CM:We don't have any obligation to put on a defense -JP:"Y'all lied to me

[Themis]

We all know that is correct, the defense is not required to put on a defense case in chief. However, I have thought more than once that JB thinks that all he has to do is raise some kind of reasonable doubt and the whole prosecution case fails. Some think that a "reasonable doubt" is just some other alternate scenario that "could have happened" but they don't have any burden to prove it. That is NOT a reasonable doubt. A pie in the sky alternative theory or scenario that is not based on some evidence is not reasonable doubt in the face of a case supported by evidence. Yes, is some circumstantial evidence and in some situations the jury needs to draw inferences and conclusions, but as a practical matter, an alternative presented by defense needs to have some evidentiary support; and that support had better come from somebody other than ICA. IF she is the only witness for the alternative scenario, the greater probability would be that it is wholly fabricated.

 

[whiteangora]

GA said this very, very early on; No body no case, No evidence no case.
(I am not quoting him verbatim).

Everything I have seen or read it seems like a very weak case and it looks like a miss-trial to me. AT THIS POINT.

IMHO - GA did mastery clean up and I have said this from the start.
KC should call him father of the year - instead she crucified him.

Oh songline, this is what my hubby has been saying from the start and I have fought him tooth and nail saying no way. It would be so easy to figure out if there was just one honest person in that family.

 

[Sleuth5]

We all know that is correct, the defense is not required to put on a defense case in chief. However, I have thought more than once that JB thinks that all he has to do is raise some kind of reasonable doubt and the whole prosecution case fails. Some think that a "reasonable doubt" is just some other alternate scenario that "could have happened" but they don't have any burden to prove it. That is NOT a reasonable doubt. A pie in the sky alternative theory or scenario that is not based on some evidence is not reasonable doubt in the face of a case supported by evidence. Yes, is some circumstantial evidence and in some situations the jury needs to draw inferences and conclusions, but as a practical matter, an alternative presented by defense needs to have some evidentiary support; and that support had better come from somebody other than ICA. IF she is the only witness for the alternative scenario, the greater probability would be that it is wholly fabricated.

Themis, I think you've got it right and the jury charge will take care of defining "reasonable doubt." Most people have no idea at all what it means as a legal term, and nothing I've heard from the DT so far constitutes "reasonable doubt" as understood in a court of law.

 

[catnron]

I'm very concerned by this since it looks like the DT is trying to pull a fast one and go for a mistrial.
Can someone please explain the implications of this transcript?

Wow that is spooky how much they look alike, same evil eyes and devil: snicker

 

[Chilly Willy]

We all know that is correct, the defense is not required to put on a defense case in chief. However, I have thought more than once that JB thinks that all he has to do is raise some kind of reasonable doubt and the whole prosecution case fails. Some think that a "reasonable doubt" is just some other alternate scenario that "could have happened" but they don't have any burden to prove it. That is NOT a reasonable doubt. A pie in the sky alternative theory or scenario that is not based on some evidence is not reasonable doubt in the face of a case supported by evidence. Yes, is some circumstantial evidence and in some situations the jury needs to draw inferences and conclusions, but as a practical matter, an alternative presented by defense needs to have some evidentiary support; and that support had better come from somebody other than ICA. IF she is the only witness for the alternative scenario, the greater probability would be that it is wholly fabricated.

Very well said.

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

If the Defense were to close right now

They would leave the jury with this; (Paraphrasing)

GA: No I never molested my daughter
GA: No I didn't help cover up her drowning, never heard of it until today and it hurt

CA: No, the first time I saw that shirt was at my deposition
CA: No, I never saw it at my house

GA, CA, LA, SB, AV and detectives: the car smelled like a dead body/decomposition

ICA: Maybe because I'm a spiteful B&%ch
ICA: I have not seen my daughter in 31 days
ICA: The nanny said I'm an unfit mother
ICA: I'm just as much of a victim

I just can't see the defense leaving the jurors with these thoughts! JMHO

 

[TeaBird]

If the defense doesn't put on a CIC, the state loses it's witnesses and facts they saved for rebuttal. That could include some blockblusters like the pings from cell phones proving where ICA was when killing Caylee, hiding Caylee and googling chloroform. Who knows what else they had.

They could map out where George when the "drowning" took place and even have the opportunity to use the proffer of Tony Lazarro's testimony denying George's sexual encounter with Casey.



The felony counts could come in. A lot to possibly lose for the state. I hope JP check mates this move.

 

[Sleuth5]

If the defense doesn't put on a CIC, the state loses it's witnesses and facts they saved for rebuttal. That could include some blockblusters like the pings from cell phones proving where ICA was when killing Caylee, hiding Caylee and googling chloroform. Who knows what else they had.

They could map out where George when the "drowning" took place and even have the opportunity to use the proffer of Tony Lazarro's testimony denying George's sexual encounter with Casey.



The felony counts could come in. A lot to possibly lose for the state. I hope JP check mates this move.

It's a slippery slope for sure, but I think there's no alternative for the DT. Their opening statement doomed them to an obligation to put on a defense -- not a legal obligation, mind you, but an obvious eventuality when you make outlandish claims.

