Do you think that we will now be able to see some of the items that were sealed during the case, like the video of KC's reaction when the remains were found? I want to see that for sure. TIA!
Not unless someone (media?) files a motion to release the video and wins.
I was confused with some of the goings on in court this morning. They were all talking so fast and not near a speaker so I couldn't tell what all was going on.
I think I heard JB say he wanted ICA to be declared indigent and HHJP said to make sure to file the right paperwork. Then JB would then be coming off the case and she would get a court appointed attorney? I don't know if this was to fight the SA motion to recover money from ICA or something else?
Isn't a paid attorney supposed to stay with their client until all charges in the case are complete?
Is JB still going to handle ZFG's defamation case?
All the charges in the case
are complete.
JB was never handling the ZG (her name is not ZFG--that's the name of the fake nanny) defamation case.
I gave some thought, and am deciding to ask this question here.
~ Regarding Kronk, the fact that LE didn't respond to his calls, brushed him off till December, can the A's sue or do something against LE for not being competent in their work? Finding and searching for Caylee? Following up on this? If they had located Caylee earlier, everything would be more clear/different in this case.
Thank you,
Sidekick
OCSO did not search or examine the small body of water in the woods which was only 1125 feet away from the Anthony house. Caylee was right there. This seems to have been overlooked as a source of blame.
There is no certainty that the item(s) that Kronk brought to Cain's attention actually was Caylee's remains. There is some possible evidence/argument that they were in the wrong place on August 13th (see Kronk Connection thread) when Cain blew Kronk off.
Regardless, OCSO should have inspected that water and found Caylee. She was apparently just plopped there.
Is this something like misconduct or error by the Sheriff's Department? There are possible lawsuits flying everywhere now. In your opinion, is there any basis, or purpose, for anyone to sue OCSO for not looking in that water?
Law enforcement officers almost always have immunity for their alleged failures "on the job." IMO no suit against LE/Cain is viable.
While everyone else joins the "sue Casey" train...does GA have any recourse to take Casey and/or Baez for any future slander in their articles, books or movies?
I think I read somewhere that he would not have recourse for what was brought out at the time of the trial but, what about after the trial?
I don't hold a lot of sympathies for the Anthony's but, I do feel for someone who is left with this kind of scarlett letter to bear in the aftermath, especially for a man.
Yes, if they lie about him in future books, etc., he can sue for defamation.
ICA was served with papers in jail the other night by John Morgan requiring her to sit for a video deposition on July 19 in the ZG case. I just half way heard something on WESH that it is highly unlikely that she will ever sit for this deposition, that she doesn't even have a lawyer in the case - and that it will probably be extended indefinitely.
I believe the trial is set for August. How can she not show for the depo because she doesn't have an attorney? I was so hoping this might be an opportunity to at least get some version of lies on the record before she goes off and sells her "true story". I understand that the case has very little merit, but it still exists, and has existed for a long while, and she WAS served. Will this just go away like everything else?
TIA for all you guys continue to do to help us.
She does have a lawyer in that case. I have no idea why WESH thinks she will not have to show for the depo.
Why would Baez reserve his right to appeal to the lying to law enforcement charges since she will get out of jail so soon anyway?
IMO he is just following the usual lawyer rule of not waiving a right until you absolutely have to make that decision.
I posted on this topic on another thread... but thought I'd post it here as well.
Its about Double Jeopardy. In the UK a bill was passed in 2003 to allow re-trial in serious cases but specifically only where significant new evidence comes to light following the initial trial/acquittal. See the wiki page here for more on the bill (scroll down to the UK section):
Double jeopardy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You'll see it is retrospective - so that cases prior to the date of the new bill come under its influence as well as those after the date.
My question is, do you think any similar law could ever happen in the US? Or would it simply be too difficult given the constitutional issues. Certainly it was one case (the Stephen Lawrence case) that really brought the change in law in the UK. Could something like the Casey Anthony trial have a similar knock on effect in the US vis a vis double jeopardy?
Interested in your views. Thank you!
