Huckaby defense seeks second Sandra Cantu autopsy

[SeriouslySearching]

I guess that is my low opinion of what defense attorneys do to protect their client, but as I see it...telling the truth in court isn't allowed anymore. It is all about the spin.

I don't think for a minute this woman is innocent or that they are going to be able to prove accident here. I don't think they will be able to pull off an Insanity defense either. They did not arrest her on a whim...they arrested her on evidence they collected which definitely tied her to the crime and her own words.

 

[KoldKase]

The medical examiner who does the autopsy is a scientist, as well as a medical doctor. Asking for a second autopsy would be paramount to calling the ME corrupt and/or incompetent. Without SOMETHING to base that upon, some ACTUAL EVIDENCE, I don't see this happening. It will take a judge agreeing to violate the victim and her family again, as well as calling the medical examiner's skill and honesty into question.

And as I said, a precedent of just letting a defendant have access to the body just in case would open up legal issues that would have victims' families rioting in the streets, as every convicted killer would be asking for the same on appeal.

Think of the expense to the government, as well. Bodies of victims will have to be held indefinitely in the morgue because the cost of burying and digging up and re-burying bodies would be enourmous. Morgues would overflow....

I will be shocked if this happens. It would be extremely stupid, and most judges don't want to be known for being stupid.

 

[KoldKase]

It is about finding the truth, but I don't see it your way. If your client tells you it was an accident or they are innocent then you need to verify your client's statements. They are innocent until proven guilty. So if an atty's client says she is innocent, he/she should check it out. If that means getting a second autopsy then it should be done. Just because she has confessed to many suspicious things doesn't make her guilty of this crime. Look at the guy who claimed he killed JBR. He had inside info and looked freaky, but it turned out he didn't.

I see your logic, but I so disagree with a defendant having some "right" to the body of the person they are accused of killing.

That body does not belong to the defendant. It does not belong to the state or federal government. It belongs to the family. So to get a subpoena to autopsy it AGAIN, a medical examiner will have to be brought in...AGAIN. SOME EVIDENCE that the original autopsy is flawed in some way MUST be cited to get a subpoena. Since the ORIGINAL AUTOPSY hasn't even been FINISHED, I doubt Huckaby's defense has that evidence.

A lawyer does NOT have the sanction of the court to ABUSE the body of a murder victim JUST BECAUSE he/she wants to protect his/her client. This request was made way too early, obviously to sensationalize the case even more. I consider it a very poor move, and so did the judge, apparently. The public will only hate Huckaby more for such antics.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I guess that is my low opinion of what defense attorneys do to protect their client, but as I see it...telling the truth in court isn't allowed anymore. It is all about the spin.

I don't think for a minute this woman is innocent or that they are going to be able to prove accident here. I don't think they will be able to pull off an Insanity defense either. They did not arrest her on a whim...they arrested her on evidence they collected which definitely tied her to the crime and her own words.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Lady Loves Lurking]

I have no problem with defense attorneys. Justice isn't supposed to be metered out by me with my torch. Be nice if it was though...:furious:

 

[QNA]

[/B]

I see no one burning anyone 'at stake'. This is a forum and we are not required to wait for all the evidence to form an opinion. We are not in a courtroom here.

We have come a long way in this country and in our justice system since anyone was burned at stake. I just have to say that I do not understand your analogy with the witches. :waitasec:

I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.

And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.

 

[QNA]

I see your logic, but I so disagree with a defendant having some "right" to the body of the person they are accused of killing.

That body does not belong to the defendant. It does not belong to the state or federal government. It belongs to the family. So to get a subpoena to autopsy it AGAIN, a medical examiner will have to be brought in...AGAIN. SOME EVIDENCE that the original autopsy is flawed in some way MUST be cited to get a subpoena. Since the ORIGINAL AUTOPSY hasn't even been FINISHED, I doubt Huckaby's defense has that evidence.

A lawyer does NOT have the sanction of the court to ABUSE the body of a murder victim JUST BECAUSE he/she wants to protect his/her client. This request was made way too early, obviously to sensationalize the case even more. I consider it a very poor move, and so did the judge, apparently. The public will only hate Huckaby more for such antics.

So the state needed permission from the family to do the first autopsy?

 

[LaLaw2000]

I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.

And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.

We will agree to disagree which is what we should do. I do not recall any opinion I stated as being so venomous.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I have no problem with defense attorneys. Justice isn't supposed to be metered out by me with my torch. Be nice if it was though...:furious:

Can I borrow your torch then?! LOL

I have a problem with some defense attorneys, but am seeking a remedy for it. (It is called reform of our justice system.)

