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 ...
The porn offer funny enough was withdrawn. Maybe her male counterpart couldn’t get the job done. That would be rock bottom by most standards.
I never said it was the courts job to ensure a guilty verdict, it also isn’t the courts job to exclude evidence that might actually convict the defendant, as long as the evidence isn’t contrived or faked.
I like the way you think.
“as long as the evidence isn’t contrived or faked.”
True, but to show that particular video and assume what her thoughts were and why she acted as she did is prejudicial. You have no idea why she acted that way and until you can establish that it is only your opinion that she was acting guilty.
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.