Andrea Lyon New DP Atty

[lin]

Brini,
I guess that is my (and many other's) "fhrushtration" in all this! I just can't fit this absolute disregard for the rules in my brain. At some point his hands must become blistered from being slapped so much! As much as it makes me pretty mad , I'm gonna blow a cork :furious: if this "alleged" baby killer gets off on some petty technicality!

 

[lin]

I completely agree with you. I too want the prosecution to win its case against Casey Anthony. That is why I sometimes wish they acted more professionally so there would be no grounds for an appeal to a guilty verdict. I have a lot of respect for Burdick but Ashton's smirks look really childish. I hope that they don't get too arrogant and underestimate the team that JB has put together.

I don't see any appealable issues at this time; have I missed something?

 

[Brini]

Brini,
I guess that is my (and many other's) "fhrushtration" in all this! I just can't fit this absolute disregard for the rules in my brain. At some point his hands must become blistered from being slapped so much! As much as it makes me pretty mad , I'm gonna blow a cork :furious: if this "alleged" baby killer gets off on some petty technicality!

Honey, she'll be 90 before JB gets done submitting superfluous and badly mangled "motions."

 

[Brini]

page 439; paragraph c; subsection iv; #1802. They wanted the wrappers and dna swabs of the lunch boxes.

ETA: And all notes regarding meal planning; grocery lists, etc.

That's a JOKE, right? (right?) Right? :-(

I can't even tell whether or not we are JOKING about the defense, anymore.

 

[Just Jayla]

Very curious to see how Ms. Lyon plays in Fla. from a societal perspective. Not sure she translates. (I don't mean in language, I mean in affect)

 

[kew17]

Thanks lin! Had to take a brief break from this insanity. School is back in so should be seeing you guys more frequently!

:blowkiss:

 

[okiedokietoo]

Belich listed the mistakes: In seeking Texas EquuSearch records, defense lawyer Lyon had a last-minute motion with the wrong case number. Lyon hadn't filed the proper paper work to join the Anthony check fraud case. And the defense team failed to alert the media that it wants to keep public records secret.

"There were several missteps," WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said. And he added that Lyon had been touted as an expert and "a lawyer's lawyer."

What does it all mean? Could Anthony's legal dream team be a nightmare?

maybe just maybe they know what they are doing....? It appears to me that with AL living and working in another State...JB draws up files Motions...AL just signs....and JB can continue to get away with all of the "didn't file this in time" "forgot to bring this to court" "forgot to notify all parties" thus continuing to get away with the "Poor JB Over his Head Have to Give it to him Don't want a mistrial routine in court"

 

[ZsaZsa]

I do agree with you that she's very intelligent and I am one that appreciates a good job even if it's against me. I was meeting a friend one day for lunch after a hearing many years ago. From my attitude my pal assumed I had a big win at that hearing. Nope; lost all the way around but was full of praise for the guy that kicked my tail. He was freaking brilliant! I described it as, "I didn't even feel it when the knife went in!" It was a minor skirmish and I went on to win the war, as the facts were on my side. But the guy put on a GREAT show and challenged me.

AL loses points with me, a typical Florida potential jurist, for many, many reasons, not the least of which is making a very reasonable, credible sounding argument based on bad facts. Simply stating something in a reasonable way doesn't make it so and I'm kind of offended when folks do that. Without putting thought into it, the one that jumps to the top of my mind is her insistence on that very reasonable sounding argument against the state's right to a speedy trial. That was NOT the issue, although she went to great lengths to argue it. Were that the issue, I might have agreed with her but since it wasn't and it was stated prior to her long winded argument that it wasn't, I felt kind of cheated by that huge waste of my and the court's time; and also felt like I can't trust her to tell me what's going on. She's the type that will just go into a long winded and totally unrelated point she thinks she can win to confuse the issue.

Being intelligent, and someone who lives mostly in an academic environment does not automatically make a good advocate though, does it? There's that old saw- Those who can, do. Those who can't , teach....

 

[Brini]

Very curious to see how Ms. Lyon plays in Fla. from a societal perspective. Not sure she translates. (I don't mean in language, I mean in affect)

Yeah, cultural dissonance can be a major stumbling block.

 

[Spangle]

Here's another example, if the pleadings filed today were written by AL:

Ok, so, um, well, the prosecution wants a trial date so let's go ahead and set a trial date. Hey, I'll even file the motion asking for a trial date. See what a nice person I am. I'll do their work for them and file that motion asking the court to set a trial date.

See how nice and reasonable that sounds? Except the state requested a trial set within the next 90 days and the date she requested is over a year away and really just gives her a year before she will burn her third and last request for a continuance enabling the state to invoke its right to a speedy trial. So, it's not so reasonable. And it's kind of insulting, imo.

Thank you for mentioning it! You explain it just right. The whole thing sounded rude and condescending. My jaw was on the floor after reading that.