 

[QNA]

That's right. In front of a judge and jury, when someone lies the theory is "false in one, false in all" and the judge and jury will be asked by the opposing advocate to ignore all the evidence given by the one that lied, which the judge may instruct the jury that they have the discretion to do (ref. Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 30, Sec. 1008) For instance, if MH's defense wants to bring in supposedly exculpatory statements where she claims in interviews with LE that she did not do it, or it was an accident, the prosecution will bring out all of her previous conflicting statements about other things and make the case that her denials should be ignored because she is a proven liar.

Truth never hurt a just cause.

Ok so she hasn't lied in front of a judge or jury... that makes any lies she may have told insignificant or at least in the same "significance" as the lies you have told in your past.... if I am understanding you correctly.

 

[Lady Loves Lurking]

I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.

And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.

I have come to find that most people on this message board are parents that are frightened and outraged by crime. I think that most of us can look into the faces of our children and see Caylee and Sandra and Haleigh and Trenton reflected there.

Our venom comes from a place of not knowing what kind of world we have brought out children into.

IMO.

 

[Lady Loves Lurking]

Can I borrow your torch then?! LOL

I have a problem with some defense attorneys, but am seeking a remedy for it. (It is called reform of our justice system.)

I have extras.

:blowkiss:

 

[KoldKase]

I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.

And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.

QNA, if you're looking for a cold, legal argument, you obviously have missed that you're in an environment that advocates for victims a great deal.

I do take issue with your patronizing INSULT. Don't call us witch-hunters again, thank you. I see NO ONE hanging from a tree nor burning at the stake, and I certainly don't see anyone holding the reins nor the match.

As to how much venom we hold, sorry, we've seen a lot of murdered children in a world that seems to have no way to protect them, and this one is as ugly as it gets. Anger will happen.

 

[Nonni Brenda]

I don't see a difference! Lying is lying. It means you are not credible in any situation. (If she lied previously to the court about her ex, it also means she has committed perjury.)

I agree! Someone who lies about something "insignicant", they will lie about something important, if it serves their purpose. A liar is a liar is a liar! MOO,Nonni

 

[KoldKase]

If the PD's office doesn't have it together enough to assign counsel timely, this could be the reason for the delayed request for a second autopsy.
I am not excusing this, I am angry about it, but I am trying to look at all the circumstances which may have resulted in the delayed request.

Huckaby was arrested Friday night. She was arraigned on Tues. Given that Saturday and Sunday are not court days, exactly what do you consider "timely"?

There was no delayed request.

 

[QNA]

QNA, if you're looking for a cold, legal argument, you obviously have missed that you're in an environment that advocates for victims a great deal....

I'm new here but I'm beginning to see that is the case. I will keep that in mind.

...I do take issue with your patronizing INSULT. Don't call us witch-hunters again, thank you. I see NO ONE hanging from a tree nor burning at the stake, and I certainly don't see anyone holding the reins nor the match....

Sorry but I call em' as I see em' My intent is not to insult and I'm sorry if you take it as such. As far as "seeing or not seeing " what I see, well, sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

...As to how much venom we hold, sorry, we've seen a lot of murdered children in a world that seems to have no way to protect them, and this one is as ugly as it gets. Anger will happen.

Fair enough.

 

[Nonni Brenda]

A kidnapping/rape/molestation/murder trial is never easy or pleasant for the family of the victim. The right thing would be for Melissa to confess to everything she did and take LWOP which keeps the family from having to go through a trial. The problem only comes in when a defense attorney rears his/her ugly head and decides to fight against her telling the truth, imo.

MH has already proven that she doesn't know the meaning of "the right thing" by what she did to sweet Sandra. It would be easier for Sandra's family (and all of us) to think with our hearts, but the DA is getting paid to think with their heads for the family. I know they will make the right decision here.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

bolded by me for reference

Did you mean Innocent until proven guilty or did I misunderstand what you are saying?

It is terribly sad for Sandra and her family, but a necessity for a proper defense. Why this request wasn't more timely? One can only speculate. And yes I am angry about it.

I meant to say that she is "guilty until proven innocent." :doh: Thank you for catching that. :thumb:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I have no problem with the SA's office going after her if she doesn't take a deal or offer a full confession. I want them to go after the perp with guns blazing and all their ducks in a row which in this case...I believe they have both. They have the ammo and the ducks are standing at attention.

 

[KoldKase]

So now the defense attorney has to be an "azzhole" for doing his job to the best of his ability... how unfortunate for him... the accused ... and the whole legal system for that matter.

...And your warning has been noted.

When a defense attorney OVER REACHES, yeah, he/she is being an azzhole. Remember when rape victims were called every name in the book on the witness stand by defense attorneys? Before the Rape Shield laws?

There's nothing unfortunate about not letting a defendant re-victimize the victim and/or family of a victim, even if the defendant is not guilty. I consider that actually A GOOD THING. The VICTIM sure isn't GUILTY.