Casey may represent herself at trial.

[yolorado]

How amusing. Perhaps Baez doesn't want to disconnect, so to speak. That way he could stay on the case...in a manner of speaking and not be replaced.

 

[icherish]

She's toast any way you look at it...defending herself, she's burnt toast. :burn:

 

[CaliKid]

Talk about stupid.

 

[Muzikman]

I heard that ABC was reporting that if Casey represents herself, the state will have to pay for all of the testing of evidence, etc. and also pay for Jose to advise her. So I guess they have figured out how to beat the system.

That's what WFTV said - here is a link to the video, it's about 3:20 in -

http://www.wftv.com/video/17715017/index.html

This has GOT to be Baez's idea, it looks like it may be the only way he can get any money out of it, since other avenues appear to be shut down to him.

 

[CarolineJ]

Exactly, Muzikman! This has Jose Baez's fingerprints all over it. WFTV is also reporting that the Anthonys have been "shopping" an interview for the morning shows tomorrow but ABC wants no part of it.

 

[Muzikman]

Exactly, Muzikman! This has Jose Baez's fingerprints all over it. WFTV is also reporting that the Anthonys have been "shopping" an interview for the morning shows tomorrow but ABC wants no part of it.

I've tried to start a specific thread about that twice now, and they keep getting eaten by the busy server.

 

[LucyLu]

My bets are on what Fox 35 reported and that is she will retain JB and he will assign another attorney to be the lead since he is not experienced.

I seriously doubt KC will rep herself....

That is the only realistic scenario in this thread.

 

[Pocono Sleuther]

Imo she's going away for a long time anyway. Let her represent herself, by all means. Might as well come full circle in the insanity. LOL NOTHING and I mean NOTHING surprises me in this case.
"A person who represents themself has a fool for a client" -- isn't that the saying? I can think of a few better words to describe KC other than fool however.

 

[kajohn]

They should let Casey represent herself - remember how
well it worked out for Ted Bundy!!!!

 

[MarleneM]

My opinion on this is that JB and KC merely threw out this ridiculous concept as an excuse to explain the unusual amount of alone time they spent together both in JB's office and in the A home. Legal eyebrows were raised, and JB is saying that he's been "coaching" KC this whole time to represent herself (on our dime) with him by her side telling her what to say.

Problem is, KC can't even open her mouth to report Caylee missing, she can't open her mouth to tell the public that we are full of damning lies, and when the day come that she has to interrogate Amy or Jesse on the stand....she won't be able to open her mouth to them either, and she knows it.

This whole story of KC representing herself is just another ploy to distract (like the 30 day script) until we forget about all the time KC and JB had together and all their attempts to get even more.

 

[Coley]

She might be doing this so if she gets convicted she can appeal saying she didn't have adequate counsel....Basically buying her more time so she isn't bertha's lil bi*ch so soon. They probably will not allow her to do this since it is a capital case...IMO

 

[Muzikman]

OK, this thread can pretty much be put to rest, after Nancy Grace reveals that it came from Todd Black, Bae'z PR monkey.

He has ZERO credibility.

 

[jjgram]

I'm sorry.................................................
I don't get it.................................................

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

W H Y ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

jjgram:waitasec:

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Wftv reporting that Casey may represent herself ... and get taxpayer monies to do so ... what are your thoughts on this?

If Florida law won't let an inexperienced attorney represent her in a capital crime then no judge is ever going to let her represent herself.

That is just another red herring they are throwing out there.

 

[drip~drop]

I doubt she will represent herself, she never speaks! ..Plus it would be court room suicide.

Yeah.....but it would be really, really fun to watch!

 

[KR2tonenow]

Wftv reporting that Casey may represent herself ... and get taxpayer monies to do so ... what are your thoughts on this?

you have got to be kidding me!?

