Why did he allow Casey to include a hand written note. This will be a mistrial. Someone needs to get Baez off the case.
2009.03.10 - Hand Written Note From Tot Mom in Response to Pros. Motion
- Thread starter JustJax
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
<<The State Attorney claims that JB is not acting in KC's best interest because the SA believes that a confession is in her best interest and that she should not present her defense in court at trial. I guess every defense attorney who takes criminal cases to trial can be accused of the same as far as the State is concerned.>>
respectfully snipped
Of course Casey has a right to make the state prove their case. The state is not trying to take away her attorney. They are however protecting their case against possible appeal issues down the road. Why should the tax payers in Florida be burdened with paying for a trial and then have to turn around and pay for a retrial on appeal issues? If she is convicted, there's a possibility she could come back and say she didn't authorize Baez to do this or do that. That's why she has to appear in court each and every time now. They're basically dotting i's and crossing t's at this point.
respectfully snipped
Of course Casey has a right to make the state prove their case. The state is not trying to take away her attorney. They are however protecting their case against possible appeal issues down the road. Why should the tax payers in Florida be burdened with paying for a trial and then have to turn around and pay for a retrial on appeal issues? If she is convicted, there's a possibility she could come back and say she didn't authorize Baez to do this or do that. That's why she has to appear in court each and every time now. They're basically dotting i's and crossing t's at this point.
I'm not sure, but I have to say not necessarily. First degree murder is intentional and deliberate, which is what Casey is charged with doing. So if you look at it that way, she can say "a crime I did not commit" and still claim it was accidental. Accidental would be some degree of manslaughter, I think.
ROBLYN
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,848
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree, please keep in mind that obviously no legal eagle here, but I have been saying this for months!!! It seems, he just does not have enough experience. As much as i do appreciate the laughs...I do...More than ANYTHING Caylee receiving Justice is the number one priority! How can he get his act together within the next few months to be able to go to trial? I don't think there are enough law students in florida to prep this guy.
JDzWife
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2009
- Messages
- 399
- Reaction score
- 5
Here's an interesting link about Casey's handwriting. “Handwriting Expert Analyzes Casey Anthony’s Writing”:
The experts have analyzed her handwriting from a note from 8/14/08, her recent affidavit of 3/9/09 and her infamous journal entry.
http://www..com/2009/03/11/handwriting-expert-analyzes-casey-anthonys-writing/
Here, an Expert performs a communication analysis of Casey Anthony’s statement.
In one paragraph, Casey wrote,
“After dropping Caylee off at Zenaida’s apartment, I proceeded to head to my place of employment, Universal Studios Orlando. I have worked at Universal studios for over 4 years, since June of 2004. I left work around 5pm, and went back to the apartment to pick-up my daughter.”
There are a number of few red flags in this single paragraph:
*
1. “After dropping Caylee off at Zenaida’s apartment” — Using the words “after” or “afterwards” instead of a specific time indicates that the writer is being evasive.
*
2. “I proceeded to head to my place of employment” — Why not just say “I went to work.” The words “proceeded” and “headed” may indicate that this action was never completed.
*
3. “since June of 2004″ — Words like “since” and “because” answer an unasked question. Unnecessary explanations often follow or precede a lie. Casey never worked at Universal Studios.
*
4. “I left work around 5pm.” — Qualifying “5pm” with the word “Around,” again, indicates that the writer is evasive about time.
*
5. “my daughter” — Casey has changed from using the name “Caylee” to the words “my daughter.” Using language that distanced herself from Caylee is an indication that at the time of this statement, Caylee was already dead.
I expect that prosecutors will use quite a bit of communication analysis to pick apart Casey Anthony’s many – and seemingly contradictory – statements as they prepare for her upcoming trial.
The experts have analyzed her handwriting from a note from 8/14/08, her recent affidavit of 3/9/09 and her infamous journal entry.
http://www..com/2009/03/11/handwriting-expert-analyzes-casey-anthonys-writing/
Here, an Expert performs a communication analysis of Casey Anthony’s statement.