The jury will be instructed to disregard the statements of the attorneys as fact -- so unless they can make some case to them, it's pretty darned unlikely that anyone will say, "sure, I buy that. GA just didn't call 911, and then went to elaborate lengths to frame his daughter. She didn't tell anybody it was an accident for three years because of the PTSD she suffers as a result of years of abuse. The connection between those two things seems pretty tough to figure out, but hey, it's a reasonable doubt, right? Oh, then there's that RK character, he seems kind of odd, and must have done all sorts of weird things with the body -- I will disregard the evidence showing that it was not moved, because I am overwhelmingly convinced of the brilliance of the DT's argument. I'm ready to vote!"

Just can't see it! Maybe it's just me! :cow:

 

[TeaBird]

Can the judge be in trouble for saying he doesn't trust the DT team any longer? I mean, like what judge would after all of what he's been through with these clowns?

 

[Carrington]

Sidebar:
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0614/28230782.pdf

Reads to me, that JP is telling Mason that JB told him (repeatedly) he has evidence.
Evidence, big word. Wonder whose hat JB is pulling the evidence out of......
Mason tries to dance with the judge and the judge steps on his toes.
JP is willing to fall on his sword, really not getting that, unless he admits the defense (JB not Mason) lied to him, and he bought it.
IMO

 

[Angelonline]

After reading the transcript, I think CM was just trying to ask the Judge to be sure and tell the jury that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. However just like everything else that this DT has done he made his statement sound about as clear as mud.
JMO

 

[Starbucks]

IMHO, there is absolutely no way that JB will not put on a defense. He seems to enjoy the grandstanding.

Cheney just wanted to get this instruction in one more time. Remember, he also has his own ideas for the jury instructions at the end of the trial.

 

[Melanie]

Geragos made the same mistakes as Scott Peterson's defense attorney. He made promises in his opening statement and then didn't deliver. We all know where Scott ended up.

Exactly - big boo boo for the DT in that case. In this case, I think Your Honour should back off a bit as far as the DT goes. Now it's the DT's case - as if it's their burden. His looks and giggles at Jose come across LOUD and CLEAR. Anyone who watches the judge knows he's tired of their antics - but he should keep those (IMHO) feelings to himself. Both sides should be represented fairly (no matter how unusual one side is) KWIM?

What is Your Honour going to do when the DT starts throwing spaghetti? I don't know - but it's quite obvious (in my eyes) that he cares very little for the DT and that will come across to the jury as well. Does that give the SA an unfair advantage?

Mind you, I don't like the defense either - but I don't think a judge should be throwing dagger eyes at every turn. And everyone knows how much I like Your Honour.

Thanks for listening.

MY OPINION ONLY.

Mel

 

[Melanie]

Can the judge be in trouble for saying he doesn't trust the DT team any longer? I mean, like what judge would after all of what he's been through with these clowns?

I don't like the DT, but I think this was a very unprofessional statement from your Honour. I don't trust them either, but I wouldn't say anything that could jeapordize this case.

MOO ONLY

Mel

 

[Angelonline]

I don't like the DT, but I think this was a very unprofessional statement from your Honour. I don't trust them either, but I wouldn't say anything that could jeapordize this case.

MOO ONLY

Mel

Well you do realize that no one heard what he said, no one in the court room (except those at sidebar) and none of the jury. . If the transcripts werent made public we wouldn't know either. So I don't think that his statement will in any way jeapordize the states case.:twocents:

 

[MEM2010]

I know this is a stupid question but bare with me..

If the DT doesn't present a case in chief can the State still have a rebuttal?

I ask this because I feel the state left some testimony out and is saving it for a rebuttal...




and also I can't figure out what BBM and MOO mean for the life of me

thx

 

[SeaNymph]

I'm still :floorlaugh: my :behind: off at HHJBP "Yes, the hell you did."...was reading that waiting for someone to throw in a "oh yeah? yo Mama!" before the end, which no doubt would have resulted in :bigfight:

Can't WAIT for the defense case, should be a :thud: doozy.

 

[RR473]

I haven't been able to keep up with the trial for the past week but trying to get brief updates.

Was Roy Kronk ever put on the stand? Seems to me that, since Baez threw his name out there in the opening statements (and pretty damning statements), the jury is probably saying who is the Kronk person? Jury is probably expecting more information on him.

Yeah I think the SA should call him to witness stand clear up JB's claims.

 

[Softail]

I know this is a stupid question but bare with me..

If the DT doesn't present a case in chief can the State still have a rebuttal?

I ask this because I feel the state left some testimony out and is saving it for a rebuttal...




and also I can't figure out what BBM and MOO mean for the life of me

thx

BBM = Bolded by me
MOO = My own opinion

Here is a link that explains alot of abbreviations:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132555"]Abbreviations and Acronyms LIST ONLY NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Melanie]

Well you do realize that no one heard what he said, no one in the court room (except those at sidebar) and none of the jury. . If the transcripts werent made public we wouldn't know either. So I don't think that his statement will in any way jeapordize the states case.:twocents:

Yes I do - thank you. I also see your honour - I don't need to hear the words to see his actions, smirks, and looks of disgust to the DT. Not that are not well deserved, but all these schooling sessions can't be good in the jury's eyes. I remember judge Ito too.

Like I said - my opinion only. Thank you.

Mel