State Motion to recover Investigative Costs

[Wishbone]

And you know this how? The jury didn't seem to know. If anyone is to blame for this mess it's JA who LOST a case and now is writing a book. I keep asking with no answers where the proceeds to his book will go. He was outmaneuvered by a rookie. The whole State was outmaneuvered by JB. What a laugh. :waitasec:

I hope the proceeds from JA’s book go right into his pocket because that’s less $$$$ to go into any anthony pocket. JA didn’t murder Caylee or cover up for the one that did so more power to him.

 

[CarolinaWoman]

"The defense spent 1000's hrs on case."

The defense scoffed up the ABC TV money for the videos and pictures of Caylee that Casey sold.

CM, Dorothy and the others were pro bono with the exception of Jose ... it was their decision to work for free. Jose's home was in foreclosure and that is why he wouldn't work for free.

I wonder what their billing rate per hour is ... the defense will never concede if there was a drowning in mid June 2008 and the responsible parent had picked up the telephone and called 911 ... none of this would have happened.

Cindy would still be working at Gentiva ... Casey could party down all she wanted ... George could do his internet gambling or get his divorce. The Florida taxpayers wouldn't be hung out to dry. None of us ... not nary a person would know and despise the Anthony name.

I respect the American Justice System but the American Justice System failed Caylee Marie Anthony when the Pinellas 12 allowed Casey Anthony to walk. I sincerely hope Judge Perry will rule in favor of the State.

 

[RR0004]

A bit of wishful thinking here...but read earlier on the thread that the FBI didn't want to disclose what they had spent in their investigation...so it got me hoping that someone somewhere is considering the viability of federal charges.

 

[RR0004]

We should be careful what we wish for.

Both sides and the judge had trouble finding caselaw about this. So, basically, HHBP will be setting precedents that will be used in other cases in the future. Because his decisions will be used in the future, he will need to take only the law into consideration (which he always does). HHBP will not rule with any feelings towards KC or the public outrage, since those feelings are not points of law. If he finds rules 100% in favor of the state, the aftermath will be prosecutors around the country will be attempting to place the costs of entire investigations on the defendants. I realize we want KC to be made to pay as much as possible, however, in future cases, it won't always be the most hated woman in America as the defendant. If HHBP rules completely in favor of the state, all the state would have to do in most cases in the future, is add a lying to police charge (which very often will be upheld in court, as it really does happen all the time), and voila, the state can spend whatever they want on a case and charge the defendant all costs. This may be oversimplifying the implications of HHBP favoring the state 100%, but, his decisions on this will set precedents for many cases down the road. I don't think these decisions are easy, or simple, and I think HHBP will do his homework on this. Don't be to disappointed if he rules that any costs after the indictment will not have to be paid by KC.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I don't think it's such a bad idea to have a statute similar to what Florida has. IMO
Hey...TDA...you should stick around...always welcome.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Note to self - don't lie to the police or it may cost me. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for convicted liars ?

You are right don't lie to police, yet many people do it everyday.

Why not charge every person with a lying charge in addition to all other charges, so the state will rarely have any costs at all?

 

[my2sense]

Question: They can't find ANY case law...or any FLORIDA case law? Does it have to be about kidnap/murder? I'm thinking of "Balloon Boy" and that other case where a mother pretended to be kidnapped (can't remember her name). Didn't those people have to pay reimbursement costs for lying to LE?

 

[my2sense]

You are right don't lie to police, yet many people do it everyday.

Why not charge every person with a lying charge in addition to all other charges, so the state will rarely have any costs at all?

They should. I thought it was a crime already?

 

[Sustained]

You are right don't lie to police, yet many people do it everyday.

Why not charge every person with a lying charge in addition to all other charges, so the state will rarely have any costs at all?

Obviously, the lying charges would have to be proven. In this case, there was no doubt that FCA lied and the DT admitted as such.

There are plenty of other examples where restitution is ordered when someone is convicted, i.e. petit/grand theft, money laundering/racketeering, etc.