I think
IF any new evidence comes out, someone is bound to try to get this change made. But it will be an uphill climb to say the least.
posted this in another thread, but i figure a lawyer may know. is it confirmed that the jury did not have some or all of the evidence in the room with them and had to specifically ask for evidence? i have heard the rumor that they never asked for evidence to look at, but i have also heard (and was very much under the impression) they had certain pieces of evidence or all evidence in the deliberation room with them. what generally occurs?
I haven't heard what happened in this case. In all the cases I've tried, the evidence was brought to the jury room at the start of deliberations.
Can TL, AH and JG sue GA, CA and LA for defamation since they were implying one of them was responsible for abducting Caylee? If so, would they normally wait until after KC's murder trial was over to know the verdict? I thought the reason they all obtained attorneys were because of the implications that the Anthony's made on their possible involvement. Why else did TL, AH and JG have attorneys and what did these attorneys do for them since they were hired?
I don't believe anyone in the A family actually made any statement of fact that was provably false about TL, AH or JG that was directly related to Caylee. In any event, IMO they would have immunity for statements made to LE unless it could be proved that they were knowingly attempting to get LE to go after the wrong person.
I don't think they got attorneys to sue people--I think they got attorneys to tell them their rights and to help them understand the legal system and their responsibilities as witnesses.
I thought there was a remark made by the DT that they might file for false incarceration of KC. The current sentencing that remarkably almost matches time already served, looks like that such a suit surely would be moot. Is that just a coincidence and/or crafted by the State to avoid such a law suit?
It might have been crafted by
HHJP to avoid a lawsuit, yes. In any event, there is IMO no way Casey would have won such a suit. Being found not guilty is nowhere near enough to win a false incarceration suit.
-How was it possible to use the abuse angle in the opening statement then be prohibited from using it in the closing due to lack of evidence? Seems like that would affect the trial somehow or their ability to use the sex abuse as a defense "theory".
-How could there not be a mistrial or something when a witness is caught lying to cover for the defendant? (CA and computer searches).
-Also - any opinions on whether this may have gone better for the SA if Judge Strickland got things moving and got this to trial sooner?
The opening statement is about the evidence that the party
expects to be presented--the closing argument is about the evidence
actually presented. JB perhaps expected to present sex abuse evidence, but didn't actually do so, so he couldn't talk about it in closing.
There could not possibly be a mistrial every time a witness lies. I have never gotten through one single day of trial without at least one witness lying. The remedy is to prove the witness lied, not to start the trial over again!
Rushing a death penalty trial is never a good plan.
Why didn't the judge in your opinions not choose to run CA's sentence concurrent as one of the only remedies left to send her a message? The TH's alluded he had the choice. Politics?
Why in the world didn't Judge Perry make a statement at time of sentencing as to his own feelings on the matter, like we see so often in other cases??
Why didn't Perry investigate or question the jury wanting to see the heart sticker evidence? Wasn't that suspicious or improper in retrospect?
Also, what is the validity to the claim that Perry at the time of verdict could have overrid the verdict if done immediantly?
Thanks in advance.
Concurrent means the total sentence would have been SHORTER. This would not have sent a message. He ran the sentences CONSECUTIVELY, making the total sentence LONGER, which IMO
was intended to send a message.
HHJP did make a statement about the lying charges, which was the only thing he was sentencing Casey for. He commented on the separate lies and how much trouble they caused everyone.
I have no idea what you mean about the heart sticker. The jury's request was completely proper and not the tiniest bit suspicious.
HHJP could not have overridden the verdict.
Can Casey be brought up on ANY additional charges---federal civil rights, federal perjury, state perjury, state--additional counts for lying-- to investigators, within police reports, to the grand jury, ANYTHING? I hope you answer in the affirmative.
Also, is it true that only a spouse, child or parent of the victim file a civil case?
No.
Yes.
I've scanned this subforum and can't find anything on the following. Please forgive me if I missed something.
I'm wondering if the sealed records pertaining to what prompted the psychiatric evaluations and the finding of those psychiatrists will ever be made public?
