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

[Aedrys]

I still cannot believe he said that in the sidebar. CM is like a petulant child. Well...we don't have to put on a defense, but wait, we are. Sheesh. Reminds me of a child that says "I know something you don't know!" and it turns out whatever they knew wasn't worth the taunting. They just wanted the other person to think they had some big secret. I am really getting tired of the defense's games. This is not a game, this is a case about a murdered child. Talk about being perfectly matched to their client. No wonder she won't get rid of them. She doesn't want a decent lawyer disagreeing with her and actually putting on a decent case she doesn't like!

And I don't think it jeopardizes the case because I don't think the jury is going to get to read about the sidebars. And believe me, HHJP has been very controlled and held back after dealing with this defense for I think at least two years now. I mean seriously, I could never be a judge because I would be cursing them out at this point, OMG. And the jury is also seeing how inept the defense is. Believe me, they're more pizzed off at the defense than they will ever be at HHJP. He's been good to them and takes care of them. The DT delays, doesn't give a carp about the jury having to show up for like five minutes tomorrow, and acts like total...unusual people...right in the front of the jury. HHJP is not even registering on the jury's radar for anything bad right now, only the DT. They probably think he's a saint for putting up with the DT in the first place.

 

[tlcya]

OMG just read the pdf, too funny, I love HHJP EVEN MORE if that is possible.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Given that "instructions and curative statements" are a hotbed for appeal issues.....I am of the opinion that the DT wanted to use a "curative statement" as some support for an appeal.

During jury selection HHJP clearly stated that the defense is not obligated to present a defense and that the burden rests with the SAO.

Had HHJP agreed to add a curative statement at this point it could have given jurors the wrong idea.....they could have interpreted that to mean that the defense was being forced to put on a case......that there was a "REASON" why he was reminding them again.

HHJP is wise and conservative. HE agreed to "fall on the sword" but not before it would be necessary.

My respect for HHJP grows with each day......just as my distaste for the DT grows at a comparable rate.

 

[TeaBird]

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.

What is this I hear about an "affirmative defense?" Did they put on an affirmative defense by their outlandish remarks in Opening Statements?

 

[Aedrys]

OMG this transcript was hilarious!!!:floorlaugh:

What HHJP meant by "falling on the sword" is that he is willing to embarrass himself in front of the jury by saying, "I know I told you guys that the defense would be presenting evidence but I was wrong, it was my mistake alone, the defense has no such obligation and I misunderstood, blah blah blah."

If Azlawyer thinks this is hilarious and isn't worrying, then I'm not worrying either. :crazy::great:

 

[Kat]

What is this I hear about an "affirmative defense?" Did they put on an affirmative defense by their outlandish remarks in Opening Statements?

IMHO yes. (not sure if you are really asking ) but yes, the assertion that Caylee accidently drowned was an affimative defense. The sex abuse, being taught to lie, not being protected as a child...etc. were mitigating factors thrown in to be considered at sentencing. JMHO so far I could be wrong.


ETA: That's why I wanted a transcript to study the defense opening. As outlandish as it sounded at the time, I think there might have been a rhyme to the reason they said what they said. and I want to evaluate the what, why and etc. of their statement.

 

[Bittiness39]

The DT will put on witnesses. They just want props from the jury for even doing so. I don't see ICA on the stand though. At the end of the day though, the opening statement made by the DT will sink them...and ICA signed off on it and prolly gave it her own spin. The jury will be enraged.

On topic: if ICA is convicted then it is the correct result. No matter what. I am very unconcerned about her rights or any appeal. If ICA were a man, I doubt very few people would care if they jut flipped the switch on the defendant in court.

 

[aeneas1]

They are putting on a defense, they have a VERY extensive witness list...CM was just being an *advertiser censored* since JP told the jury when they should expect to deliberate. CM "You should tell them we don't HAVE to put on a defense" wah wah wah...they had no intention of not putting on a defense and just pissed off JP in the meantime.

exactly...

 

[UdbCrzy2]

If JP tells the jury that the DT does not have to put on a case, I hope he includes the fact that what the attorneys say is not considered evidence or fact.

edit: I hope that JP tells CM that he should be the one to tell the jury that since they are opening their case tomorrow.

 

[grammieto5]

So a mistrial is like a do over for the DT?

 

[Americka]

So a mistrial is like a do over for the DT?

Yes, a do over for both sides.

..."When a mistrial is declared, the trial must start again from the selection of the jury." http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m059.htm

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

OMG this transcript was hilarious!!!:floorlaugh:

What HHJP meant by "falling on the sword" is that he is willing to embarrass himself in front of the jury by saying, "I know I told you guys that the defense would be presenting evidence but I was wrong, it was my mistake alone, the defense has no such obligation and I misunderstood, blah blah blah."

Phew, I feel so much better now. If AZlawyer thinks this is hilarious then I know I don't have to worry about any bad outcome. (Before I read her response I was wondering if "falling on the sword" meant that he thought he had been mislead by the defense into giving the jury improper/inapplicable instructions which might have led to a mistrial.) Thank you for reassuring me.

