Mitigation: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

[ami]

I voted No, because a Yes vote would imply that JB and CM et al are competent attorneys who would be willing to fall on their swords for ICA - to allow themselves to be "falsely" seen as inept, allow their reputations to be that of attorneys who are so ineffective they allowed a DP case to go off the rails... I mean can you see competent attorneys sacrifice that much to let a monster who killed her child to have a second chance at getting off?

No, I think like others that they have very little to work with and with KC as "the boss" of this corporation they have no option of taking a logical or even marginally credible stance.

I think at this late stage the only effective counsel would be to emotionally distract the jury from the facts of the case. Is JB trying to do that? Sure. He's trying to find another guilty party, he's trying to get the jury to dislike and disbelieve that other guilty party (GA), he's trying to paint his client as the victim. I don't think there's any other strategy at this point.

However. JB's *method* of doing these things is ineffective. The jury sees that he is not prepared. They see the HHJP admonishing him. They see him forgetting facts and dates as if he doesn't really care about the trial. They see his client sit like a soulless pit in contrast to everyone else's emotional grief, while her attorney bumbles and fumbles and forgets.

What would work as a defense?

Well, we've all seen a completely unlikeable - actually detestable - and unsympathetic person BECOME a sympathetic person (CA) simply by a change in strategy. Okay, perhaps the change is one from lying to telling the truth, but the fact is the day before CA got on the stand most of us would have liked to have seen her convicted of something as well --- while after she left the stand, after only a few hours, even WE found sympathy and empathy for her and started the process of trying to understand why she did those insane things. She had us trying to feel her pain and sympathize with it. She had us understanding that she was a victim too.

If the defense could have even 1/10th of that change in people's perceptions of ICA?

So the new ICA story is that the death of her child was accidental, that she was abused and therefore handled the aftermath terribly, that she admits to lying and fabricating and did these things for reasons she's not emotionally capable of even really understanding herself. We all know that's BS, but let's say for a moment you really wanted to sell that story to the jury as the truth.

Seeing what we saw of the change in perception of CA within hours - from insane lying crazy enabling pitbull mercenary to grieving broken grandmother of a much beloved baby girl - would it be possible for the defense to effect even a fraction of that change in perception of ICA?

I don't know from the sidelines what ICA could do to help get this fiction swallowed by the jury. I suppose it would entail skillful questioning of other witnesses to do her speaking for her. I do not think JB is capable of developing a line of questioning to do so. I also think it would entail ICA "acting" like a sympathetic character. I don't know how one could accomplish that within the confines of the rules of the courtroom.

 

[Broderick]

If the defense could have even 1/10th of that change in people's perceptions of ICA?

Snipped, but the entire things is well said. I would say, all they have to worry about is changing 1/12.

 

[imamaze]

What could they or should they be doing better? I don't see that they have much to work with imo.

Ima

 

[Broderick]

What could they or should they be doing better? I don't see that they have much to work with imo.

Ima

They have nothing to work with. ICA can not ever take any responsibility, and will not let an effective defense happen. She was so naturally gifted in lying that she doesn't realize only she, never a third party, can do as well as she. Ego centrist at the core. She has no ability to see things through other people's eyes. She still hates Caylee. Caylee probably was the only person in her life that recognized it. Others, she could play the banjo for while holding a rock.

 

[Wagara]

I am sorry, but it is really hard to defend 31 days. Casey carried on a huge charade and her lies and lies built on top of lies are really something that not even the best lawyer could overcome. When Cindy gave her testimony re: each of those 31 days, that pretty much sealed her fate. Casey is and isn't just another child killer. She is in the respect that she shows no remorse. She isn't for the fact she was able to carry this on for SO LONG because her parents were in such deep denial and didn't want to believe their child killed her baby.
I don't know what we expect from JB. I think he is doing the best with what he has. Which is jack squat.
What I would like to know, is instead of picking JB apart (which I have done along with many others) is give some sort of intelligent, constructive ideas on what he could/should do. I mean, what the heck CAN HE DO other than blame someone else and throw spaghetti at the wall?
I mean, it is SO OBVIOUS that ICA is guilty. What is he supposed to do? He is a defense lawyer. If she has admitted her child drowned, he has to do something to try to get her off of Murder 1.
Let's come up with some real tangible means for him to defend her. Because right now, all I am reading is that he is inept, he is out of his league, he is this, he is that. While I agree with all of that, I don't really think there is much he can do with a client like Miss Casey.

BBM...He's suppose to act like a prepared lawyer. Many lawyers are given crappy circumstances and guilty clients but that doesn't mean they come to court less than prepared and so ill-mannered. The smirks, asking the same question over and over after an objection has been substained, his casual disrespect for the court and for the judge are all things he can control. I agree he doesn't have much to work with as far as the case but his presentation lacks a LOT to be desired.