Why should lying in this case not be subject to restitution ? Man hours were diverted to searching for a live Caylee and potentially diverted away from other cases that required attention.

 

[RR0004]

You are right don't lie to police, yet many people do it everyday.

Why not charge every person with a lying charge in addition to all other charges, so the state will rarely have any costs at all?

Well...if it keeps taxpayers' dollars back in their pockets, I'm all for it. How many ways from Sunday do innocent law-abiding people have to pay for the crimes of others? It may not be easy to recoup monies...but the idea is sound...IMO.

 

[LambChop]

You are right don't lie to police, yet many people do it everyday.

Why not charge every person with a lying charge in addition to all other charges, so the state will rarely have any costs at all?

It's against the law to lie to LE. Thankfully police are able to determine the lie fairly quickly. This case involved a "missing" child so LE's focus was on trying to locate the child regarless if her mother was lying or not. There was a chance the child was actually missing/kidnapped and they were not going to drop the missing child search until they had hard evidence the child was dead. LE's first priority was the child. The difference is a life/death situation of the child, not whether this person was lying about having 6 beers instead of 1. jmo

 

[strawberry]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDD5RttYck8&feature=related"]Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown - Restitution - YouTube[/ame]

 

[krkrjx]

So how does a broke person afford a house with security, new clothes and bling, and a team of mental health professionals? I seriously want to know the answer to that. I am tired of hearing that's she's broke. She is OBVIOUSLY NOT BROKE!

I am still not believing Casey has all those things. I think the report of it was JB's intent to incite. I do believe she is not broke, that she made money while in Columbus and is living off those funds. The state is wise to try now to collect for the cost of the investigation that happened based on Casey's lies even if she does not have much of her Columbus money left, since there is a good chance they can get paid from future income. I really see Casey and the whole DT as money-grubbing and I highly doubt they would spend good money on things like mental health professionals and security teams.

 

[Tugela]

Yes, but, they should only be responsible for related costs incurred directly from when they made the lie until when the lie was shown to be a lie.

In this case that was a matter of hours or days at the most. Once the lie is known to be a lie then obviously no further costs should be assessed.

The issue with what the state is asking for in this case is that they have tacked on the costs associated with the charge she was aquited of because she was convicted of something else. Irrespective of whether you like KA or not, this is simply not fair and has broader ramifications for everyone else who has to go through the legal system, not just KA.

It could affect you too. Get accused of something you didnt do, but in the course of that tell LE something that wasn't true and you will get to foot the bill for the entire investigation even if you were never charged and proven innocent of the primary offence.

 

[Omachka]

But let's cut to the chase here. This hearing is about the lies the jury convicted her of. Lying to the LE as to the whereabouts of her child, and the costs incurred searching for her. This hearing has no bearing on the rest of the trial.

I totally agree with you logicalgirl but I'm not as good with words as you are. What I found laughable was in the post I was responding too where the person said that the state was outmaneuvered by JB... that really is all that is laughable.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Well...if it keeps taxpayers' dollars back in their pockets, I'm all for it. How many ways from Sunday do innocent law-abiding people have to pay for the crimes of others? It may not be easy to recoup monies...but the idea is sound...IMO.

In our lawyers thread MH put this statute in a link. I read that statute and it is very very interesting. I suggest reading it, although it is not an easy read and it is very long.

I don't have any problem with restitution for lying, or other crimes, in this case or others.

What I think the precedent that may be set here is that, any state will be able to tack a lying charge on with any other charges (be they drugs, murder, fraud, kidnap) and providing they obtain a conviction on the lying charge, the defendant even though they may be innocent of all charges aside from lying, they will have to pay for the states entire investigation. Why might someone lie initially, i.e. cheating on wife or husband, embarrassment, afraid of police, etc, and none of these reasons may have to do with the charge of drugs that they ended up not being convicted of, yet if the state proved they lied initially, the state could then charge them with investigating them for the drugs that they were not guilty of. There are many other scenarios that have nothing to do with murder, or the most hated woman in America, or bad verdicts, that could be affected in the future based on what HHBP rules on this.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[kaki]

In our lawyers thread MH put this statute in a link. I read that statute and it is very very interesting. I suggest reading it, although it is not an easy read and it is very long.