 

[Brini]

That was very interesting. I wonder if Casey will allow her into her inner most thoughts and feelings? I also wonder if Ms Lyon is aware of the fact that she will be trying to pry information from a pathological liar?

...with no innermost thoughts and feelings, other than for herself.

 

[ClockWatcher]

Very curious to see how Ms. Lyon plays in Fla. from a societal perspective. Not sure she translates. (I don't mean in language, I mean in affect)

Put her is a bathing suit and stick her on the beach, she'd fit right in with us.

In the courtroom? She's just another damb Yankee tellin' us how they do it up North.

 

[Brini]

Put her is a bathing suit and stick her on the beach, she'd fit right in with us.

In the courtroom? She's just another damb Yankee tellin' us how they do it up North.

Exactly! Cultural dissonance!

Ran into a BAD case of that, when a Tennessee company did a hostile takeover of the Los Angeles company where I worked.

Though, having them visit during a major earthquake was kinda fun.

 

[Just Jayla]

Put her is a bathing suit and stick her on the beach, she'd fit right in with us.

In the courtroom? She's just another damb Yankee tellin' us how they do it up North.

Hah! Southern love :blowkiss:

 

[lin]

Put her is a bathing suit and stick her on the beach, she'd fit right in with us.

In the courtroom? She's just another damb Yankee tellin' us how they do it up North.

rofl -- Folks, she's right! We even have bumper stickers around here warning 'em "We Don't CARE How You Do It Up North!" among many others. Such a much more concise way of describing how/why she doesn't fit in here, other than on a tourist beach.

 

[Balthazar]

I may have missed that one; else I've totally forgotten it. Will you please link to the transcript or video that you reference? Can't reply intelligently without it. I'm not suggesting you're pulling an "AL" and arguing a point that's not relevant but context is everything. TIA

BTW: I'm still not seeing any "silly games" being played by anyone other than the very credibility challenged defense. Some may assume that because they make a request, it must be reasonable. I'm not one of those people. I assume if they make a request it must be suspect in some regard because that has been their pattern, in my view. Come to think of it, which defense discovery complaint motion have they won on, so far? I don't remember any sanctions leveled at the prosecution or even a hard look from the court.

Sorry, but I don't have time to go back through court video's to find this -however, this occurred in a hearing that was either just before Andrea Lyon was introduced - which was in May I believe - or it may have even been at the hearing where Andrea Lyon was introduced. Since there have not been that many hearings, it should be easy enough to find. It was also commented on here at Websleuths and the consensus was it was a lame excuse. A little research on your part and you should be able to find it easily.

The thing is, the defense is entitled to ALL of the discovery, so any discovery they request from the prosecution is a REASONABLE request. There is no reason not to turn discovery that the defense is entitled to over to them, except for the prosecution to try to gain an advantage at trial by not revealing information that can be questioned until they absolutely have no choice but to reveal it giving the defense less time for testing and considering the evidence to make their case. That is my perception of what the prosecution is doing here while simultaneously protesting that they ARE coooperating - however, the discovery has still not been passed on to the defense and it's been 5 months. I think anyone here knows that it does not take 5 months to make copies on a copy machine. I would be much more comfortable and confident with the prosecution, if the prosecution just made 2 copies of everything as a matter of course and handed one copy right over to the defense when they requested the discovery five months ago. But the prosecution has not done that. If the prosecution withholds any piece of discovery and it is later determined that that happened, it creates grounds for an appeal. I DO NOT want that to happen in this case.

 

[lin]

Sorry, but I don't have time to go back through court video's to find this -however, this occurred in a hearing that was either just before Andrea Lyon was introduced - which was in May I believe - or it may have even been at the hearing where Andrea Lyon was introduced. Since there have not been that many hearings, it should be easy enough to find. It was also commented on here at Websleuths and the consensus was it was a lame excuse. A little research on your part and you should be able to find it easily.

The thing is, the defense is entitled to ALL of the discovery, so any discovery they request from the prosecution is a REASONABLE request. There is no reason not to turn discovery that the defense is entitled to over to them, except for the prosecution to try to gain an advantage at trial by not revealing information that can be questioned until they absolutely have no choice but to reveal it giving the defense less time for testing and considering the evidence to make their case. That is my perception of what the prosecution is doing here while simultaneously protesting that they ARE coooperating - however, the discovery has still not been passed on to the defense and it's been 5 months. I think anyone here knows that it does not take 5 months to make copies on a copy machine. I would be much more comfortable and confident with the prosecution, if the prosecution just made 2 copies of everything as a matter of course and handed one copy right over to the defense when they requested the discovery five months ago. But the prosecution has not done that. If the prosecution withholds any piece of discovery and it is later determined that that happened, it creates grounds for an appeal. I DO NOT want that to happen in this case.