In one paragraph, Casey wrote,
“After dropping Caylee off at Zenaida’s apartment, I proceeded to head to my place of employment, Universal Studios Orlando. I have worked at Universal studios for over 4 years, since June of 2004. I left work around 5pm, and went back to the apartment to pick-up my daughter.”
There are a number of few red flags in this single paragraph:
*
1. “After dropping Caylee off at Zenaida’s apartment” — Using the words “after” or “afterwards” instead of a specific time indicates that the writer is being evasive.
*
2. “I proceeded to head to my place of employment” — Why not just say “I went to work.” The words “proceeded” and “headed” may indicate that this action was never completed.
*
3. “since June of 2004″ — Words like “since” and “because” answer an unasked question. Unnecessary explanations often follow or precede a lie. Casey never worked at Universal Studios.
*
4. “I left work around 5pm.” — Qualifying “5pm” with the word “Around,” again, indicates that the writer is evasive about time.
*
5. “my daughter” — Casey has changed from using the name “Caylee” to the words “my daughter.” Using language that distanced herself from Caylee is an indication that at the time of this statement, Caylee was already dead.
I expect that prosecutors will use quite a bit of communication analysis to pick apart Casey Anthony’s many – and seemingly contradictory – statements as they prepare for her upcoming trial.
Exactly. See my previous post. If she claims an accidental death she still can make the statement she didn't commit first degree murder.
salvarenga
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,201
- Reaction score
- -174
Son of Sam was rejected. However, every state has their own laws pertaining to this. Does anyone know what the law for FL is?
my_tee_mouse
Done. Put a Fork in Me.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,580
- Reaction score
- 38
I think the strategy, as it were, is KC's same old strategy that has worked on her parents for ages: Get mad and get loud (in this case via all caps), and folks will shut up and (at least pretend to) believe her.
What KC has yet to get is that the whole world does not work like the familial world in which she grew up.
sumbunny
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,575
- Reaction score
- -12
Doesn't make sense. If they are going to go with "accidental death" why would they want a trial?
Why not tell SA the truthful story?
At this point if it were truly an accidental death, I think baez and casey would have showed that side of their defence by now.
I don't think they're going to claim the death an accident, imo
I'm anxiously awaiting what baez said will be "SHOCKING". In my opinion that doesn't apply to accidental death either..
amethyst221
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,158
- Reaction score
- 0
I think Casey just likes to testify about her innocence in places where she can't be cross-examined. I guess it's about the same as pleading not guilty to the charge. It was just not necessary to the affidavit, which isn't specific enough or comprehensive enough to satisfy the concerns raised by the state, the real issue she's supposed to be dealing with.
LiveLaughLuv
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 4,720
- Reaction score
- 18
December 14, 2007
LAWS AIMED AT PREVENTING CRIMINALS FROM PROFITING FROM CRIME STORY ARE OF LITTLE EFFECT.
Since the 1970s almost thirty states have enacted laws designed to prevent criminals from receiving monies that may otherwise be derived from selling their stories. The problem is that in the early 90s the United States Supreme Court ruled that Son of Sam laws were unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The reasoning of the high court was simple; no laws may restrict speech based solely on content. Since the 90s several states have had similar laws on the books overturned by higher courts on the same constitutional grounds. In response, many states are enacting general forfeiture laws as an alternate deterrent. Under the new Son of Sam type forfeiture laws, the victims of said crimes would receive the profits of any stories sold by the assailant.
The most recent media attention that such a law received was in reference to OJ Simpsons new book, If I Did It. Many criticize the law applied to this situation believing that Simpson received funds long before revealing his story, thus circumventing the Goldman familys rights to all revenues.
In Florida we have seen prosecutors use the current laws on the books to seize small amounts of revenue. These lawsuits have been filed by Floridas prosecutors in an effort to determine if such seizures would be appealed and overturned. The general consensus is that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement wouldnt want to find out that forfeiture laws were flawed on a high profile and high stakes case.
http://www.floridacriminallawyerblog.com/son_of_sam_laws/
LAWS AIMED AT PREVENTING CRIMINALS FROM PROFITING FROM CRIME STORY ARE OF LITTLE EFFECT.
