The Justice System and KC

[JBean]

snipped for emphasis

The best anyone who wears a white hat can do is to try and protect themselves from others who might cast a black shadow over them.

Amen. I am just glad that there are still a fair number of white hatters left imo. God forbid they should go to the dark side LOL.

 

[Wudge]

Thanks Tracy. This is one question I have about defense attorneys, and that's the subject of ethics.

All attorneys must work within the law. At what point is it no longer a matter of questionable ethics and instead becomes a crime?

Let me lay out a "what if" type of situation as it pertains to the Casey Anthony case...................

According to Dominic Casey, defense attorney JB, who knew DC was searching the woods off of Suburban for Caylee's remains, told DC that if he found Caylee not to call the police.

For the sake of this "what if" scenario.............what if DC had found Caylee's remains, reported this to JB, and JB failed to report finding Caylee's remains to police.

It would seem to me that this is no longer a matter of questionable ethics, but a crime to withhold evidence from the police. In this case, the remains of Caylee Anthony, would be considered major evidence.

Leila, the stituation in your hypo could create immense conflict for any skilled defense attorney. However, assumming that DC fell under the attorney-client privilege, then as long as he did not take possession of the body, Mr. Baez would likely be protected from a claim that he concealed physical (real) evidence.

In most any such situation, the keys factors would almost assuredly boil down to: attorney-client privilege, possession and concealment or not.


(One of the most difficut and conflicting situations for a defense attorney.)

 

[tracy87]

But actually the fact that she would not be truthful is a key element to your hypothetical.
Here is a case where in exchange for telling what happened to Donna Jou, (a 19 yo that most believe was murdered by an RSO), the accused got 5 years to tell what happened and he talked face to face with the parents.
Many of us think he is just full of it, so he got to kill someone and got a plea deal for 5 years and for telling his story the way he wanted it to go down.
This guy cleaned his car, removed the license plates, left town and he was the last one seen with her. There is plenty of good circumstantial evidence, but no body and no way to tie him to the crime. It means there probably would not have been a conviction.
In this case, by hearing the details of her death,I think the parents hoped it would provide some information that would help them find their daughter and to know what really happened to her.
But I don't think the final result helped them at all. jmho of course

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CA-Missing-19 yo Donna Jou 06/23/07 RSM, *merged threads*



Click here for link to good article

i know that kc will never tell the truth, even if she agreed to tell the truth, it most certainly would not be the truth.

i guess the point i was trying to make was that sometimes the "pro kc" folks insinuate that anyone who thinks kc is guilty is just out to "get her" and have "revenge" on her.

but i would be more satisfied with knowing the "real truth" than with LWOP or DP. and i wondered if anyone else felt the same way.

 

[Wudge]

Amen. I am just glad that there are still a fair number of white hatters left imo. God forbid they should go to the dark side LOL.

Interestingly, it was off such a principled effort that resulted in Mr. Hornsby posting here.

(Snappy salute to strong principles, which, by my senses, seem to be evermore a rarity.)

 

[Wescott]

Leila, the stituation in your hypo could create immense conflict for any skilled defense attorney. However, assumming that DC fell under the attorney-client privilege, then as long as he did not take possession of the body, Mr. Baez would likely be protected from a claim that he concealed physical (real) evidence.

In most any such situation, the keys factors would almost assuredly boil down to: attorney-client privilege, possession and concealment or not.


(One of the most difficut and conflicting situations for a defense attorney.)

Exactly what I was thinking, totally agree.

 

[tracy87]

Interestingly, it was off such a principled effort that resulted in Mr. Hornsby posting here.

(Snappy salute to strong principles, which, by my senses, seem to be evermore a rarity.)

do you mean because he felt is was "morally wrong" for BS to obtain lyon's tapes of her class and then make them public?


hmmmmm.....

 

[Just Jayla]

I'm very sorry to hear that your brother passed on.

What hit my funny bone was your saying that: "I hired the attorney to make sure he was informed of his rights and was getting good advice and to be his "advocate".

However, I think it's fair to say that you expected something a bit different than the feedback (advocacy) you received from the attorney you hired. Yet, in all honesty, that feedback (advocacy) is not out of line with what I would expect from a defense attorney who is truly advocating on behalf of his client -- as it seems you wanted and hired them to do.

