Mitigation: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

[Novice Seeker]

CA the RN has/d the same ethical and legal obligations, family member or not. So much for mitigation IMO.

Cindy's ethical and legal behavior might just cost her license. Hope Florida State Board of Nursing is aware and looking into this.

As a nurse, IMO, Cindy is a disgrace to the Nursing Profession. Wonder how those in Law Enforcement feel about George? He has tooted his horn quite a bit.


Novice Seeker

 

[mitzi]

Cindy's ethical and legal behavior might just cost her license. Hope Florida State Board of Nursing is aware and looking into this.

As a nurse, IMO, Cindy is a disgrace to the Nursing Profession. Wonder how those in Law Enforcement feel about George? He has tooted his horn quite a bit.


Novice Seeker

Sadly, I don't think Cindy has any intention of going back to her nursing career. I'm sure that she thinks that she can make boocoo (sp) bucks on a book deal. Trouble is...no one will really care to read it.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Sadly, I don't think Cindy has any intention of going back to her nursing career. I'm sure that she thinks that she can make boocoo (sp) bucks on a book deal. Trouble is...no one will really care to read it.

ah shucks, good thing she has that organization of hers along with those nice disability checks coming in every month. But then she could always go into the PI business.:angel:


Novice Seeker

 

[Kentjbkent]

I get the impression that the defense is anticipating a likely conviction and preparring for the sentencing phase. Thats just a feeling though.

After studying the released visitor's log of attorney visits, creating my own spreadsheet, and analyzing which attorney is visiting, the length of the visits, and the recent injection of the mitigation specialist and her PI (taking into account the length of their visits), over the last couple of months, I am completely convinced of the same!

 

[The World According]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEql-21NN88[/ame]

 

[LambChop]

With all due respect to Mr. Hornsby but the two matters he brought up in this video KC made the decision, not JB. When JB was on his way to NYC and the A's visited the jail late in July, KC admitted JB did not want her talking to anyone but there she is shooting off her mouth and she had to have agreed to see her parents. Second the "Caylee is Missing" t-shirt. KC wore that shirt so she had to have made that decision to put it on. Seeing her on those videos I think telling KC she has to do something is like throwing a firecracker into the fire. You better duck and run. Plus with LBK and AL, plus the other DP attorney she first had, they would all have to be proven as being ineffective. JMO

 

[sleutherontheside]

With all due respect to Mr. Hornsby but the two matters he brought up in this video KC made the decision, not JB. When JB was on his way to NYC and the A's visited the jail late in July, KC admitted JB did not want her talking to anyone but there she is shooting off her mouth and she had to have agreed to see her parents. Second the "Caylee is Missing" t-shirt. KC wore that shirt so she had to have made that decision to put it on. Seeing her on those videos I think telling KC she has to do something is like throwing a firecracker into the fire. You better duck and run. Plus with LBK and AL, plus the other DP attorney she first had, they would all have to be proven as being ineffective. JMO

I wanted to weigh in on the topic of ineffective counsel. I have been doing LOTS od research online about AL and her practices. I have listened to podcasts (I never heard the ones on YouTube and still haven't), lectures she gave in Kentucky, read articles she has written with students and associates. One of her best tools is to argue ineffective counsel. In fact one of her arguments for appeal is arguing that the defense team didn't realize that they were being sabatoged by the prosecution. She discusses failure of the defense attorney to interview witnesses, run independent tests, and conduct their own investigation. NOW.....stay with me.....AL joined this team AFTER a good bit of time....I am of the opinion that she was planned all along. Maybe I am a nut and overly suspicious......but IMO....she seemed to step in only when it was requird that JB seat a DP qualified attorney. I don't think TL was EVER supposed to be a perm. fixture on the team. That said.....JB did not allow jail visits, he did NOT interview witnesses, he did not file appropriate motions AND....here's the big one.....he opposed the gag order! Pay close attention to the weight of AL's argument that the media and press have made it virtually impossible to do investigations and seat an unbiased jury. JB allowed it, cultivated it, and used it. Right there, is an argument for AL's position. While she has a dream team....all it takes is one member not living up to the expectations of the client. AL has been hired to get the DP off the table....she is currently preparing for mitigation (and doing her book tour). If KC must appeal......Andrea can certainly use JB's ineffective representation as her grounds. Will it work? Who knows. BUT.....my once firm belief that it would never happen, is slowly shifting nearer the middle ground. That said......I think that Judge Strickland is aware of this as apossibility and is why he is so careful to be reasonable.
I don't doubt KC will be found guilty....but I am not convinced that she will not have years of appeals ahead.