Since the 1970s almost thirty states have enacted laws designed to prevent criminals from receiving monies that may otherwise be derived from selling their stories. The problem is that in the early 90s the United States Supreme Court ruled that Son of Sam laws were unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The reasoning of the high court was simple; no laws may restrict speech based solely on content. Since the 90s several states have had similar laws on the books overturned by higher courts on the same constitutional grounds. In response, many states are enacting general forfeiture laws as an alternate deterrent. Under the new Son of Sam type forfeiture laws, the victims of said crimes would receive the profits of any stories sold by the assailant.
The most recent media attention that such a law received was in reference to OJ Simpsons new book, If I Did It. Many criticize the law applied to this situation believing that Simpson received funds long before revealing his story, thus circumventing the Goldman familys rights to all revenues.
In Florida we have seen prosecutors use the current laws on the books to seize small amounts of revenue. These lawsuits have been filed by Floridas prosecutors in an effort to determine if such seizures would be appealed and overturned. The general consensus is that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement wouldnt want to find out that forfeiture laws were flawed on a high profile and high stakes case.
http://www.floridacriminallawyerblog.com/son_of_sam_laws/
my_tee_mouse
Done. Put a Fork in Me.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,580
- Reaction score
- 38
Exactly..."listen to me, and believe every word I'm saying!"
LiveLaughLuv
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 4,720
- Reaction score
- 18
Notoriety for Profit/"Son of Sam" Legislation
Overview
"Son of Sam" Laws
Constitutional Challenges
Legislative Response to Simon & Schuster
Innovations
Endnotes
Overview
In 1977, the New York State Legislature enacted a law prohibiting criminals from using their notoriety for profit, commonly called the "Son of Sam" law. This law provided that when a criminal offender entered a contract to receive profits from the recounting of his or her crime -- such as a book, movie, television show or other depiction of the crime -- the party (usually a corporation) contracting with him or her had to pay over to the state all profits that would otherwise be paid to the offender. These funds would be held for the benefit of the offender's victims, or in some cases, contributed to the state victim compensation fund.
This law was enacted to prohibit the notorious convicted murderer David Berkowitz, also known as "Son of Sam," and other criminals like him, from profiting by the sale of stories about the crimes they have committed. The principle behind "Son of Sam" laws holds that it is contrary to public policy to allow violent criminals to profit from the re-telling of their crimes while their victims suffer financially and are forced to endure the added emotional pain from the publicity. Following New York's lead, 42 additional states and the federal government enacted similar "Son of Sam" laws.
"Son of Sam" Laws
Although "Son of Sam" laws across the country are fairly similar, the wording of such laws varies from state to state. In most states, the victim must sue the offender in civil court and obtain a judgment for damages before being eligible to make a claim against the offender's profits. In others, claims are made through the established state victim compensation program. The laws generally apply to convicted offenders, including those who plead guilty, as well as those who are acquitted on the grounds of insanity. A few states include persons accused of a crime, provided there has been an indictment or some other preliminary determination that the defendant may have committed the crime.
Ordinarily, states require that the profits be paid to the state, and be held in escrow. Generally, the state agency that receives the funds then attempts to contact the offender's victims, either directly or by publishing notices regarding the availability of funds in local newspapers. Victims then have a limited number of years (usually three to five years) from the date the escrow account is established to file a civil suit against the offender. Any resulting judgment can be paid out of the escrow account.
Where no victims bring a civil suit, or when excess funds remain in the account, the law designates the disposition of the funds. Some states return the funds to the defendant. Others provide a list of payees and an order of priority of payment, including the payment of such things as victim restitution orders, court costs, defense attorney fees, costs of incarceration, and other expenses. Often any remaining funds are deposited into the state crime victims compensation fund.