I don't know the particulars of the initial conversation you had with the attorney when you hired them, but what I sense you hoped for would not be something that, I believe, most people would expect a defense attorney to bring out in the open or to be responsible for in any way; i.e., getting their client to fess up, stand up and take responsibility for their actions.

FWIW

(God bless you and your family.)

BBM-In fact, I think this is precisely and uniquely a defense attorney's job to do. While I certainly have my opinions on the characters of some of the attorneys in this case, I could not point to a scenario (yet) where KC's defense team has done anything but advocate for her.

Now, let's say the defense did build a story implicating RK at trial. And in the course of the trial, it is revealed that KC, via JB, directed DC to the body-This would be an instance of poor lawyering, IMO-And possibly criminal, if I remember the Van Dam case correctly. (That is an imaginary example, I know there would be privilege motions in between).

I haven't seen anyting to suggest that they will go forth with a known farce, nor do I see AL using KC as a platform for social justice, so I believe the legal system is working for KC and for the people of Florida as it should.

 

[capps]

new question:

if it were up to you, would you agree to a MUCH lighter sentence for kc if she were to confess and give full disclosure (and express true remorse) of what exactly happened?
or would you rather her get the death penalty, but NEVER get the answers to what truly happened?

what is more important to you? punishing kc to the fullest no matter what OR

finding the exact truth, answering all questions and giving CA, GA and LA and all of Caylee's family peace, but kc gets a second chance at a life outside of prison?

I've always had a hard time accepting the "if you tell us the truth we'll give you a lighter sentence" plea bargaining.Because if the truth should be that KC murdered her two yr old toddler and then let her rot in her trunk in garbages bags,and then threw her in a swamp,because Casey felt she just didn't want Caylee interferring with her life....there is no way I could agree to a lighter sentence,let alone get a second chance at life outside prison.

No,we'll let the courts try their best to get to the truth on it's own. I believe she deserves LWOP,whether we get the truth from her mouth or not.

 

[tracy87]

(This ........ caused me to laugh until my stomach hurt.)

Trust me. It's not an everyday occurrence that someone hires a defense attorney with the hope they will get their new client to 'fess up'.

(God bless you. I hope things work out for the best, whatever that might be.)

after having more time to really think about what i had hoped for, i wanted to respond more completely.

i guess i had expected the defense attorney to say something along these lines: ok mr defendent, this is the evidence the state has against you. do you disagree with any of it? ok, now that you have told me your side: this is
what you are guilty of, and it is not exactly what they have charged you with, so we are going to argue that point. and i expected him to be sure that my brother was sentenced fairly.

Does that make any sense or am i causing you to chuckle again?

trust me, my naivety prior to this occurence in my life, makes me chuckle today. had i known then what i know now....he would have sat in jail miserable and mad as heck at me, but he probably would have cried with joy to see pictures of his first grandchild.

 

[Searchfortruth]

totally agree with the bolded section. This is indeed the element that turns this case upside down. I would like to see what other grandparental reactions are documented in cases such as this.
Does anyone have any cases to suggest for reference?

BBM.

This question got me going on an internet search. I briefly looked at the case of Kenisha Berry, from Texas. Kenisha was on Death Row for the murder of her child, plus she had a child abandonment charge related to another child that she dropped off in the woods. It looks like her death sentence was reduced to Life around 2007.

I didn't find a lot on Kenisha's parents, but here is a brief part of an article on Kenisha's mothers reaction to her daughter's death sentence...

"Berry's mother, Ruby Sherman, wept openly and cried out, "Not my baby. No. No. No."

"Berry did not testify during the punishment phase of the trial. Her mother told jurors that what Berry did was wrong but she still loved her."

More at link...

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/n...th_penalty_for_woman_06-27-2008_19_02_18.html

 

[Pondering Mind]

after having more time to really think about what i had hoped for, i wanted to respond more completely.

i guess i had expected the defense attorney to say something along these lines: ok mr defendent, this is the evidence the state has against you. do you disagree with any of it? ok, now that you have told me your side: this is
what you are guilty of, and it is not exactly what they have charged you with, so we are going to argue that point. and i expected him to be sure that my brother was sentenced fairly.

