2009.03.25 - Motions Hearing

[BetsyB]

I hope you are right. But please remember, you only need 1 juror who thinks the SA MAY be motivated by spite and not the evidence, to get a hung jury. One or two of those hung juries, and she probably walks.

I thought the OJ case was also sad, and the evidence quite compelling, but the jury acquitted. Spector got a hung jury, even though many women testified he'd used a gun with them before. And I could go on and on. I don't
think a conviction for Murder 1 is an open and shut case here, not even close, but that's jmo. That's not to say I don't think Casey is dangerous and most likely a child killer, as I think that is probably the case. But convincing 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt may not be as easy as many here assume, though I hope you are all right and I am wrong.

(Bold mine) I do get what you're saying. But I'm hoping that there are huge differences in the execution (no pun intended) of this trial than, say, the OJ Simpson trial, when the phrase "rush to judgment" took on a life of its own--with good reason. There is no doubt in my mind that OJ Simpson is as guilty as the day is long. But if I had been on that jury, I would not have convicted. The case was terribly sloppily handled and left reasonable doubt. I would have HATED being on that jury, because the law would require me to find him differently than what I knew to be true.

I am hoping beyond hope that things are sewn up more carefully in this case. I didn't miss your earlier point--I just disagree that the SA is appearing overzealous. I think they appear cautious---the better to create (a) a conviction, and (b) a conviction that sticks.

(I agree that open-and-shut is a dangerous assumption. Nothing is black and white in life, let alone in a courtroom!)

 

[sua_sponte]

(Bold mine) I do get what you're saying. But I'm hoping that there are huge differences in the execution (no pun intended) of this trial than, say, the OJ Simpson trial, when the phrase "rush to judgment" took on a life of its own--with good reason. There is no doubt in my mind that OJ Simpson is as guilty as the day is long. But if I had been on that jury, I would not have convicted. The case was terribly sloppily handled and left reasonable doubt. I would have HATED being on that jury, because the law would require me to find him differently than what I knew to be true.

I am hoping beyond hope that things are sewn up more carefully in this case. I didn't miss your earlier point--I just disagree that the SA is appearing overzealous. I think they appear cautious---the better to create (a) a conviction, and (b) a conviction that sticks.

(I agree that open-and-shut is a dangerous assumption. Nothing is black and white in life, let alone in a courtroom!)

ITA!

Another glaring difference between this and the OJ case:

Johnny Cochran - Brilliant, articulate, and skilled trial attorney.
Jose Baez- uh, uh, uh, not so much.

 

[BonKai]

(Bold mine) I do get what you're saying. But I'm hoping that there are huge differences in the execution (no pun intended) of this trial than, say, the OJ Simpson trial, when the phrase "rush to judgment" took on a life of its own--with good reason. There is no doubt in my mind that OJ Simpson is as guilty as the day is long. But if I had been on that jury, I would not have convicted. The case was terribly sloppily handled and left reasonable doubt. I would have HATED being on that jury, because the law would require me to find him differently than what I knew to be true.

I am hoping beyond hope that things are sewn up more carefully in this case. I didn't miss your earlier point--I just disagree that the SA is appearing overzealous. I think they appear cautious---the better to create (a) a conviction, and (b) a conviction that sticks.

(I agree that open-and-shut is a dangerous assumption. Nothing is black and white in life, let alone in a courtroom!)

Well said. My sentiments exactly. :clap:

 

[magnolia]

I hope you are right. But please remember, you only need 1 juror who thinks the SA MAY be motivated by spite and not the evidence, to get a hung jury. One or two of those hung juries, and she probably walks.

I thought the OJ case was also sad, and the evidence quite compelling, but the jury acquitted. Spector got a hung jury, even though many women testified he'd used a gun with them before. And I could go on and on.
I don't
think a conviction for Murder 1 is an open and shut case here, not even close, but that's jmo. That's not to say I don't think Casey is dangerous and most likely a child killer, as I think that is probably the case. But convincing 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt may not be as easy as many here assume, though I hope you are all right and I am wrong.

I totally agree with you on this bunnyphoenix.

 

[Chezhire]

I like to think he was working any possible way to get the in camera into a public record.....I think it was a good fishing expedition. I think that the defense will feel pretty arrogant after this and that will lead to more mistakes, but the state is methodically tying that noose which will prevent an incompetent defense appeal. Clearly they believe that this is the biggest threat to the outcome-an appeal based on Baez' inability to counsel his client effectively.


Are you getting the message I wonder JB? Gotta be pretty frustrating to know you peers have this view of you....

JB doesn't understand what's happening when it's happening. (Doesn't seem to understand it after the fact, either.)

 

[Themis]

I hope you are right. But please remember, you only need 1 juror who thinks the SA MAY be motivated by spite and not the evidence, to get a hung jury. One or two of those hung juries, and she probably walks.

I thought the OJ case was also sad, and the evidence quite compelling, but the jury acquitted. Spector got a hung jury, even though many women testified he'd used a gun with them before. And I could go on and on. I don't
think a conviction for Murder 1 is an open and shut case here, not even close, but that's jmo. That's not to say I don't think Casey is dangerous and most likely a child killer, as I think that is probably the case. But convincing 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt may not be as easy as many here assume, though I hope you are all right and I am wrong.