Constitutional Challenges
In 1991, New York's "Son of Sam" law was challenged in Simon & Schuster, Inc. vs. New York Crime Victims Board, 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991). The United States Supreme Court held the law to be and unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
The Court first determined that since the laws targeted only profits that resulted from activities related to speech (such as books, movies, interviews, etc.), in order to be constitutional the law must be narrowly written to achieve a compelling government interest. The Court acknowledged that providing financial recovery to crime victims was a compelling interest. It also found that it was not necessary that the particular victims compensated be the victims of that offender; payment to other victims, through the state compensation fund, was also acceptable. However, the Court found that the law was not narrowly written. The law was overbroad in that it applied not only to convicted offenders, but also to those accused of a crime. In addition, the law made no distinctions between materials that were substantially about the crime and those in which the mention of the crime was only tangential or insignificant. For example, books by persons such as St. Augustine, Thoreau, and Malcolm X would have fallen under the purview of the law since they all had mentioned in their works crimes they had committed.
While the Supreme Court's decision involved only the New York law, nearly all notoriety-for-profit statutes had similar language, so their constitutionality was also called into question. As a result, legislatures have begun to amend their laws in order to make them constitutional.
Legislative Response to Simon & Schuster
In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Simon & Schuster, new legislation has been enacted by the State of New York and several other states.
Nearly one-third of all states have not altered their notoriety-for-profit statutes following the Simon & Schuster ruling. Some states that have amended their laws, have not addressed the Supreme Court's concerns. However, a substantial number of states have attempted to revise their laws to make them constitutional.
The most common change made to such laws has been expanding them to cover any profit received, directly or indirectly, from crimes, not just profits from speech-related activities. For instance, Iowa targets "fruits of the crime," defined as "any profit which, were it not for the commission of the felony, would not have been realized." (1) Oklahoma's amended law applies to "any proceeds or profits from any source, as a direct or indirect result of the crime or sentence, or the notoriety which the crime or sentence has conferred upon the defendant." (2) In contrast, Tennessee targets "all income, from whatever source derived, which is owing to the defendant, or representative or assignee of the defendant, after the date of the crime."(3)
Many of the amended laws still focus on speech-related profits, but exclude materials in which the reference to the crime was incidental or tangential. The Kansas law applies to speech-related profits "provided, such book, magazine or other publication, movie, radio or television presentation or live entertainment of any kind deals principally with the crime for which the person is accused and convicted." (4) Another common change has been to restrict the notoriety-for-profit statutes to convicted offenders.
Innovations
"Son of Sam" laws were drafted to address the public outrage that resulted when offenders were seen to profit from the notoriety resulting from their crimes. Involvement by other persons in high-profile cases might also lead to notoriety that the general public finds offensive. Some legislatures have attempted to restrict the profiteering by those other persons. Georgia makes it illegal for a "judge, prosecutor, investigating officer, or law enforcement officer who is a witness in a case to receive or agree to receive remuneration during the period of time between indictment and the completion of direct appeal in any criminal case." (5) Illinois has enacted a law prohibiting witnesses from receiving "any payment or benefit in consideration for providing information obtained as a result of witnessing an event or occurrence or having personal knowledge of certain facts in relation to the criminal proceeding" until after a verdict or judgment in the case. (6)
To find out whether your state has a "Son of Sam" law, please contact your local prosecutor's office, your state Attorney General, state legislator, or the victim assistance agency in your area.
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32469
Overview
"Son of Sam" Laws
Constitutional Challenges
Legislative Response to Simon & Schuster
Innovations
Endnotes
Overview
In 1977, the New York State Legislature enacted a law prohibiting criminals from using their notoriety for profit, commonly called the "Son of Sam" law. This law provided that when a criminal offender entered a contract to receive profits from the recounting of his or her crime -- such as a book, movie, television show or other depiction of the crime -- the party (usually a corporation) contracting with him or her had to pay over to the state all profits that would otherwise be paid to the offender. These funds would be held for the benefit of the offender's victims, or in some cases, contributed to the state victim compensation fund.