Does that make any sense or am i causing you to chuckle again?

trust me, my naivety prior to this occurence in my life, makes me chuckle today. had i known then what i know now....he would have sat in jail miserable and mad as heck at me, but he probably would have cried with joy to see pictures of his first grandchild.

I know that you weren't responding to me tracy, but I just wanted to say that for myself (while absolutely ignorant of case law, precedents and the like) you make perfect sense!......

 

[Wudge]

after having more time to really think about what i had hoped for, i wanted to respond more completely.

i guess i had expected the defense attorney to say something along these lines: ok mr defendent, this is the evidence the state has against you. do you disagree with any of it? ok, now that you have told me your side: this is
what you are guilty of, and it is not exactly what they have charged you with, so we are going to argue that point. and i expected him to be sure that my brother was sentenced fairly.

Does that make any sense or am i causing you to chuckle again?

trust me, my naivety prior to this occurence in my life, makes me chuckle today. had i known then what i know now....he would have sat in jail miserable and mad as heck at me, but he probably would have cried with joy to see pictures of his first grandchild.

If it makes you chuckle today, that tells me that you understand why I posted as I did.

You went into that attorney's office with expectations that were anything but realized. And your expectations were clearly integrity based, so they are to be applauded in that regard.

Unfortunately, anytime a person in any family has a foot on the doorstep of our justice system, it's akin to having a foot on the entry to the devil's den. It's simply not the place that anyone should want to be, because surprises lurk everywhere -- as you discovered.

(The very best of the holidays to you and your family. God bless you all. This is Wudge, signing off.)

 

[treeseeker]

totally agree with the bolded section. This is indeed the element that turns this case upside down. I would like to see what other grandparental reactions are documented in cases such as this.
Does anyone have any cases to suggest for reference?

Erica Green, aka Precious Doe, was found in an abandoned lot in Kansas City, decapitated. Her grandparents heard about the unidentified child, and suspecting she was their grandchild, contacted LE. A tipster, who I think was later said to be Erica's grandfather, tricked her mom into giving him a hair sample, which he turned over for DNA testing. She and Erica's stepfather were arrested and convicted for her murder.

Link to one article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155780,00.html

 

[Pondering Mind]

If it makes you chuckle today, that tells me that you understand why I posted as I did.

You went into that attorney's office with expectations that were anything but realized. And your expectations were clearly integrity based, so they are to be applauded in that regard.

Unfortunately, anytime a person in any family has a foot on the doorstep of our justice system, it's akin to having a foot on the entry to the devil's den. It's simply not the place that anyone should want to be, because surprises lurk everywhere -- as you discovered.

(The very best of the holidays to you and your family. God bless you all. This is Wudge, signing off.)

Wudge, that is a sad reality in my opinion AND a d@mn good post....
God bless you as well..

 

[100%Agave]

after having more time to really think about what i had hoped for, i wanted to respond more completely.

i guess i had expected the defense attorney to say something along these lines: ok mr defendent, this is the evidence the state has against you. do you disagree with any of it? ok, now that you have told me your side: this is
what you are guilty of, and it is not exactly what they have charged you with, so we are going to argue that point. and i expected him to be sure that my brother was sentenced fairly.

Does that make any sense or am i causing you to chuckle again?

trust me, my naivety prior to this occurence in my life, makes me chuckle today. had i known then what i know now....he would have sat in jail miserable and mad as heck at me, but he probably would have cried with joy to see pictures of his first grandchild.

I just wanted to let you know that I understand exactly where you are coming from. My youngest (the one that never got a spanking because it is now considered taboo - another thread), has been in and out of trouble for the last few years. I am a firm believer in paying for your crimes. To me it does not matter whether it is someone that I don't know or it is my own son.

I told him that if he was guilty of the crime that he was accused of that he should stand up like a man, confess and take his medicine. For me his lawyer was there only to make sure that he was treated fairly and not railroaded and to help him understand his options and possible sentence.

I visited him every week that he was in jail.

 

[rhornsby]

Isn't that a little simplistic? So Casey said I don't want to die and AL said I know what you are trying to say - I'll write ten motions? I was going to add something about Baez but decided it might not be appropriate. My point is - don't you think that answer is a little pat for explaining what defense lawyers do?