 

[dr dona]

I honestly think the DT is trying---True JB is inexperienced....Don't know what CM is doing. But, ICA didn't give them much to work with. Lies about Zany, total Party Princess while Caylee is missing for 31 days. I too would have gone with an accident scenario. I would have left out the BS with GA being there. George would have tried CPR and he would have called 911----no doubt in my mind about that. DT would have been better off with accidental drowning with only ICA being there. But, darn it the big issue is the duct tape. How did the duct tape with the sticker on it get on Caylee. Also, if it was an accident why let it get this far????? This is a first degree murder trial. Reason, ICA didn't want to give up the body location at all. Too much forensic evidence!!! So it's really hard for the DT to figure out any other logical scenarios. The nonexistant nanny and the duct tape have locked the DT into a no-win situation......POOR ICA---not!!!!

 

[CuriousTwo]

I'm wondering if perhaps JB is doing just enough to get by ... staying within the minimum requirements of a defense attorney (whatever they are), but not going above and beyond for his client?

Also, if ICA is satisfied with her DT, can anyone else (family, etc.) come a long and claim that she was not fairly and competently represented? Or, does that complaint have to be filed only by ICA herself?

 

[yolorado]

With Baez saying nearly three years ago that there was a good reason for KC's actions and then spinning the accident tale for OS, I think that could very well open a case to be made that he didn't represent her effectively because he didn't insist she come clean about the accident from the beginning. He got Padilla on board with KC saying she'd assist him to find Caylee. He profited because this went on three years and was a DP case rather than an accident. His seeming shadiness could make it look like he advised her to go trial against her best interests. I don't think that would fly to KC's advantage in the end, but if she's convicted, it wouldn't surprise me if a similar theory was trotted out at a later date.

 

[Quiche]

I think JB was quite smitten with the victim as he perceived her. She has a hold over men in many instances, albeit many have turned around. Not that I say anything went beyond the line, except for him getting admonished by hugging her too much in the jail.

Yep, he may have done a better job if this got to trail before he turned that love/protective corner and began to detest her. His exasperation shows. jmo

 

[Broderick]

Yep, he may have done a better job if this got to trail before he turned that love/protective corner and began to detest her. His exasperation shows. jmo

He is not the big protector of her feelings at this point, no doubt.
He walked away in her latest fit. Perhaps by design, who knows. Maybe he is truly recognizing her for what she is. Petulant, narcissistic, and homicidal. IMO

 

[CuriousTwo]

He is not the big protector of her feelings at this point, no doubt.
He walked away in her latest fit. Perhaps by design, who knows. Maybe he is truly recognizing her for what she is. Petulant, narcissistic, and homicidal. IMO

And, after watching the trial video from Saturday again, I noticed that when ICA walked into the courtroom and sat down, JB's body language (to me) showed that he wasn't really paying attention to her when she spoke to him. It was as if his head tilted in her direction, but his attention and focus was elsewhere. Just my observation and interpretation.

I don't know that any other attorney could have done much better, though - with a client whose story was fluid and changed numerous times. If ICA doesn't stick to one version, it makes it pretty difficult, I would imagine, to defend.

 

[nephers]

I really don't think JB is intentially being inept. He is just very inexperienced, took on too much, has a big ego, and thinks he can handle it. Strickland and Perry asked ICA if she was happy with her counsel several times and she said "yes". I think she kept him on because he fell for her lies. You have to remember that many defense attornies will never ask the client if they are innocent or guilty. They will ask the defendent what happened and go from there. In the end, especially in a case like this, all the defense can go on is what the defendant has told them. Then try to debunk the state's evidence.

JB really shouldn't have dragged others into OS. He should have kept it simple. Painted a picture of a loving mother that made the mistake of answering the phone while Caylee was in the tub and she drown. ICA went into panic mode, the shock took over, the lies started (starting with calling CA to babysit) and it just got out of control. Explain that she had a very low self esteem, became terrified of disappointing her parents. Which could explain why she has lied so long about being pregnant, having a job and stole so she would have some income. He could have said that after Caylee was born, ICA loved her so much she couldn't bare going back to work and be away from her so she lied about having a job. The duct tape? After Caylee passed. ICA gently wrapped her up in her favorite Pooh blanket. Put her in her favorite sand box (play house, whatever). Until she figured out what to do. She waited a day or two, thought a kidnapping would be her best story so she put duct tape on that poor little girl. It broke her heart to do that so she added to sticker with love. She then put her in the truck, drove her down the road and tried to bury her where ICA had buried all her beloved pets in the past. Was it the right thing to do, no. Would she take it back if she could, yes. Is this a case of premeditated murder, no. ICA loved her daughter with all her heart, she just made a series of horrible mistakes. Why did it take so long for her to admit this? She was too ashamed to admit her mistakes. He should also have said something to the effect that psychologists will be testifying to the fragile mental state, PTS, etc of poor ICA (many "experts" can be bought, find a few to testify).

