State Motion to recover Investigative Costs

[MissJames]

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.

I hope he uses it to have some fantastic vacations with his wife and kids . They had to sacrifice ,also . You can't make up for the time lost ,but you can make a lot of good memories,starting now.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

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.

Instead of lying to LE, you have the right to remain silent, plead the 5th, get an attorney but one doesn't have to lie. The other side of that is why would a parent lie about the whereabouts of their 2+ year old baby.......

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Not even to mention the defense asking for money to investigate TES volunteers at a great expense to the state when you knew all along your client was going to claim Caylee drowned??? If I were a Florida taxpayer I'd be ripping mad. jmo

This one is! ullhair: While I can't really speak for anyone else, I would be surprised if the majority of them didn't feel exactly like me. . . especially when CM had the gall to question LE about why they made so many phone calls concerning the imaginary friends. (I bet they identified who they were, too; unlike the defense PIs "calling from the OC Courthouse.") :maddening: The inequity makes me want to :scream:.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I hope he uses it to have some fantastic vacations with Sleutherontheside. They had to sacrifice ,also . You can't make up for the time lost ,but you can make a lot of good memories,starting now.

RED by me.

An aside......my husband just told me if I go to Law School he's worried I'd fall in love with some attorney....I told him JA was already married. HAHA

He didn't laugh as hard as I did.

 

[LancelotLink]

Instead of lying to LE, you have the right to remain silent, plead the 5th, get an attorney but one doesn't have to lie. The other side of that is why would a parent lie about the whereabouts of their 2+ year old baby.......

BBM-
Exactly! Preach it!!:woohoo:

 

[Omachka]

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.

Assuming the child had drowned (which I don't believe), if KC had called 911 and said, "help my child wandered away and fell into the pool" and ambulance and LE would have been dispatched. They would have either been able to revive the child or not but that would have been the end of it so far as tax payer expenses are concerned.

regarding the portion I colored red... if you are accused of something you didn't do, there is no need to lie. If you do lie and the lie costs millions of dollars, then you should owe at least the part of those millions that resulted from that lie. Since LE cannot just leave a missing child missing and KC refused to tell them where she was, she is the one who caused the entire investigation.

 

[natsound]

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.

I hope they hurry up.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Casey's lies kept poor Caylee hidden for 31 days too long.That's really all that matters. The State did not know definitively what happened to Caylee or where she was. It took a lot of work to uncover what had happened to her. Should LE have stopped looking for her once they realized Caylee was dead? How quickly this would have ended if only Casey told the truth. CM's portrayal of Casey as the victim is despicable. NOTHING...and I mean NOTHING, prevented her from talking and telling the truth.

I could not agree with you more. :rocker:

 

[MissJames]

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.

They continued to look for a live Caylee until her remains were found.Once they knew Casey was lying about Zeneida they continued to look for a live Caylee because it was unknown at that time what Casey did with her. Even after the decomp was confirmed,they continued to look for a live Caylee since there was no DNA to confirm the decomp was from her.

They ran a parallel murder investigation,but my understanding is,they aren't asking to be reimbursed for those expenses. There may be expenses that could be chalked up to either investigation,and if they are requesting reimbursement for those,the judge will have to decide if they're valid.

 

[LambChop]

There is never, never a good reason to lie unless you are protecting yourself from a person who would do you harm. As a mother that would go double if it were my child. KC lied to keep LE from finding her child while the animals were ripping her child to shreds. Speaks volumes, doesn't it. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

I don't believe that is true - LDB was very specific this charges were for the search for Caylee, springing from her lies - it would have been about a million more if it was for the other charges.

 

[MissJames]

RED by me.

An aside......my husband just told me if I go to Law School he's worried I'd fall in love with some attorney....I told him JA was already married. HAHA

He didn't laugh as hard as I did.

SOTS,the appropriate response would be " I already have !" :seeya:

 

[logicalgirl]

They continued to look for a live Caylee until her remains were found.Once they knew Casey was lying about Zeneida they continued to look for a live Caylee because it was unknown at that time what Casey did with her. Even after the decomp was confirmed,they continued to look for a live Caylee since there was no DNA to confirm the decomp was from her.

