Andrea Lyons ~ Tapes and Lectures And RECENT MEDIA

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

In an article at the Sentinel today Fewer Florida juries voting for death — why is unclear somethings sounded familiar to me ... Lyon's words during the podcast with Steve Malzberg that sleutherontheside posted the link for:
Steve Malzberg interviewing Andrea Lyons
I'll have to go back now and listen to the podcast again but recall hearing her speak about the expense of a DP case and she put the number at around 3 million ... this number is also mentioned in the article ... curious that this Sentinel article came out today ... and why now? I've been following the case from the beginning since the 911 calls and don't remember any articles about the death penalty ... hmmmm .... maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions but I suspect this has something to do with Lyon and the Anthony case ...
 
I accessed several lectures by AL on the Depaul I-tunes site

http://itunes.depaul.edu/ Guest access is allowed.

I have downloaded a few of her lectures and just finished the one entitled Depaul Law Review "Media, Race and the Death Penalty".

There a few other recordings but I have not had a chance to work through them yet.


While this lecture was given as part of a discussion on race as a factor in the DP and in litigation, there were several quotes that may apply to her overall opinion.

I will list them below.


"People think that when the police have the wrong guy, that they figure it out and do something. There might be a police officer out there like that. If anyone knows them please introduce me."

"Most judges are unable to divorce themselves from what they think politically ought to happen."

"Someone asked me Andrea, what's the first thing you do when you get a new DP case?.. I said, file a motion to continue in an uneven year. I don't want to play any part in a judges retention election."

Discussing the importance of language. "We have to take control of language." Goes on to explain that in the penalty phase there are two parts...
"Aggravation and Mitigation.....what is aggravation? REASONS TO KILL.....What is mitigation? Jury hears "excuse". But what mitigation is, is reasons to punish with less than death."
 
"People think that when the police have the wrong guy, that they figure it out and do something. There might be a police officer out there like that. If anyone knows them please introduce me."

Interesting quote considering her past and letting innocent people sit in prison for over 20 years.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
"People think that when the police have the wrong guy, that they figure it out and do something. There might be a police officer out there like that. If anyone knows them please introduce me."

Interesting quote considering her past and letting innocent people sit in prison for over 20 years.
Click to expand...

I thought the SAME thing.
 
sleutherontheside said:
I accessed several lectures by AL on the Depaul I-tunes site

http://itunes.depaul.edu/ Guest access is allowed.

I have downloaded a few of her lectures and just finished the one entitled Depaul Law Review "Media, Race and the Death Penalty".

There a few other recordings but I have not had a chance to work through them yet.


While this lecture was given as part of a discussion on race as a factor in the DP and in litigation, there were several quotes that may apply to her overall opinion.

I will list them below.


"People think that when the police have the wrong guy, that they figure it out and do something. There might be a police officer out there like that. If anyone knows them please introduce me."

"Most judges are unable to divorce themselves from what they think politically ought to happen."

"Someone asked me Andrea, what's the first thing you do when you get a new DP case?.. I said, file a motion to continue in an uneven year. I don't want to play any part in a judges retention election."

Discussing the importance of language. "We have to take control of language." Goes on to explain that in the penalty phase there are two parts...
"Aggravation and Mitigation.....what is aggravation? REASONS TO KILL.....What is mitigation? Jury hears "excuse". But what mitigation is, is reasons to punish with less than death."
Click to expand...

Great find, I'm downloading now!

"Importance of language" ? more like importance of "spin" and "misleading definitions"
Aggravating circumstances which make the harshest penalty appropriate ... which could mean Life, LWOP and yes it could mean a DP or as Ms Lyon puts it "reasons to kill" .... she sure knows how to twist words, I'll give her that!

Ms Lyon would also like to re-write jury instructions on reasonable doubt which she feels are unconstitutional, prohibit reference to jury's role as advisory" or being a "recommendation" to the court (she would probably prefer "vote to kill"), and correcting the jury instructions on the definition of "premeditation" ... perhaps she would prefer her clients convicted of murder be referred to as "persons who may have caused a terminal event"?:boohoo:
 
sleutherontheside said:
I accessed several lectures by AL on the Depaul I-tunes site

http://itunes.depaul.edu/ Guest access is allowed.

I have downloaded a few of her lectures and just finished the one entitled Depaul Law Review "Media, Race and the Death Penalty".

There a few other recordings but I have not had a chance to work through them yet.


While this lecture was given as part of a discussion on race as a factor in the DP and in litigation, there were several quotes that may apply to her overall opinion.

I will list them below.


"People think that when the police have the wrong guy, that they figure it out and do something. There might be a police officer out there like that. If anyone knows them please introduce me."

"Most judges are unable to divorce themselves from what they think politically ought to happen."

"Someone asked me Andrea, what's the first thing you do when you get a new DP case?.. I said, file a motion to continue in an uneven year. I don't want to play any part in a judges retention election."

Discussing the importance of language. "We have to take control of language." Goes on to explain that in the penalty phase there are two parts...
"Aggravation and Mitigation.....what is aggravation? REASONS TO KILL.....What is mitigation? Jury hears "excuse". But what mitigation is, is reasons to punish with less than death."
Click to expand...

You have done such a great job finding all these lectures. By the time you are done, I bet you could write a scathing book about Ms. AL! :dance:
 
mitzi said:
You have done such a great job finding all these lectures. By the time you are done, I bet you could write a scathing book about Ms. AL! :dance:
Click to expand...

The thing is........the methods she uses to "save a life" are not illegal. Many may consider them "unethical", but when she is trying to save her client from execution, she feels her actions are taken to serve the greater good.