Probably not.
Whose responsibility was it to pay IRS if KC was in jail at the time? And if KC signed an agreement for JB to handle her money and he neglectfully failed to take out for taxes is this a serious enough issue for the Florida Bar to investigate where that money went???
Ultimately, it was Casey's responsibility, but JB was acting as her agent. I think the bar ought to look into it.
Is Judge Perry allowed to say what his true feelings are? Could he say, "I found this to be astounding and do not agree" or is he bound to say nothing.
I feel by him saying "Little Caylee Marie Anthony" he was speaking "loud and clear". He says her name with such sadness.
It would have been unprofessional for him to say that he disagreed with the jury verdict.
I agree that the words he chose and his tone of voice in sentencing Casey this morning suggested that he was disappointed in the verdict.
I don't know where to find the law or rule but I am seeing on the net that you should only get time served when you are being held in jail on that charge.
Casey was not being held in jail on the lying charges, she had been bailed out on those. She was being held on the 1st degree murder charge.
Adam Lloyd Pollack
Adam Lloyd Pollack
Contributor Level 6
Posted about 1 year ago. This attorney is licensed in Florida.
A motion to correct sentence can be filed at any time. You are correct that the law says that the court must give credit for time served. However, a careful analysis of where and when your husband was incarcerated will help to deliver the answer to your question. T
he rule is that you can only get time for a charge if that charge is holding you and you have not gotten credit for that time in another case. In your husband's situation, because he was found not guilty, the time that he spent in jail logically should be applied to his probation violation unless he had bonded out of jail on his vop. As you can see, there are documents that need to be examined to properly answer your question.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/d...husband-have-to-g-264143.html?ref=qad_related
Given the release date, it looks like HHJP didn't take into consideration the time served for check charges. Why didn't he start time served on these new charges to begin after time served for the check charges?
I agree. I can't figure out why the "time served" started before she was even charged on these counts, or why the check fraud "time served" was in effect counted twice.
Not that I think or expect something like this to happen, but I am just curious about the process in general, so my question is really about any jury trial, not just this specific one.
If all 12 members of the jury somehow got together and wrote a letter saying that they were unclear of the rules, did not understand the charges, did not know they could ask questions and unanimiously said that because of their ignorance on the subject made the wrong decision, could that be cause for a retrial? What if they all said "Oh we thought we were voting on sentencing her to death, we didn't realize we were voting on a charge or that there were lesser charges she could have been guilty of. We didn't read any of the instructions, we just voted." Is there any example that could cause any jurys not-guilty verdict to be overturned?
Again, not that I think that would or should happen, just curious if it ever could in any jury trial.
No.
I'm not sure if this has been asked but.
Could there be any charges on a Federal level. For instance she used the routing number off her grandparents account to steal money from them.
Thanks!
I would bet a large sum of money that the statute of limitations has passed for any such charges, federal or state.
Here is my last attempt..what if someone would come forward and admit to the killing or accident of Caylee's murder, and Casey taking part..could the case be reopened then? Can the person who came forward be given immunity and could Casey be charged with accessory? The reason I ask is because it seems that this one alternate juror keeps saying that they didn't believe George...well maybe if George took the stand and said OK yeah there was a huge fight at the house and it was Cindy, Casey, and Lee. Cindy, Caylee, and Casey were in the pool having a huge fight, I walked in during all the screaming and we noticed Caylee was floating in the pool Lee and I disposed of the body?
Could LE re-open the case then? Seems the jury would buy that instead of the real facts they were given that they didn't even bother to look at. IMO, they only listen to the defense. Sorry, still very raw over this verdict of not guilty.
Oh, one more sorry. If the jury did not take the time out to go through all the evidence from both sides can that not be considered being predujiced? How can they come to verdict if they didn't take the time to go through the states evidence?
There just has to be a way to re-open this case. What can the citizens of Florida do? They paid for Casey's defense and there was no justice here...
BBM #1: No.
BBM #2: If your question is whether the verdict can be overturned for this reason the answer is no.