They ran a parallel murder investigation,but my understanding is,they aren't asking to be reimbursed for those expenses. There may be expenses that could be chalked up to either investigation,and if they are requesting reimbursement for those,the judge will have to decide if they're valid.

Yes, the charges are for the search until Caylee's remains were found, and those costs associated with it.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

There is never, never a good reason to lie unless you are protecting yourself from a person who would do you harm. As a mother that would go double if it were my child. KC lied to keep LE from finding her child while the animals were ripping her child to shreds. Speaks volumes, doesn't it. jmo

Hypothetical:

So when questioned by police where she was a lady (who had been beaten repeatedly over a 2 year period by her husband), lied to police because her husband was a police officer, and she was afraid he would find out where she was hiding, so she told them she was in an all night restaurant. She had been hiding in an old building, and she had thought no one had seen her. Then LE charges her with the murder of her husband. They had found her husband dead, and a knife from the kitchen with her fingerprints on it was the murder weapon. They charged her with lying because they had been to the all night restaurant, and they had a video. She was not there when she said she was. She had no provable alibi for the time in question, so they charged her with murder. From this point on, the prosecution can rack up any and all investigation costs in trying to prove this woman murdered her husband.

Because she was actually innocent, the investigation was very expensive, and they had to get a number of experts to testify. All in all, the state spent 2.3 Million dollars on this case. The entire case of course was circumstantial, except for the kitchen knife. The case was in the news for almost 4 years. Everyone knew she was guilty, because after all they had the murder weapon. At the eleventh hour, halfway through the trial, startling new evidence was found. A time stamped video placing the woman 2 blocks from the old building she had been hiding from her husband in. The timestamp proved she could not have murdered her husband because she was 18 miles away at the time of death. This video gave the jury reasonable doubt, for all charges except for lying to the police. Should she have to pay all investigative and prosecution costs?

If Judge Perry rules 100% in favor of the state in this case, the state in the hypothetical case above could charge the beaten woman 2.3 million for costs in investigating her husbands murder because she lied to police.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[RANCH]

Hypothetical:

So when questioned by police where she was a lady (who had been beaten repeatedly over a 2 year period by her husband), lied to police because her husband was a police officer, and she was afraid he would find out where she was hiding, so she told them she was in an all night restaurant. She had been hiding in an old building, and she had thought no one had seen her. Then LE charges her with the murder of her husband. They had found her husband dead, and a knife from the kitchen with her fingerprints on it was the murder weapon. They charged her with lying because they had been to the all night restaurant, and they had a video. She was not there when she said she was. She had no provable alibi for the time in question, so they charged her with murder. From this point on, the prosecution can rack up any and all investigation costs in trying to prove this woman murdered her husband.

Because she was actually innocent, the investigation was very expensive, and they had to get a number of experts to testify. All in all, the state spent 2.3 Million dollars on this case. The entire case of course was circumstantial, except for the kitchen knife. The case was in the news for almost 4 years. Everyone knew she was guilty, because after all they had the murder weapon. At the eleventh hour, halfway through the trial, startling new evidence was found. A time stamped video placing the woman 2 blocks from the old building she had been hiding from her husband in. The timestamp proved she could not have murdered her husband because she was 18 miles away at the time of death. This video gave the jury reasonable doubt, for all charges except for lying to the police. Should she have to pay all investigative and prosecution costs?

If Judge Perry rules 100% in favor of the state in this case, the state in the hypothetical case above could charge the beaten woman 2.3 million for costs in investigating her husbands murder because she lied to police.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I'm not sure if I get your hypothetical scenario.If she was afraid her police officer husband would find her, that would mean he was still alive.Why would the police be questioning her?If he was dead,she would have no fear of him finding her.So why would she lie?Maybe I missed something in your post.Thanks.

