How unethical is it for an attorney to know the "truth" about a death, yet, allow his client to rot in jail for nearly three years so he could have HIS day in court? How many times did Jose claim to Judge Strickland that he had proof what happened to Caylee and he would provide it but never did? Would a reputable attorney withhold evidence just so he could be a hero by getting his client acquitted when all he had to do years ago was show the judge proof of what really happened and the judge would have dismissed the case against his client???
Jose was all over the place. How could both George and Mr. Kronk both be involved? What Jose did to those men to benefit Casey was beyond despicable. That man should be disbarred. What kind of justice system allows such trash? If this is how our justice system works, tearing down innocent people just to get the guilty off free and clear, well, I don't think it's moral. Jose should be made to pay for what he's done to the characters and reputations of those men.
It's attorneys like Jose that made me change my mind about attending law school after taking about eight pre-law college courses. Jose is the lowest of the low.
You're assuming that JB knows what you term the "truth" of Caylee's death. If what JB stated in opening statements is what KC told him then there is no problem with him presenting this theory in court. I can't say this enough-it is the sole province of the jury to determine the credibility of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and determine whether or not KC is guilty or innocent of the charges against her--it is not the job of the DT. That said, no reputable attorney would withhold evidence so that he could get his client acquitted and become a hero.
Don't let your opinion of JB discourage you from attending law school. For every JB, there are 10 Richard Hornsbys.
What is the point of bringing up this huge story of Roy Kronk for JB? Why doesn't JB just leave it at that... Roy Kronk found Caylee. The whole point of the case is to determine whether or not Caylee was murdered which is what the prosecution is stating. JB stated today Caylee drowned and because of KC's alleged sexual abuse, lied about many things and coped in strange ways. Isn't this enough? Why bring Roy Kronk into this?
I think all attorneys on this thread would agree that adding the bizarre Roy Kronk theory was unnecessary and possibly, if not probably, torpedoed the defense. Can't for the life of me imagine why he needed to add this. Also, find it mind boggling that he just didn't leave it as an accident by a young mother who panicked--why did he need to throw GA into the mix? IMO, he added numerous things he didn't need to and shouldn't have.
Respectfully bolded by me.
Hi AZ! loved the radio show!
Is it possible that if HHJP does not stop Casey from all the nodding and head shaking, would the SA be able to force her to fully testify because she'd been allowed to get away with this since trial started?
AZ thinks this head shaking is forbidden (post 403), I am adamant this head shaking would not be permitted in my jurisdiction (post 412), however, Rhornsby claims it's usual, common and it would be up to the SA to object to it (post 413). Different things in different jurisdictions, I guess. That said, no, the SA could never force KC to testify--she has a constitutional right not to testify.
Could the fact that the DT isn't privy to the SA witness list be an appeal issue? TIA.
The DT is privy to the witness list. They are not privy to the order of witnesses. I am not aware of any law that requires the SA to inform the DT of the order in which they will call their witnesses, so no, it would not be an issue for appeal.
