On March 23, 2011, a Frye hearing dealing with a single hair which exhibited a dark band consistent with decomposition and found in the trunk of the Pontiac Sunbird driven and abandoned by the defendant was held to determine the general acceptance of the findings in the scientific community. Defense attorney Dorothy Sims asked a series during cross-examination which significantly veered away from the purpose of the hearing. An exchange between Ms. Sims and the court may be seen and heard at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/S0meRand0mName#p/c/9E897E4FDA84A473/2/-b6JMPNVnFY
Dorothy Sims: “Alright. Your Honor, if I may just briefly respond that this motion isn’t just a Frye hearing, there are other areas that we’re seeking to have this testimony excluded which includes… ”
After another sustained prosecution objection in a series of objections to irrelevant questions by the defense, Ms. Sims attempts to persuade the court the purpose of the Frye hearing is also to provide the defense an opportunity to exclude testimony from this witness from “other areas” which are not part of a Frye hearing.
“This motion isn’t just a Frye hearing” – Ms. Sims states “this motion”, a defense motion and one which she is close to, one which she is comfortable with as shown by the use of “this”, is not “just a Frye hearing”. This is a true statement. A “motion” is not a “hearing”, Frye or otherwise. A “motion” is a “motion”. A “motion” is a written pleading by either side in a case. A “hearing” is a structured event which allows both sides to verbally plea their side of the issue to the court and which may or may not include relevant witness testimony.
Within her statement, Ms. Sims reveals two items with which she is not comfortable and verbally distances herself from with the use of the distancing word “that”. She distances herself from the defense motion not being “just a Frye hearing”. Although, as discussed, a motion is not a hearing and the statement is true, the distancing by Ms. Sims indicates she is aware she is trying to move beyond the scope of a Frye hearing as the underlying assumption the hearing should conform to the motion is flawed. Ms. Sims is also disturbed by the fact “this testimony” will be used in “other areas” during trial.
Judge Perry: “Then you need to file another motion and we’ll hear it, but the purpose of these hearings which I set many, many months ago was to deal with a Frye hearing. And I don’t know how many times I can say that. These are Frye hearings.”
The judge again offers legal advice to the defense, just as he has on many occasions in the past. It is apparent from the fact the court must instruct the defense when they need to file a motion, the defense is not aware of this on their own. A lack of understanding about routine court matters such as when and why to file a motion demonstrates a frightening lack of legal knowledge on the part of the defense.
It is also apparent from the string of sustained objections and the court’s statement, “I don’t know how many times I can say that”, the defense does not understand the purpose or scope of a Frye hearing. Such a lack of understanding significantly reduces their chances of a successful bid to suppress the findings of the expert in regards to hair banding indicating the presence of a dead body in the trunk of the car routinely driven by only the defendant during the time frame Caylee Anthony was missing, but unreported as missing to authorities.
We have learned understanding the purpose and need for motions, as well as the purpose and scope of various types of hearings, are not the particular strength of any member of the current defense team for Casey Anthony. Since motions and hearings are extremely significant parts of the overall trial procedure, we cannot be sure exactly why any defendant would choose to use such a team as such a lack of understanding about basic court matters will most likely result in failure to defend the client from the charges.
We have learned we as spectators of the court proceedings are learning exactly as much about the law and legal procedures and at exactly the same speed as the defense team.
We have learned any average blogger may be able to defend Casey Anthony at least as successfully, if not more so, than the defense team led by Jose Baez simply by listening to the instructions and advice offered by the court.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 