 

[LambChop]

But the very fact that she IS on the team and preaches about this very subject leads you to believe that she knows KC is getting ineffective counsel and stands by and permits it to happen. In effect she is part of the problem. If this type of behavior is permitted to continue the public will be spending millions of dollars to try people who essentially will be set free because defense attorneys are not doing their jobs. What we are saying here is that the State not only has to do the job for the State but also has to do the defense's job as well? No wonder it costs so much.

 

[sleutherontheside]

But the very fact that she IS on the team and preaches about this very subject leads you to believe that she knows KC is getting ineffective counsel and stands by and permits it to happen. In effect she is part of the problem. If this type of behavior is permitted to continue the public will be spending millions of dollars to try people who essentially will be set free because defense attorneys are not doing their jobs. What we are saying here is that the State not only has to do the job for the State but also has to do the defense's job as well? No wonder it costs so much.

Lambchop ITA with what you are saying. I feel that logically......her current team would prevent that from happening. What I think "may" come into play however, are the actions that were taken by defense PRIOR TO her arrival. She can't go back and get a gag order granted, she can't erase TL stating he left the team due to a disagreement in how to handle a possible mental health issue, she can't rewind JB "ordering" KC not to talk to her family. So it the the actions that happened prior to her arrival, that I believe could impact the argument. Does that make sense??? The cost factor you brought up is also opne of AL's BIGGEST reasons for abolishing the DP. She states that the cost far outweighs the benefit of an appeal. Sadly, the legal system can be manipulated based upon technicalities, and presumption of misconduct. KC's defense team is counting on that. AL states.........in one of the lectures I posted "Make sure that the jury knows that the cross examination IS my evidence." Think about what that implies. Discredit info on cross and it is your evidence.

 

[LambChop]

Yes, this is true. I can't disagree. We all know that is why JS made KC attend the hearings. This may have been JB's plan all along and I understand he is doing what he feels he has to do to save her. And, of course you brought up matters I had forgotten about. The gag order specifically.

I am not for the DP essentially but then I think about Charlie Manson coming up for parole periodically. Scary, scary thought of him out on parole. Want to argue death penalty, he's a good argument to keep it.

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

Hey, Sleutherontheside- I've been reading all the work you've done on AL's lectures! Thanks for all the hard work you've been doing with that! It's some interesting stuff, thats for sure! :blowkiss:

If I'm understanding correctly (and PLEASE get me straightened out if I've totally missed the point because I'm a chemist... not a lawyer... and chances are pretty good that I'm misunderstanding most of this...), the theory is that JB is being SO incredibly incompetent because AL wants him to be? Is she planning to prove that JB has been "ineffective council" at some point because it'll benefit her client in some way or other?

What happens if AL proves that KC had "ineffective council"? Do they get to re-do the trial? Does KC get a "get out of jail free" card? Does JB lose his license? Does it keep KC from getting the DP? If so, JB being an incompetent dummy works to KC and AL's advantage in the long run, right?

I'm not sure that I'm even half-way understanding all this... but if this is what she's trying to do to get KC outta the DP... isn't there something that can be done about it? I just seems so WRONG for someone to win a case based on their dishonest strategies and their willingness/ability to manipulate the court rather than win based on their ability to present evidence that supports their argument and proves that they're right.

Sorry I'm asking so many questions at once, but I knew you guys would be able to explain it to me and get me straightened out! :woohoo:

 

[MsRyber]

I think it is ridiculous that AL could argue ineffective counsel while being on said ineffective counsel. She shouldn't be allowed to, if she is part of that team.

What a joke.

Ineffective counsel, even if that is how she gets an appeal granted, isn't going to save KC...in fact, I can't imagine many "dream teams" wanting this case...the cash cow can only go on for so long. Then she will be "old news" and just not worth it. Not to mention, I am sure once the "first" trial is over, it will become apparent to almost any lawyer that there is no good defense for her...only a plea.

 

[logicalgirl]

But the very fact that she IS on the team and preaches about this very subject leads you to believe that she knows KC is getting ineffective counsel and stands by and permits it to happen. In effect she is part of the problem. If this type of behavior is permitted to continue the public will be spending millions of dollars to try people who essentially will be set free because defense attorneys are not doing their jobs. What we are saying here is that the State not only has to do the job for the State but also has to do the defense's job as well? No wonder it costs so much.