This law was enacted to prohibit the notorious convicted murderer David Berkowitz, also known as "Son of Sam," and other criminals like him, from profiting by the sale of stories about the crimes they have committed. The principle behind "Son of Sam" laws holds that it is contrary to public policy to allow violent criminals to profit from the re-telling of their crimes while their victims suffer financially and are forced to endure the added emotional pain from the publicity. Following New York's lead, 42 additional states and the federal government enacted similar "Son of Sam" laws.
"Son of Sam" Laws
Although "Son of Sam" laws across the country are fairly similar, the wording of such laws varies from state to state. In most states, the victim must sue the offender in civil court and obtain a judgment for damages before being eligible to make a claim against the offender's profits. In others, claims are made through the established state victim compensation program. The laws generally apply to convicted offenders, including those who plead guilty, as well as those who are acquitted on the grounds of insanity. A few states include persons accused of a crime, provided there has been an indictment or some other preliminary determination that the defendant may have committed the crime.
Ordinarily, states require that the profits be paid to the state, and be held in escrow. Generally, the state agency that receives the funds then attempts to contact the offender's victims, either directly or by publishing notices regarding the availability of funds in local newspapers. Victims then have a limited number of years (usually three to five years) from the date the escrow account is established to file a civil suit against the offender. Any resulting judgment can be paid out of the escrow account.
Where no victims bring a civil suit, or when excess funds remain in the account, the law designates the disposition of the funds. Some states return the funds to the defendant. Others provide a list of payees and an order of priority of payment, including the payment of such things as victim restitution orders, court costs, defense attorney fees, costs of incarceration, and other expenses. Often any remaining funds are deposited into the state crime victims compensation fund.
Constitutional Challenges
In 1991, New York's "Son of Sam" law was challenged in Simon & Schuster, Inc. vs. New York Crime Victims Board, 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991). The United States Supreme Court held the law to be and unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
The Court first determined that since the laws targeted only profits that resulted from activities related to speech (such as books, movies, interviews, etc.), in order to be constitutional the law must be narrowly written to achieve a compelling government interest. The Court acknowledged that providing financial recovery to crime victims was a compelling interest. It also found that it was not necessary that the particular victims compensated be the victims of that offender; payment to other victims, through the state compensation fund, was also acceptable. However, the Court found that the law was not narrowly written. The law was overbroad in that it applied not only to convicted offenders, but also to those accused of a crime. In addition, the law made no distinctions between materials that were substantially about the crime and those in which the mention of the crime was only tangential or insignificant. For example, books by persons such as St. Augustine, Thoreau, and Malcolm X would have fallen under the purview of the law since they all had mentioned in their works crimes they had committed.
While the Supreme Court's decision involved only the New York law, nearly all notoriety-for-profit statutes had similar language, so their constitutionality was also called into question. As a result, legislatures have begun to amend their laws in order to make them constitutional.
Legislative Response to Simon & Schuster
In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Simon & Schuster, new legislation has been enacted by the State of New York and several other states.
Nearly one-third of all states have not altered their notoriety-for-profit statutes following the Simon & Schuster ruling. Some states that have amended their laws, have not addressed the Supreme Court's concerns. However, a substantial number of states have attempted to revise their laws to make them constitutional.
The most common change made to such laws has been expanding them to cover any profit received, directly or indirectly, from crimes, not just profits from speech-related activities. For instance, Iowa targets "fruits of the crime," defined as "any profit which, were it not for the commission of the felony, would not have been realized." (1) Oklahoma's amended law applies to "any proceeds or profits from any source, as a direct or indirect result of the crime or sentence, or the notoriety which the crime or sentence has conferred upon the defendant." (2) In contrast, Tennessee targets "all income, from whatever source derived, which is owing to the defendant, or representative or assignee of the defendant, after the date of the crime."(3)
Many of the amended laws still focus on speech-related profits, but exclude materials in which the reference to the crime was incidental or tangential. The Kansas law applies to speech-related profits "provided, such book, magazine or other publication, movie, radio or television presentation or live entertainment of any kind deals principally with the crime for which the person is accused and convicted." (4) Another common change has been to restrict the notoriety-for-profit statutes to convicted offenders.