Just so I'm understanding this: You reference something that was discussed at some hearing either before or after AL joined the team to illustrate a point that you are making but if I want to see the context of the remarks, I should go back through all of those hearings because there aren't that many. Is that right? rofl

S'ok. I think I'll just wing this one, and assume it happened just as you describe and you didn't misunderstand a thing. Going on your memory, Um, what sanctions did the court level on the prosecution? What did the court order the state to do that they didn't volunteer to do, suggest or otherwise agree to do? What I mean is, if the state stands up and says, Your Honor abcdefg about hijklmnop and then the court turns around and orders abcdefg about hijklmnop then I don't see it as a victory for the defense. Nor do I see gfedcba a victory.

I do see the defense trying to make much hay out of complaints regarding the discovery process in a likely effort to taint the jury pool and it appears to be working because there are a few here that share your concerns.

Contrary to your blanket assertions, the thing is, the defense is NOT entitled to ALL discovery to be provided by the prosecution. There are rules and procedures and has already been ruled repeatedly, not ALL defense requests are REASONABLE. There is NO evidence the state has failed to turn over anything to the defense or they'd be again pleading for every available sanction. Check out the new graphic in my sig line. This is one of the straws they're trying to grasp.

Can you show anything, anything at all, other than the defense whining about it to indicate the prosecution has been lax in any way? Can you show anything other than defense whining to indicate there may be some issue on appeal due to the prosecution following the rules, laws, procedures and in this case, the court's orders regarding discovery?

Can you cite any case that was successfully appealed due to a discovery issue other than the prosecution withholding exonerating info? Are you alleging the prosecution in this case is doing so?

My advice to you and others who share your concern would be to not worry about it unless it comes to something other than a defense whine for the media. Otherwise, their (lack of) strategy is working. And if that's all it takes to poison a jury pool allowing violent offenders to be released to our streets, then God help us all.

 

[lin]

PS: More advice --- some seem to take everything the defense alleges regarding discovery at face value. Oh, it would be nice if they extended the prosecution the same courtesy. When has the prosecution lied to us?

Please consider the source of these allegations. The defense also says KC is completely innocent and will be exonerated at trial. Not just acquitted on a technicality; exonerated. They're going to prove her innocence. Do you believe that too?

 

[LambChop]

Given the fact that everything that has been released so far is met with, "Junk Science", no decomp in car, no anything in that trunk, zero, nada, clean as a whisle from the defense, if I were in the SA's office now I would be putting some of that evidence through more tests with other facilities that are known for their integrity and I would think that is what the defense is waiting on. Maybe defense thinks they can push the issue and mistakes would be made by rushing through some of these tests. EX: the reproduction of growth with the plant life found in Caylee's remains was not available overnight. So we just do not know what else the state is still waiting on to come back. JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

Just so I'm understanding this: You reference something that was discussed at some hearing either before or after AL joined the team to illustrate a point that you are making but if I want to see the context of the remarks, I should go back through all of those hearings because there aren't that many. Is that right? rofl

S'ok. I think I'll just wing this one, and assume it happened just as you describe and you didn't misunderstand a thing. Going on your memory, Um, what sanctions did the court level on the prosecution? What did the court order the state to do that they didn't volunteer to do, suggest or otherwise agree to do? What I mean is, if the state stands up and says, Your Honor abcdefg about hijklmnop and then the court turns around and orders abcdefg about hijklmnop then I don't see it as a victory for the defense. Nor do I see gfedcba a victory.

I do see the defense trying to make much hay out of complaints regarding the discovery process in a likely effort to taint the jury pool and it appears to be working because there are a few here that share your concerns.

Contrary to your blanket assertions, the thing is, the defense is NOT entitled to ALL discovery to be provided by the prosecution. There are rules and procedures and has already been ruled repeatedly, not ALL defense requests are REASONABLE. There is NO evidence the state has failed to turn over anything to the defense or they'd be again pleading for every available sanction. Check out the new graphic in my sig line. This is one of the straws they're trying to grasp.

Can you show anything, anything at all, other than the defense whining about it to indicate the prosecution has been lax in any way? Can you show anything other than defense whining to indicate there may be some issue on appeal due to the prosecution following the rules, laws, procedures and in this case, the court's orders regarding discovery?

Can you cite any case that was successfully appealed due to a discovery issue other than the prosecution withholding exonerating info? Are you alleging the prosecution in this case is doing so?

My advice to you and others who share your concern would be to not worry about it unless it comes to something other than a defense whine for the media. Otherwise, their (lack of) strategy is working. And if that's all it takes to poison a jury pool allowing violent offenders to be released to our streets, then God help us all.

Lin, I believe what PR was thinking of was a 1/8/09 hearing in which about a dozen discovery motions were considered. One point of contention was a blotter-sized timeline calendar used by the investigating officers during witness interviews. JB had demanded production; the State said, it's too big to copy, but feel free to come on down and look at it and take pictures; JB demanded a copy and filed his motion. I can't remember if the judge decided the State had to figure out a way to copy it, or if he decided that JB had to go take pictures. Either way, the judge did not "slam" either side for this one, IIRC. Neither side's position was patently unreasonable.