Unfortunatly (or fortunatly however you want to look at it) JB thought it better to put blame on everyone else. GA found Caylee, gave the body to Kronk (? that one baffles me), ICA was afraid of GA because of abuse, etc, etc. He should have focused on one person and one person only ICA...Would this help her get off scott free? Probably not. Would this help her avoid 1st degree murder? More then likely.

Sorry, this ended up being much longer then I expected...

 

[Just Jayla]

Nope-They're doing what their client asked them to do.

Cheney Mason is very proud of the fact that he has been a "good" attorney, reminding HHJP that he has never been in trouble with the court, help in contempt, etc. I am not sure he will stand for KC completely disparaging him to an appelate court. JB might not care-I am not completely convinced that he intends to practice criminal law after this, I think he thinks he's gonna get a TV gig. But JB could not walk away from this case short of KC firing him anyway.
I don't know how an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel works, but if the lawyers are allowed to present their side, I would call Andrea Lyon as a witness-She knows the case was not winable on its merits, she knows that any attorney would have been fighting an uphill battle, and she knows the kind of personality KC is. She knew the case was going to spin out of control with KC's lies, and she ran for zee hills. Ah well, I guess the lawyers can never tell exactly what KC told them in priviledge, but if they could, I know they would all say they were doing what she asked of them, she would not accept the plea offer, she would throw a tantrum if they didn't do her bidding and they gave her a more than vigorous defense.

 

[LolaMoon08]

This case, in Jose's mind, is as much about himself as it is about Casey. He has always made it about himself and not about the woman sitting accused of First Degree Murder. This case should have been turned over to more experienced lawyers a long time ago... Andrea Lyon, Linda Kenny Baden, or even Cheney Mason. Jose's ego will not allow himself to turn over the lead even though it would have been in the best interest of his client. This has always been Jose's case.

Now, I do think that the real lead attorney is Casey herself. This story has Casey written all over it, with Jose adding in the Roy Kronk (testing his own elaborate story telling skills?? Maybe?). She took the little "CEO" talk a little too seriously, imo.

I think that Jose just puts up with Casey. He made up his mind the first week that this was going to trial (for child neglect/lying to LE, mind you). I think Jose has felt that he was entitled to this trial?

It would be really interesting to know exactly when the accidental drowning story came out? When the defense knew about it? If they knew about it early on... then shame on them for having her waive her rights to a speedy trial.

I don't believe the accident story because Casey would not have sat in jail for three years for an accident. She just wouldn't. There would be no reason for it.

I do not think that she will win an appeal for ineffective counsel. The evidence is so overwhelming (even circumstancial) that she could have had Johnny Cochran <modsnip> himself trying this case and she would lose.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:fence::fence::fence:

I voted "Maybe" .... NOTHING would "surprise me" with this "bunch" ...

Yes -- JB is inept, "totally out of his league", and his Opening Statement was one of the "worst" I have seen ! Not to mention a "terrible piece of FICTION" ! And it is quite obvious that JB is having a very difficult time "controlling" his client -- the "honeymoon" was over a long, long time ago.

Yes -- JB is "banking" on the $$$$$, "fame and fortune" :floorlaugh: representing ICA will bring him ... But where do you draw the line with somebody like ICA ?

While it is too late to get for JB to get off the ICA "bandwagon" ... IF -- IF he really wanted to, what other choice does JB, as well as any other member of the DT have, if they want to get out now ?

 

[gitana1]

No...they just can't help it. They have an impossible case, the world's most unsympathetic client, and no feasible defense, not to mention less than stellar lawyering skills...so this is what is it.

Exactly, Cluciano, because, what would be the point? Ineffective assistance of counsel is not a defense, it is an appealable issue. And it would not make the case go away. It would just call for a new trial.

It could also cause the state bar to flag them. Why would they fall on their swords for her?

 

[SurfieTX]

I really don't think JB is intentially being inept. He is just very inexperienced, took on too much, has a big ego, and thinks he can handle it. Strickland and Perry asked ICA if she was happy with her counsel several times and she said "yes". I think she kept him on because he fell for her lies. You have to remember that many defense attornies will never ask the client if they are innocent or guilty. They will ask the defendent what happened and go from there. In the end, especially in a case like this, all the defense can go on is what the defendant has told them. Then try to debunk the state's evidence.