Innovations
"Son of Sam" laws were drafted to address the public outrage that resulted when offenders were seen to profit from the notoriety resulting from their crimes. Involvement by other persons in high-profile cases might also lead to notoriety that the general public finds offensive. Some legislatures have attempted to restrict the profiteering by those other persons. Georgia makes it illegal for a "judge, prosecutor, investigating officer, or law enforcement officer who is a witness in a case to receive or agree to receive remuneration during the period of time between indictment and the completion of direct appeal in any criminal case." (5) Illinois has enacted a law prohibiting witnesses from receiving "any payment or benefit in consideration for providing information obtained as a result of witnessing an event or occurrence or having personal knowledge of certain facts in relation to the criminal proceeding" until after a verdict or judgment in the case. (6)
To find out whether your state has a "Son of Sam" law, please contact your local prosecutor's office, your state Attorney General, state legislator, or the victim assistance agency in your area.
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32469
Thank you for that research. Son of Sam was revoked in the late 1990s is the bottom line. As I stated in my earlier post, as long as Casey has not been convicted, which she has not yet, and OJ was found not guilty, it's a Catch-22.
Although OJ was later found guilty in the civil case. WOW! Too confusing.
It makes perfect sense. Casey is claiming she DID NOT commit first degree murder, which is what she's charged with. She is not going to claim accidental death because it wasn't accidental. She is going to stick with the "nanny did it" story. Casey is not going to tell the state the truthful story because she's hoping at trial that she and her defense team can raise enough doubt for at least a hung jury. Which is the whole point of going to trial.
Lanie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,843
- Reaction score
- 38
<P>
<P> </P>
<P>I totally disagree with this.</P>
<P>It is not ok for an attorney to look out for his interests over his clients. If that is the case, then Casey needs another attorney. If there were some way to have any appeals based on attorney incompetence or unethical behavior waived, I would be all for letting this continue on. It's not fair to the people of this state to have to waste the financial and time cost on another trial so Casey and Co. can play games for profit. If the defense is truly not holding out for a big payday from selling this story down the road, it shouldn't be that hard to prove.</P>
<P>Lanie</P>
I tried to fix this, but it isn't cooperating...
</P>
<P> </P>
<P>I totally disagree with this.</P>
<P>It is not ok for an attorney to look out for his interests over his clients. If that is the case, then Casey needs another attorney. If there were some way to have any appeals based on attorney incompetence or unethical behavior waived, I would be all for letting this continue on. It's not fair to the people of this state to have to waste the financial and time cost on another trial so Casey and Co. can play games for profit. If the defense is truly not holding out for a big payday from selling this story down the road, it shouldn't be that hard to prove.</P>
<P>Lanie</P>
I tried to fix this, but it isn't cooperating...
Bee Charmer
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 1
I think the prosecutor's may also be going for murder in the first degree by attempting to prove felony murder. In other words, a murder that resulted from another act such as aggravated child abuse (drugging, chloroform etc...imo.
Which is what she was initially charged with. Neglect, child abuse, etc. And that's why death is off the table. An accident, but neglient homicide. Either way, she's going to spend the rest of her life in prison.
Did you see my theory on the other thread? About the abandoned house, etc?
faefrost
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,285
- Reaction score
- 0
The key point isn't the specific nuances of her wording. What is key is that she submitted an afadavit in her own handwriting, making these claims. as a result the prosecutors can call her to the stand to ask questions about exactly what she meant. She cannot choose not to testify now. She has begun testifying. All she can now do is stand in the witness box, before the judge and jury, and either answer the questions the SA asks, or publicly claim the 5th in her own voice. And there is a huge diference in the juries eyes between a defendant choosing not to testify, and one on the stand choosing to not answer questions because they might incriminate themselves in a crime.
So she has really really hosed herself with this one. She did it in her own handwriting and in her own words.
And it is also sad that this happens in an afidavit that is responding to questions about her lawyers interests and finances. letting her put that handwritten item in there was unbelievable incompetance on the part of JB. So much so that oen wonders if he has stopped giving any real legal advise and is seeking to get off the case, or to let his client hang herself.