 

[trac]

Beaz has to step down cause he hasn't been practicing law long enough to represent a capital crime - AND the only reason why Casey would ask the court to let her represent herself is to get money so she can hire her own investigators - BUT also the judge most likely won't let her represent herself because it is a capital charge that carries the death penalty - she would basically committing suicide

 

[one_hooah_wife]

If Florida law won't let an inexperienced attorney represent her in a capital crime then no judge is ever going to let her represent herself.

That is just another red herring they are throwing out there.

I know that it seems that way ... but there is tons of precedence where convictions are overturned on appeal when the courts have refused to allow the defendant to represent themselves. It is a constitutional right and in fact one of the very oldest laws, predating much of the Bill of Rights. One such example is Faretta v. California. The Supreme Court said in the 1975 case that defendants have a constitutional right to waive counsel at trial if doing so voluntarily and intelligently. Furthermore, the high court ruled in the 1993 case of Godinez v. Moran, that the standard for determining competency to stand trial — whether the defendant can understand the proceedings and assist in his defense — is the same standard for waiving the right to counsel and pleading guilty.

This is a relatively recent decision California v. Dent

"When a motion to proceed pro se is timely interposed, a trial court must permit a defendant to represent himself upon ascertaining that he has voluntarily and intelligently elected to do so, irrespective of how unwise such a choice might appear to be. Furthermore, the defendant's 'technical legal knowledge' is irrelevant to the court's assessment of the defendant's knowing exercise of the right to defend himself."

Citing: (People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128, 137 Cal. Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187 [*8] (Windham), quoting Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 836.) Erroneous denial of a Faretta motion is reversible per se. ( McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984) 465 U.S. 168, 177, fn. 8, 79 L. Ed. 2d 122, 104 S. Ct. 944.)


As far as being able to use "ineffective counsel" or "ineffective assistance of counsel" as grounds for appeal it is important to remember as the Court stated in Faretta “(...) when the accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. (...) the loss of legal and technical expertise a lawyer provides could prove detrimental to any case. (...) a defendant who elects to self-represent has no right to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel."

 

[LinasK]

I said it before, I'll say it again: Go Casey Go! You've got a fool for a client! Hopefully you'll get yourself convicted like Susan Polk did. The jury didn't believe her lies either...

 

[TURBOTHINK]

I know that it seems that way ... but there is tons of precedence where convictions are overturned on appeal when the courts have refused to allow the defendant to represent themselves. It is a constitutional right and in fact one of the very oldest laws, predating much of the Bill of Rights. One such example is Faretta v. California. The Supreme Court said in the 1975 case that defendants have a constitutional right to waive counsel at trial if doing so voluntarily and intelligently. Furthermore, the high court ruled in the 1993 case of Godinez v. Moran, that the standard for determining competency to stand trial — whether the defendant can understand the proceedings and assist in his defense — is the same standard for waiving the right to counsel and pleading guilty.

This is a relatively recent decision California v. Dent

"When a motion to proceed pro se is timely interposed, a trial court must permit a defendant to represent himself upon ascertaining that he has voluntarily and intelligently elected to do so, irrespective of how unwise such a choice might appear to be. Furthermore, the defendant's 'technical legal knowledge' is irrelevant to the court's assessment of the defendant's knowing exercise of the right to defend himself."

Citing: (People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128, 137 Cal. Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187 [*8] (Windham), quoting Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 836.) Erroneous denial of a Faretta motion is reversible per se. ( McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984) 465 U.S. 168, 177, fn. 8, 79 L. Ed. 2d 122, 104 S. Ct. 944.)


As far as being able to use "ineffective counsel" or "ineffective assistance of counsel" as grounds for appeal it is important to remember as the Court stated in Faretta “(...) when the accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. (...) the loss of legal and technical expertise a lawyer provides could prove detrimental to any case. (...) a defendant who elects to self-represent has no right to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel."

I do know that they have to be allowed to represent themselves, but I do think this is just another red herring in this case.

It would be good if she did, then she would have no recourse for her conviction. LOL