AZlawer, I wish the state could quote your sig line sometime during the trial as it is sooooo telling.

 

[Nana46]

Or...it could be taken as a statement by the defense that the prosecution's case was so weak that they don't need to present a defense. That's not the way I feel, mind you, but it is a defense strategy that's been used before. Basically, it's a bluff.

I'm confused about this entire issue. It sounds as if Baez is saying they DO intend to present a case but they want the judge to inform the jury that they don't have to, as if they are doing the jury a favor by presenting a defense. I think the judge was a little quick to call them liars....schemers, yes, but not liars.... unless the judge has reason to believe that the defense will immediately rest after he makes that statement to the jury.

But we don't know what the DT has already 'lied' to his Honor about (if they have that is)..I don't think the judge would throw that kind of comment around unless it were true,lol, IMO

 

[Friday]

Maybe he wanted to say "He will take the sword and do it".

:rocker: :floorlaugh:

 

[NeedAnswers]

IMO, all of this hooplah surrounding an appeal and mistrial and all of that, is just that. Hooplah. More smoke and mirrors.
I believe that the DT wanted the jurors to be reminded of the rule, so that the jurors realize that the defense is putting on a defense. In other words, according to the DT, "there IS a defense! Because looky here, the rule is that we don’t even have to." *sicks tongue out at SA*

After they read the ruling to the jurors, which I suspect JP will do....I believe the DT will put on a case, framing anyone and everyone they can, like they have done all along. They will call GA and ask him pointed questions about certain things that he did that *could be* viewed as "odd" or whatever. The SA can only cross on those points. Then they will methodically do the same with CA, probably even impeach her testimony entirely. They will try in vain to offer evidence that KC was a great mother and look at this pic of her wearing those shorts that were found at the scene. Doesn’t she look like a loving mother? Blah blah blah.

My point is that I think they want it pointed out to the jury so that they appear to "put on a defense, because there is one" If that makes any sense at all. Some kind of validation, its really all they have, lets be honest here.

Anyway I do think she will get an appeal....seems like they all do, but there is no way this guilty verdict is gonna come back as anything but guilty. The people that are saying this evidence does not show KC was the ONLY one that could have done it, are not taking into account all of the evidence. The evidence is pretty overwhelming and its fairly obvious to the layperson that KC is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. I think if ANYONE is discredited, it is KC herself as presented in evidence, and anything she said they would take with a grain of salt. If KC said the sky was blue, I would need to go check. It has been proven by the state that she is a liar, and IMO, a murderer. You can put perfume on a pig, and its still a pig. (mods: I am not name calling in any way!!)

I think everyone on that jury is competent and can see the forest for the trees. All that evidence is pretty powerful.

IMHO
Oh and I LOVE WEBSLEUTHS!!! XOXOXOXO

 

[mikeysmommom]

:loser:

Thanks, I took it exactly the same way. IMO, the defense wants the judge to instruct the jury that the defense is not obligated to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the state. Even IF the DT chose not to put on any witnesses, etc, it is still only the burden of the state to prove the State's case. The defense is under no such obligation.

It was very nice of the DT to help the State prove their case, esp JB he helped the State the most IMO.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[tapu]

Why would they want to offer a defense? Is there anything we know of that could seriously dent the prosecution's case? Sure maybe one or two points. But they can't refute all. And the George alternative is already in the pot. It's more prudent to see if the jury will be able to convict without a reasonable doubt.

Of course, one reason a defense would be offered anyway: if they wanted to put their defendant on the stand. Right. Like Casey would do well on the stand. I'd love to see it, but her attorneys would have to be morons to do it.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I think they really messed up with that opening statement by JB. From the Jurors point of view they have to put on something to back up that opening. Maybe they will just call GA, try to discredit him and "rest".

 

[Just Jayla]

:maddening: Oh my I just don't know where to start. What is going on here, will Casey get a mistrial?
Bombshell! CM: We don't have any obligation to put on a defense.They want Judge Perry to tell the jury!

Could mean that the jury will start deliberating over the weekend?

I was listening in on WESH.com while the side bar was going on today at 1PM and what I heard makes me wonder if this is all a ploy for a mistrial? Now, this is not verbatim to what was really said..but thanks to ThinkTank, jmfstl, and little_miss_smart for posting the links we can all read for ourselves what was really said.


Could this cause a mistrial? Casey looks mighty happy.
I know what I heard and my husband heard it to..anyone else hear this and more?

Snipped a bit for a space-If lil' miss Triple P looked happy, then someone must not have told her that she will not be released upon declaration of mistrial and she will not avoid another trial. Does she not know that she will stay in jail and be tried again?

 

[azscr4mbl3r]

OMG this transcript was hilarious!!!:floorlaugh:

What HHJP meant by "falling on the sword" is that he is willing to embarrass himself in front of the jury by saying, "I know I told you guys that the defense would be presenting evidence but I was wrong, it was my mistake alone, the defense has no such obligation and I misunderstood, blah blah blah."

How can anyone not admire HHJP. Job comes to mind ;-) I am certain he would be thrilled to say or do anything to get the jurors home early as possible.