LambChop, I respect all your opinions and I'm going to argue/add to this one. I think Andrea agreed to take this case because she knows Casey will be found guilty and thinks she can get her off the death penalty with LWOP or less. JMO of course.

 

[ZsaZsa]

If AL feels that JB is incompetent, isn't she ethically bound to inform her client NOW that she needs more skilled representation, or is she just along for the ride until it suits her? Will she wait until the case is lost to have a lightbulb moment?

 

[logicalgirl]

That everyone thinks JB is incompetent but working with the laws, even at a inept bumbling rate? I think Judge S is keeping a tight leash on JB to make sure that isn't a source of appeal.

 

[knt]

Sleutherontheside, please help me with the point where I always get stuck with "ineffectve counsel". I have known several defense attorneys. I can not imagine them purposely going for that ruling. Their egos would never allow it! If an attorney on appeal was successful in claiming they were IC, I believe they would be furious. It also seems like it would be horrible for their reputation. Who would hire someone who was deemed ineffective in his last case? That's where I get stuck with Baez purposely setting the stage for that to happen? TIA!!

 

[The World According]

www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5873

 

[sleutherontheside]

Hey, Sleutherontheside- I've been reading all the work you've done on AL's lectures! Thanks for all the hard work you've been doing with that! It's some interesting stuff, thats for sure! :blowkiss:

If I'm understanding correctly (and PLEASE get me straightened out if I've totally missed the point because I'm a chemist... not a lawyer... and chances are pretty good that I'm misunderstanding most of this...), the theory is that JB is being SO incredibly incompetent because AL wants him to be? Is she planning to prove that JB has been "ineffective council" at some point because it'll benefit her client in some way or other?

What happens if AL proves that KC had "ineffective council"? Do they get to re-do the trial? Does KC get a "get out of jail free" card? Does JB lose his license? Does it keep KC from getting the DP? If so, JB being an incompetent dummy works to KC and AL's advantage in the long run, right?

I'm not sure that I'm even half-way understanding all this... but if this is what she's trying to do to get KC outta the DP... isn't there something that can be done about it? I just seems so WRONG for someone to win a case based on their dishonest strategies and their willingness/ability to manipulate the court rather than win based on their ability to present evidence that supports their argument and proves that they're right.

Sorry I'm asking so many questions at once, but I knew you guys would be able to explain it to me and get me straightened out! :woohoo:

Red by me..
1. No.....I am not saying that JB is intentionally being incompetent. Many legal analysts have weighed in and pointed out his "errors" or blunders. But the fact that he has made them and that so many experts have weighed in COULD give AL her ammo. In filing an appeal based on JB's ineffective counsel.....his goofs would certainly help.

2. Sadly this is the case often. Now.....in AL's defense...she states that the cross examination IS her evidence. So that is where her attempt to discredit testimony and LKB's attempt to throw out forensics based upon procedural inconsistencies will become in essence...their evidence.

I am not an attorney, nor do I claim to be, but after listening to her lectures and reading her articles, I see where she is going with it. Hey listen....if I were on trial with the DP looming....I'd want her on my team too.

 

[sleutherontheside]

If AL feels that JB is incompetent, isn't she ethically bound to inform her client NOW that she needs more skilled representation, or is she just along for the ride until it suits her? Will she wait until the case is lost to have a lightbulb moment?

We don't know that this hasn't been discussed with KC. But, given that Al now serves as her DP lead attorney......she is covered from here on out. It's only the blunders before AL rode into town that I think could apply. Again, I'm no attorney. AL's office at one time only tried DP appeals but she does take on a few cases just to stay in touch.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Sleutherontheside, please help me with the point where I always get stuck with "ineffectve counsel". I have known several defense attorneys. I can not imagine them purposely going for that ruling. Their egos would never allow it! If an attorney on appeal was successful in claiming they were IC, I believe they would be furious. It also seems like it would be horrible for their reputation. Who would hire someone who was deemed ineffective in his last case? That's where I get stuck with Baez purposely setting the stage for that to happen? TIA!!

As JB was representing KC before Al was retained she could theoretically argue his ineffective counsel...not hers. I don't think JB has thought that far ahead, and doubt that he would care about being thrown under the bus. His book (which I anticipate being published and sold in a wrapper so you can't sneak peek haha) would make up for any embarassment. I mean, does he seem embarassed of his ineptitude thus far??