What I take issue with is not that she pulls out all the stops to save her client from death....but that in her lectures she demonstrates a distaste for and mistrust of LE, Prosecutors, and Judges.

I don't understand how she can be in the legal profession and dedicate herself to it, yet dismiss and admonish such key parts of it.

Without a Judge...there is no trial, without a jury....there is nobody to tell your side of the story, without a Prosecutor her owns clients are not protected from becoming victims of crime themselves, and without LE she herself is vulnerable to crime.

I am all for educating defense attorneys....but to teach them to mistrust and expect impropriety from LE, Prosecution and Judges......is just plain wrong.

The purpose of my sleuthing info on her is to expose what I consider to be an issue that impacts all of us. At one point or another when people experience firsthand, a legal issue.....it's nice to know how it works.
 
I noticed one by Rachel Lyon ... "Screening of Juror Number 6" ... could that be Andrea's daughter? ...
Downloading now ...
 
sleutherontheside said:
The thing is........the methods she uses to "save a life" are not illegal. Many may consider them "unethical", but when she is trying to save her client from execution, she feels her actions are taken to serve the greater good.

What I take issue with is not that she pulls out all the stops to save her client from death....but that in her lectures she demonstrates a distaste for and mistrust of LE, Prosecutors, and Judges.

I don't understand how she can be in the legal profession and dedicate herself to it, yet dismiss and admonish such key parts of it.

Without a Judge...there is no trial, without a jury....there is nobody to tell your side of the story, without a Prosecutor her owns clients are not protected from becoming victims of crime themselves, and without LE she herself is vulnerable to crime.

I am all for educating defense attorneys....but to teach them to mistrust and expect impropriety from LE, Prosecution and Judges......is just plain wrong.

The purpose of my sleuthing info on her is to expose what I consider to be an issue that impacts all of us. At one point or another when people experience firsthand, a legal issue.....it's nice to know how it works.
Click to expand...

Exactly what got me interested in her rhetoric ... and the fact that she doesn't just practice these tactics, she TEACHES them! AND, the university let's her! Her philosophy of if it's illegal or something that's not allowed in court, rename, disguise it and try to slip it by the pros and judge ...
unethical doesn't even begin to describe her and her actions regardless of how you feel about the death penalty ... she also thinks it's OK to get a person guilty of murder off if it avoids the DP ... that's just not right ...
 
denjet said:
Exactly what got me interested in her rhetoric ... and the fact that she doesn't just practice these tactics, she TEACHES them! AND, the university let's her! Her philosophy of if it's illegal or something that's not allowed in court, rename, disguise it and try to slip it by the pros and judge ...
unethical doesn't even begin to describe her and her actions regardless of how you feel about the death penalty ... she also thinks it's OK to get a person guilty of murder off if it avoids the DP ... that's just not right ...
Click to expand...

BBM

She feels it's not about innocence, it's about saving lives.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2005/06/u_of_ms_death_p.html
 
sleutherontheside said:
I have no idea.....Expedia shows last flight out to Orlando at 7 something PM...... I don't know what time flights leave Chicago that morning......but given travel dealys etc......I think we are looking at a strong posssibility that AL won't make it. I don't think JB will be allowed to handle it and if SS is smart, he won't either.....because this case will impact her murder trial so heavily Andrea has already told the court SHE will be handling it. Funny how we never heard anything about her book tour when she came on board.
Click to expand...

Ah! I am trying to think of fast modes of travel ~~well ah how long does a train take from Chi. to Orlando? :innocent:
 
Nore said:
Ah! I am trying to think of fast modes of travel ~~well ah how long does a train take from Chi. to Orlando? :innocent:
Click to expand...


Longer than a flight.........I can't help but wonder if the SA office has already alerted Judge Strickland to the possibility of a time conflict.
 
sleutherontheside said:
BBM

She feels it's not about innocence, it's about saving lives.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2005/06/u_of_ms_death_p.html
Click to expand...

Precisely and she's has no qualms about professing it ... this is NOT the way our system of justice is supposed to work ... it's like you said, if you believe what she's selling then you don't believe in our system of justice or government for that matter ...
Here's an idea, if she's so damn passionate about her cause, why doesn't she run for office, become a legislator, make a REAL difference in abolishment of the death penalty? Something productive instead of teaching "Courtroom Drama and Tricks - Even you can fool a judge" ... :mad:
 
sleutherontheside said:
I find this so very curious.......


www.andrealyon.com



Is hosted by an Orlando webhost.......

http://betterwhois.com/bwhois.cgi?verification=2385&domain=andrealyon.com

Her site was established JULY 3, 2008


What a coincidence. I mean....what are the odds of a Chicago high profile death penalty attorney having a webhost in the very town that is the center of the crime of the year??? WOW....
Click to expand...

Coincidence? hmmmm that doesn't make any sense .... Orlando and July 08 ? Very strange .... and her blog started Aug 08
 
I'm in the middle of "Angel of Death Row"..there is a big typo right in the beginning of the book, I was laughing. I checked it out at the library so no I didn't buy it LOL. It's very interesting.

ETA..I must have read this sentence thirty times trying to make sense. Turns out it was definitely a typo.

" I have been called many names, and I am not saying names don't smart"..

She obviously meant "hurt' because she then goes on to say "But I learned how to use that hurt to connect..blah blah blah.
 
Some people do use the word "smart" in place of hurt. Like "ouch that smarts"...... BUT....had I been editing, I would have changed it because it does not read well and can confuse the meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 189 more.
Total: 475 (members: 190, guests: 285)

Online statistics

Members online
190
Guests online
285
Total visitors
475
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,298
Messages
18,252,260
Members
234,602
Latest member
baba65
Back
Top