JB really shouldn't have dragged others into OS. He should have kept it simple. Painted a picture of a loving mother that made the mistake of answering the phone while Caylee was in the tub and she drown. ICA went into panic mode, the shock took over, the lies started (starting with calling CA to babysit) and it just got out of control. Explain that she had a very low self esteem, became terrified of disappointing her parents. Which could explain why she has lied so long about being pregnant, having a job and stole so she would have some income. He could have said that after Caylee was born, ICA loved her so much she couldn't bare going back to work and be away from her so she lied about having a job. The duct tape? After Caylee passed. ICA gently wrapped her up in her favorite Pooh blanket. Put her in her favorite sand box (play house, whatever). Until she figured out what to do. She waited a day or two, thought a kidnapping would be her best story so she put duct tape on that poor little girl. It broke her heart to do that so she added to sticker with love. She then put her in the truck, drove her down the road and tried to bury her where ICA had buried all her beloved pets in the past. Was it the right thing to do, no. Would she take it back if she could, yes. Is this a case of premeditated murder, no. ICA loved her daughter with all her heart, she just made a series of horrible mistakes. Why did it take so long for her to admit this? She was too ashamed to admit her mistakes. He should also have said something to the effect that psychologists will be testifying to the fragile mental state, PTS, etc of poor ICA (many "experts" can be bought, find a few to testify).

Unfortunatly (or fortunatly however you want to look at it) JB thought it better to put blame on everyone else. GA found Caylee, gave the body to Kronk (? that one baffles me), ICA was afraid of GA because of abuse, etc, etc. He should have focused on one person and one person only ICA...Would this help her get off scott free? Probably not. Would this help her avoid 1st degree murder? More then likely.

Sorry, this ended up being much longer then I expected...

I agree with your defense. That would have been the best route. Instead, LB was able to seriously hone in on the fact of "what does KC do when she is backed into a corner? Tell a BIGGER lie!" Which now, that stands out like a monstrous red flag to the jurors about the "abuse excuse." (And I absolutely despise that term, FWIW)

The whole situation could have been "spun" in KC's favor - her parents doting on Caylee, buying her everything, watching her when KC was at "work," etc., so much so that KC really wasn't used to being around her daughter for long periods of time to supervise (and hence the accidental drowning). It was obvious that they took care of both KC and Caylee and had a bond with both of them. KC was afraid of hurting her parents with Caylee's accidental death and thus the lies and mistruths. KC was young and really didn't have the life experience to deal with such a tragedy while alone at home.

 

[Carrington]

I voted NO

I don't think Casey would mind a second trial if convicted.

IMO

 

[cecybeans]

With Baez saying nearly three years ago that there was a good reason for KC's actions and then spinning the accident tale for OS, I think that could very well open a case to be made that he didn't represent her effectively because he didn't insist she come clean about the accident from the beginning. He got Padilla on board with KC saying she'd assist him to find Caylee. He profited because this went on three years and was a DP case rather than an accident. His seeming shadiness could make it look like he advised her to go trial against her best interests. I don't think that would fly to KC's advantage in the end, but if she's convicted, it wouldn't surprise me if a similar theory was trotted out at a later date.

ITA and he did other things that were not in her best interest. Not filing for a speedy trial (before the body was found and when an accidental death might have flown), fighting a gag order, not insisting that she plea, not strongly encouraging her to see her parents and doing very little discernible work for two years with the money from Caylee's pictures (other than to construct elaborate and sordid SODDI defense strategies) make him look like an opportunist regardless of ICA's egotistical stubbornness. However, he may be allowing her to appear as such a vindictive little liar that after this trial he may be able to dodge the inevitable accusations from ICA, not only about ineffective counsel but inappropriate conduct (Twizzlers, et al) that were the subject of rumors and reprimands. Too bad she will be fighting them alone because I doubt she'll be able to get her parents on board enough to convince them the whole shoddy strategy was all JB's fault - it has ICA written all over it.

 

[debbie0604]

I went back and listened to JB's opening statements again because I couldn't believe it the first time. It was hard to listen to it again the second time, it's so bizarre. The statement that GA supposedly said to KC "look what you did, you'll go to jail for child neglect for the rest of your life." :waitasec: The first time I heard that I thought... "HUH?" I had to back it up and listen to that again. Made no sense.

IMO, there were alot of inconsistencies, illogical statements, and well... just plain "mis-truths" in his opening statements. My question is...did CM help him prepare it? IMO, I think KC helped him prepare it. :floorlaugh:

I voted no. I think she's actively involved in her defense case. JMO