The SA can be driven by spite alone and that doesn't matter to whether a crime was committed or not. It is not relevant.

If that one juror acquitted BECAUSE he or she felt the SA was motivated by spite alone, even if the evidence to convict was present, then that juror violated their oath as a juror. The duty of a juror is to hear and weigh the evidence, not judge some perceived drama between opposing attorneys.

It is not relevant what emotions the prosecutors are having. What matters is the evidence and the Judge's instructions. End of story.

 

[Chezhire]

**bolded & snipped**


To add to Tater's thoughts:

The way in which a bench hearing is conducted does not necessarily reflect, by any means, how a skilled trial attorney will be presenting a case in front of a jury.

It's very "apples & oranges."

The Prosecution does not need to dress rehearse their trial skills during a contested motions hearing in front of a Judge.

Not sure if JB has different settings or an adjust-as-appropriate mode though.

Humble-Opinion:wolf:

Yeppers - not to mention that the SA are likely in & out of Judge S's courtroom a lot more than JB, so I'd expect that the SA already have established track records re: Judge S.

 

[Themis]

Yeppers - not to mention that the SA are likely in & out of Judge S's courtroom a lot more than JB, so I'd expect that the SA already have established track records re: Judge S.

Good point.
This Judge is very observant. "The truth and Ms Anthony are strangers."
I suspect Judge S has formed an opinion about JB by now.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... I don't see "spite" by the State but I do see disdain for KC and JB..

What I saw was frustration as a result of the most recent unprofessional comment by JB.

SNIPPED: "...the SA needs to maintain his professionalism as we are still very early in the game. This trial is still months away and will likely drag out for quite a while. I just hope that the SA(s) keep their cool and maintain focus as to their purpose---to get a conviction for the killer of this sweet little girl.

I expect that the SA will continue to maintain their professionalism approach. Unfortunately, JB is not the only defense lawyer who's ever acted the way he does, but he's the most recent one who's continually televised acting as such.

 

[Chezhire]

Good point.
This Judge is very observant. "The truth and Ms Anthony are strangers."
I suspect Judge S has formed an opinion about JB by now.

Yeppers. I have always been grateful for judges who, despite having to continually deal with this kind of "lawyering," put the rights of the indicted/charged first and foremost.

 

[Themis]

Yeppers. I have always been grateful for judges who, despite having to continually deal with this kind of "lawyering," put the rights of the indicted/charged first and foremost.

They certainly make sure those rights are observed, but also that the State gets what it pays him to do; to preside over his court. He will keep the trial moving and get to a verdict and sentencing, if necessary. He will make sure there's a good record too to protect the integrity of the system.

 

[Paintr]

Good point.
This Judge is very observant. "The truth and Ms Anthony are strangers."
I suspect Judge S has formed an opinion about JB by now.

I just wish the Judge would insist on some manners and respect from lawyers. It is difficult to watch certain antics in what should be a solomn legal proceeding. Guess I am just used to more formal courtrooms. I do have great faith in Judge S for both his knowledge and his respect for the law.

 

[MAMABEAR]

Thank you kindly! Excellent post! :dance::dance:


Now, one quick question, and it's not about advice. LOL!

What is the reason that the Judge does not demand proper respect in the courtroom? I admit I am in another country but our courts are more formal. Yes Your Honour! No Your Honour! May I approach the bench, Your Honour! And no lawyer would dare swagger up with his hands in his pockets, smirking. Yikes! As for gum chewing, wearing shorts or text messaging in court. Again Yikes! It just isn't done.

Is this just Florida courts or just this Judge?

Hey, Paintr, I live in the USA and never had much contact with the courts but, this also makes me sick. I am disappointed in the Judge. Why is he putting up with this. And what's up with all them Guards standing around----lookin goofy----watching the cell-phones and the gum chewing?

OK goin back to read.

 

[Paintr]

Hey, Paintr, I live in the USA and never had much contact with the courts but, this also makes me sick. I am disappointed in the Judge. Why is he putting up with this. And what's up with all them Guards standing around----lookin goofy----watching the cell-phones and the gum chewing?

OK goin back to read.

Nice to know I am not the only one it bothers. Don't know why it bugs me so much. Guess it just seems so disrespectful. Feels as if it is demeaning the Judge, the court, the whole system and all the hard work and fighting that went into getting every man his day in court.

 

[MAMABEAR]

Nice to know I am not the only one it bothers. Don't know why it bugs me so much. Guess it just seems so disrespectful. Feels as if it is demeaning the Judge, the court, the whole system and all the hard work and fighting that went into getting every man his day in court.

Member when the Judge said he was tired of it or somethang like that. I have a feeling that next time we see them in court that Judge S. will lay down some ground rules. I just hope when he does that JB will know who he is talking to. I think the Judge knows how JB is the one who is the butt face. If the State can just stay calm and let the judge handle it now. HA! I can't wait.

 

[Intermezzo]

:bump:

This is the Hearing concerning how Casey is paying for her lawyers/Defense, if there is a conflict of interest and the retainer agreements with Baez and LindaKB