I agree. I remember CM being a talking head before he joined the defense team, and I think JB, CM and probably other defense team members are hoping to transition from practicing law to hosting true crime / reality-TV type shows. So, they have to keep their names in the media until they get those TV show contracts signed.
oke: Lemme at her:sumo:.... We have some :justice: on tap. :toast:pinion
Lying under oath at a deposition is a form of perjury and therefore it is a crime.
While it would not be a violation of probation per se....it would have the potential to trigger a hearing on whether or not a violation of probation had occurred.
The decision as to whether or not it is a VOP would be made in Court.
If violation is found, incarceration seems inevitable.
Excuse me
She lied again
And no, a conviction would not be necessary to trigger those VOP proceedings. :dance: Figured you'd want to know that.
That is still a whopping sum of money, we're talking about.
The motion to recover those costs is done pursuant to stautory authority:
938.27 Judgment for costs on conviction.—
(1) In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies. The court shall include these costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person. For purposes of this section, “convicted” means a determination of guilt, or of violation of probation or community control, which is a result of a plea, trial, or violation proceeding, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.
Only the convictions fall within the parameters of the statute.
Isn't the current asking price in the 100's of thousands though.
You have very intelligent prosecutors who are tying the costs together....
Everything flows from the lies, regardless of whether or not the acquittal on the murder happened.
i.e.
Acquittal :ignore: Let's charge for everything anyway. ....as long as there is a legal basis and argument.:bricks: oh goodie more bills we can add in.
That's how I read the statute.....seems fair to me.
MH:wolf
I should add a view of the State's motion which I just double-checked.
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Repayment-Motion-0706.pdf.
As we see, it is brought pursuant to 938.27. OK, then.
Lying under oath at a deposition is a form of perjury and therefore it is a crime.
While it would not be a violation of probation per se....it would have the potential to trigger a hearing on whether or not a violation of probation had occurred.
The decision as to whether or not it is a VOP would be made in Court.
If violation is found, incarceration seems inevitable.
Excuse me
She lied again
And no, a conviction would not be necessary to trigger those VOP proceedings. :dance: Figured you'd want to know that.
That is still a whopping sum of money, we're talking about.
The motion to recover those costs is done pursuant to stautory authority:
938.27 Judgment for costs on conviction.
(1) In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies. The court shall include these costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person. For purposes of this section, convicted means a determination of guilt, or of violation of probation or community control, which is a result of a plea, trial, or violation proceeding, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.
Only the convictions fall within the parameters of the statute.
Isn't the current asking price in the 100's of thousands though.
You have very intelligent prosecutors who are tying the costs together....
Everything flows from the lies, regardless of whether or not the acquittal on the murder happened.
i.e.
Acquittal :ignore: Let's charge for everything anyway. ....as long as there is a legal basis and argument.:bricks: oh goodie more bills we can add in.
That's how I read the statute.....seems fair to me.
MH:wolf
I should add a view of the State's motion which I just double-checked.
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Repayment-Motion-0706.pdf.
As we see, it is brought pursuant to 938.27. OK, then.
.
Thanks MH.
You gotta love the law, which I am certain you do
The statute 938.27 is not black and white to me, lol, probably because I am not a lawyer. It says the convicted is liable for all investigative and prosecution costs, but does not talk about multiple charges, some convictions, some acquittals, so it leaves me confused. Are there other statutes like (made up) 938.44, that deals with multiple charges?
KC was convicted of the four counts of lying, and since the investigators were repeatedly telling her she was lying at the theme park, and said they had already checked out her stories, and she was definately lying. Although, they had not arrested and mirandized her at that point, which was another sticky wicket, the lies occurred during this questioning, and were either proven to be lies very soon thereafter, or had already been proven to be lies. Had she been charged there and then for the four counts of lying to police, there was very little further investigation needed to prove these lies, and have her convicted of 4 counts of lying to police.
In the motion, LDB wants HHBP to issue a court order(final judgement) for KC to pay for special costs. I am sure there will be, or already is a detailed list of these special costs.
You state the prosecution is tying all these costs together. In the case of KC, I tend to think, whatever. However, in case this was happening to my daughter, I have to say, whoa, hold on. They want her to pay for the cost of a sniffer machine, and an entomologist, among other things, that have little or nothing to do with gaining a conviction for her lies.
Will we be looking at yet another appeal, after HHBP issues a final judgement? Seems the DT has appealed pretty much everything so far, so will this be any different?
Thanks to all the lawyers in this thread, that have been very helpful to so many of us whose knowledge of the law, is lets say, susceptible to improvement