 

[wonders]

Hypothetical:

So when questioned by police where she was a lady (who had been beaten repeatedly over a 2 year period by her husband), lied to police because her husband was a police officer, and she was afraid he would find out where she was hiding, so she told them she was in an all night restaurant. She had been hiding in an old building, and she had thought no one had seen her. Then LE charges her with the murder of her husband. They had found her husband dead, and a knife from the kitchen with her fingerprints on it was the murder weapon. They charged her with lying because they had been to the all night restaurant, and they had a video. She was not there when she said she was. She had no provable alibi for the time in question, so they charged her with murder. From this point on, the prosecution can rack up any and all investigation costs in trying to prove this woman murdered her husband.

Because she was actually innocent, the investigation was very expensive, and they had to get a number of experts to testify. All in all, the state spent 2.3 Million dollars on this case. The entire case of course was circumstantial, except for the kitchen knife. The case was in the news for almost 4 years. Everyone knew she was guilty, because after all they had the murder weapon. At the eleventh hour, halfway through the trial, startling new evidence was found. A time stamped video placing the woman 2 blocks from the old building she had been hiding from her husband in. The timestamp proved she could not have murdered her husband because she was 18 miles away at the time of death. This video gave the jury reasonable doubt, for all charges except for lying to the police. Should she have to pay all investigative and prosecution costs?

If Judge Perry rules 100% in favor of the state in this case, the state in the hypothetical case above could charge the beaten woman 2.3 million for costs in investigating her husbands murder because she lied to police.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I get what your trying to say. But, the state dosen't have to go after the costs of every lier they come across. It's not a law that they have to.

 

[Wagara]

Hypothetical:

So when questioned by police where she was a lady (who had been beaten repeatedly over a 2 year period by her husband), lied to police because her husband was a police officer, and she was afraid he would find out where she was hiding, so she told them she was in an all night restaurant. She had been hiding in an old building, and she had thought no one had seen her. Then LE charges her with the murder of her husband. They had found her husband dead, and a knife from the kitchen with her fingerprints on it was the murder weapon. They charged her with lying because they had been to the all night restaurant, and they had a video. She was not there when she said she was. She had no provable alibi for the time in question, so they charged her with murder. From this point on, the prosecution can rack up any and all investigation costs in trying to prove this woman murdered her husband.

Because she was actually innocent, the investigation was very expensive, and they had to get a number of experts to testify. All in all, the state spent 2.3 Million dollars on this case. The entire case of course was circumstantial, except for the kitchen knife. The case was in the news for almost 4 years. Everyone knew she was guilty, because after all they had the murder weapon. At the eleventh hour, halfway through the trial, startling new evidence was found. A time stamped video placing the woman 2 blocks from the old building she had been hiding from her husband in. The timestamp proved she could not have murdered her husband because she was 18 miles away at the time of death. This video gave the jury reasonable doubt, for all charges except for lying to the police. Should she have to pay all investigative and prosecution costs?

If Judge Perry rules 100% in favor of the state in this case, the state in the hypothetical case above could charge the beaten woman 2.3 million for costs in investigating her husbands murder because she lied to police.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Did she lie to police? Yes. She should pay whatever it cost to rule her out as a suspect after her lie. If she told the truth and was later ruled out, she wouldn't owe anything in my opinion.

 

[Psmith]

Replays of today's hearing are at this link--there are 5 parts.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7090147&postcount=31"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.08.29-09.04 This Week's Current News **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**[/ame]

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I'm not sure if I get your hypothetical scenario.If she was afraid her police officer husband would find her, that would mean he was still alive.Why would the police be questioning her?If he was dead,she would have no fear of him finding her.So why would she lie?Maybe I missed something in your post.Thanks.

When she ran and hid, he was alive. He was murdered while she was hiding in the old building. The following day, the police questioned her, before she found out he was dead (she had went to work where she felt safe). She lied because she was planning on hiding there again.

It was a quick hypothetical, I am sure there are holes in it LOL. I just think that if the judge goes 100% with the prosecution, that it will cause some real interesting cases down the line.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I get what your trying to say. But, the state dosen't have to go after the costs of every lier they come across. It's not a law that they have to.

That is true, and they probably won't, I just would not like to see the precedent set that might tempt prosecutors across the country to try to use this in the future. Obviously from the lack of case law, it has not been pushed to these limits very often.