where the defense is going to say that Casey was under investigation for more than a kidnapping case. I do believe that is where the police thought she had something to do with it but if you look back at the police reports, it still says kidnapping not something like suspected murder under type of case.

I had forgotten about that kidnapping vs murder.....good point.