Not at all. Everyone is so caught up with the quantity of motions filed by Ms. Lyon, but each motion is aimed at making sure every aspect of the death penalty aspects of the case are fairly applied.

Legal history of replete with "the same issue" being denied over and over again, until one day there is a coalesce of facts that suddenly make it obvious that a certain issue was unfair - the same issue that was dismissed time and time again.

Just recently the U.S. Supreme Court said you cannot execute the retarded - for two hundred years prior to this the retarded were executed over their attorney's objection.

Currently the U.S. Supreme Court is faced with the question of whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison, even though no person was killed (i.e. a rape was underlying crime). Motions objecting to such a sentence were routinely denied for decades and suddenly the SCOTUS decides it is worthy of a look. Well I ask, what if that attorney said you know what, it has been denied 1,000 times before, why bother now.

Why bother, because you just might be the case that results in a cultural shift in what the law is.

 

[rhornsby]

That's why I really don't have a lot of faith in all of the rules regulations, and technical nonsense that effect criminal cases. It's more about the procedure and formula than justice or truth.

No, what you call "procedure and formula" I call fairness and the constitution calls due process.

Let's not forget, the Casey Anthony case is the exception. Every other tom, dick, harry, and sue out there is at an extreme disadvantage to the state. They lack the funds to retain experts who could challenge the legions of investigators, technicians, prosecutors, researchers, you name it.

Trust me, there is a reason that the colonies would not ratify the constitution without a bill of rights. And there is a reason that the bill of rights primarily consisted of protections against the government prosecuting citizens and taking away rights without "due process" - or what you seem to call "procedure and formula."

 

[rhornsby]

Not to mention that AL is simply using casey as a means to fight her bizarre personal war against the death penalty. She thinks she is 100% right and is using the courts to force her beliefs on society. That is not what courts are for, that is what the legislature is for. I don't understand why the attorneys are allowed to use the courts as a tool for their idealistic crusades.

"Bizarre personal war against the death penalty?"

Well, considering that the death penalty has been abolished in every western european country, I would not say it is that bizarre of war she is waging.

I mean, the only countries that still regularly impose the death penalty are found in Africa, the Middle East, and China - jeez, we sure are in some civilized company.

 

[rhornsby]

There are only 3 or 4 verified attorneys on the caylee forum (rhhornsby ,azlawyer and impatientredhead off the top of my head) and plenty of us non lawyer types and we think you are doing just fine! So do not ever be afarid to post what you are thinking. We are learning together, even the attorneys are picking up a thing or two.

Regarding getting someone off on a technicality..whose fault would you consider that to be?

I don't know, whose fault would it be if an innocent person was convicted and executed?

Was it the defense attorney's for not winning - maybe because he felt he would be offending the public if he filed to many motions or raised to much of a stink?

Was it the prosecutor's for using jailhouse snitches and questionable forensic evidence.

Was it the judge for allowing in questionable forensic evidence or for ruling incorrectly?

Was it law enforcement's for not investigating other suspects, for not looking into questionable leads, for illegally obtaining evidence?

Was it the jury's?

Something tells me that before we start asking whose fault it is if a defendant gets off on a technicality (therefore assuming they were in fact guilty) that we should first ask whose fault it is if an innocent person is not only convicted (happens daily) but sentenced to death (happens yearly), but also executed (exact number never to be known).

 

[Horace Finklestein]

BBM-In fact, I think this is precisely and uniquely a defense attorney's job to do. While I certainly have my opinions on the characters of some of the attorneys in this case, I could not point to a scenario (yet) where KC's defense team has done anything but advocate for her.

Now, let's say the defense did build a story implicating RK at trial. And in the course of the trial, it is revealed that KC, via JB, directed DC to the body-This would be an instance of poor lawyering, IMO-And possibly criminal, if I remember the Van Dam case correctly. (That is an imaginary example, I know there would be privilege motions in between).

I haven't seen anyting to suggest that they will go forth with a known farce, nor do I see AL using KC as a platform for social justice, so I believe the legal system is working for KC and for the people of Florida as it should.

AL is definitely using Casey as a platform. Why else would she even be on this case? She's from Illinois iirc.