I don't have any problem with restitution for lying, or other crimes, in this case or others.

What I think the precedent that may be set here is that, any state will be able to tack a lying charge on with any other charges (be they drugs, murder, fraud, kidnap) and providing they obtain a conviction on the lying charge, the defendant even though they may be innocent of all charges aside from lying, they will have to pay for the states entire investigation. Why might someone lie initially, i.e. cheating on wife or husband, embarrassment, afraid of police, etc, and none of these reasons may have to do with the charge of drugs that they ended up not being convicted of, yet if the state proved they lied initially, the state could then charge them with investigating them for the drugs that they were not guilty of. There are many other scenarios that have nothing to do with murder, or the most hated woman in America, or bad verdicts, that could be affected in the future based on what HHBP rules on this.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Why would you need to lie if you were innocent? The 2 just don't seem to go together...

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Why would you need to lie if you were innocent? The 2 just don't seem to go together...

Ask any officer, people lie to them all the time. They just do.

 

[LambChop]

I think the point the State is making is that all of their investigation was for naught because KC claimed it was an accident. Had she admitted it on July 15th there would have been an investigation for which she would not have had to pay for. She instead, according to her attorneys, admit in the OS that she staged an accident to look like a crime and then tried to blame everyone else for the deed. This is quite different than lying about cheating on your wife. jmo

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Yes, but, they should only be responsible for related costs incurred directly from when they made the lie until when the lie was shown to be a lie.

In this case that was a matter of hours or days at the most. Once the lie is known to be a lie then obviously no further costs should be assessed.The issue with what the state is asking for in this case is that they have tacked on the costs associated with the charge she was aquited of because she was convicted of something else. Irrespective of whether you like KA or not, this is simply not fair and has broader ramifications for everyone else who has to go through the legal system, not just KA.

It could affect you too. Get accused of something you didnt do, but in the course of that tell LE something that wasn't true and you will get to foot the bill for the entire investigation even if you were never charged and proven innocent of the primary offence.

BBM - Then that would be until December 19, 2008. This is the day that Caylee's remains were identified.
Once FICA lied to LE, LE had to investigate the lies. LE might have theorized FICA was lying but LE had to have facts and proof. That takes time. In addition to investigating the lies, they had to try and track down imaginary people, pretty hard and time consuming. In addition to that, LE had a missing child, with a Mother telling lies. FICA told LE she had spoke with Caylee the day before, so apparantly LE needs to be looking for a LIVE child. The Grandparents are all over the media and shouting to the rooftops about sitings of Caylee, those have to be investigated too. LE might have theorized Caylee was deceased but either way, an investigation has to continue because no one close to the case is telling the truth. The end of the investigation as far as the counts FICA was convicted of and FICA's responsibility to payback these agencies is December 19, 2008, when Caylee's remains were identified. Caylee was no longer a missing child, she was a dead child.
JMO.

 

[AngelWings444]

Casey, IMO, is a liar and a murderer. It's LE's duty to look for a missing child which they thought Caylee was, based on Casey's lies. Why would they want to be reimbursed for looking for a missing child. It's their job. Let's say for argument's sake Caylee was found alive and well. Should they/LE be reimbursed?

Caylee was not "missing", she was dead, laying in the woods, put there by her own mother, who lied and said the babysitter took her. IF FCA were to tell the truth from the beginning, LE wouldn't have spent all this time and money searching for a child, who we all know was dead at the time of missing child report. Now, according to her own defense, Caylee "drowned" in the family pool. Bottom line, FCA LIED, was convicted of said lies, and needs to reimburse the State of Florida for all expenses related to her LIES!

IF Caylee were found alive (sadly, she wasn't), and FCA had a hand in giving her away, hiding her etc.., YES, she should still have to reimburse the State of Florida for every single dime LE expended looking for Caylee. If Caylee had been "kidnapped" by the babysitter, then no. Sadly, that's not the case.

JMO