Was Defendant Deprived of Her Right to Counsel?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Was Defendant Denied Her Right to Counsel?

  • Yes, placing defendant before the television delayed personal notification by her attorney.

    Votes: 6 2.2%
  • No, as soon as her attorney arrived he was admitted to the common room.

    Votes: 114 41.3%
  • No, defendant went to the infirmary for medication. Surveillance is ever present in jail.

    Votes: 157 56.9%
  • Yes, defendant should have remained in her cell until her attorney arrived.

    Votes: 9 3.3%

  • Total voters
    276
  • Poll closed .
Yeah in a way it does. Usually once they got the prosecution to agree that they wouldn't use the tape in the trial, the defense would back off and hope that most people would forget about what was said about the Casey notification.

But JB isn't backing off. Instead JB is pushing, really pushing that tape and it is like he wants to make sure the tape stays in everyone's mind.

JB keeps pushing the "prosecution leaks" but in truth, I have seen other cases with more comments and info from the prosecution than in this case. And it hasn't changed the trial. If JB really thought there was grounds for prosecution misconduct, he wouldn't be fighting it in the media, he would be taking it before the bar. Notice he hasn't filed with the bar???

I still think that he is trying to gain exclusive ownership of that tape for financial reasons.

Could be, but I'd wager that tape to show some gross misconduct on his part. If the SA has already said it has no use for the tape in addition to the fact that he keeps changing his mind about WHY he doesn't want it released....c'mon! One day they say HIPPA rights violated, the next day it's right to privacy, the next it's because she was denied counsel.....
Nah, that dudes got something to hide!
 
Could somebody please explain to me just WHY KC deserves a free trial? I'll go for FAIR, but what the heck is this "FREE" trial carp-o-la?
:slap:

I'd bet this is a misprint or a mistake of sorts and the word intended was "fair". Free, this trial ain't, by any stretch of the imagination, whether privately or publicly funded.
 
Looking at the notification of family as I see the sherrif's perspective....

Remains are found near the A. home. Media gets wind of it right away, speculation on the remains is rampant.

Policy is that the sherrif's office must notify family members of suspected remains being found. Usually they have some time to do this, but not with the media camping out near the remains.

Attempts are made to notify the A.'s, but it is determined they are on a plane. KC must be notified, but the jail is part of the sherrif's dept. so they can do the notification.

Jail staff has choices. They can wait for the attorney to show up. But they know that KC has a radio and that other inmates are watching the TV and coverage is beginning. If KC learns of the find through media, likely there will be problems because they allowed her to learn of the find from the media (which is against county policy.) They can go to her cell and notify her. But in doing that, they will be notifying her in a way that means other inmates will likely either observe or hear her response. There would be problems, because of not giving her privacy during the notification. And likely as soon as the other inmates got out of jail, they would probably be shopping the story to the media. In the above scenarios there is also the danger to their charge. Different people react in different ways. There is no way to know if KC will pick things up and throw them, attempt to harm herself or others, or collapse in the unsecured cell. Obviously that could cause them problems. Also she doesn't have a TV to watch the media coverage. They could take her to the med center itself, but the center doesn't have a TV to watch the media story. But the lobby does. So they could take her to the lobby of the med center and have a doctor present in case she collapses or becomes violent and needs restraints. They could tell her what was happening and allow her to watch the media coverage. It just so happens that the lobby does have a camera.

Releasing the info. My guess would be that the info got out. Maybe it was jail staff, maybe it was the doc. Or maybe it was just a reporter who asked "where was she told." Knowing it was in the lobby of the med center, they could have known there was a camera there.

When the info about the tape first came out, there wasn't a lot of info. Yes, there was talk that there was a tape, but not what was on it. Then the jail guard talked. She told what she observed, she told about asking for meds. So far the prosecution hadn't said a word. Later they did confirm that there was a tape, but other than that they didn't say much. It really wasn't until the depo that JB did, that details of what was on the tape were released.

So if JB wants to moan about details of what was on the tape getting out he really should blame himself. He is the one who harped and harped about it until he got the story going and the media really looking for more info about that story. Then he held the depo and made sure they got the details.

Prosecution has said they weren't going to use the tape in trial. Media has known about the tape, but I think that many have decided that the tape may be too controversial to use. They didn't even show up for the hearing about the tape. But JB keeps shouting "de tape, de tape." He says it so much he reminds me of that little guy on "Love Boat" who would say at the beginning of every show "de plane, de plane!"

The way I see it, JB was going to complain no matter what they did. The complaints of the tape is just one more complaint. If JB really thought there was prosecutorial misconduct, why is he complaining to the media and not the bar?
 
That is a fine description of the considerations that went into jail staff's conduct in notifying the prisoner, which by law not policy, they must do. Your memory of what occurred thereafter differs from mine. The details I learned of the prisoner's reaction came from audio tape that was an item in discovery that went to Defense and was released to the media in error. The tape featured the voice accounts of the Lt. & the Sgt. You may have listened to a jail guard's account to a reporter for press or t.v. but I did not.

The prosecution has said that whether the tape of the prisoner's reaction is released to the media is not a matter of moment as far as these attorneys are concerned but not that the tape will see no use at trial. The tape of the attorney-client conference
will not be used. If the reaction tape were not to be used at trial, Prosecution would very much want the public to see it now because Prosecution considers it revelatory and demonstrative of guilty knowledge.
 
So that I am understanding what has been said on the threads so far is, KC reaction at the time of notice is more relavent than JB's comforting time in the cell with KC? If prosecution stays quiet while JB continually calls wolf is a tactical move on their part? Silence is golden with prosecutors? Let the public make their own opinion? How would that help prosecutions. My brain is in the dark as to why prosecution doesn't see this as viable for the case they are pleading. I'm a right brainer, can someone help me understand these proceedings?
 
No, kagey, there is no comparison of that sort, it is simply that the client-att'y consultation is under the shelter of privilege. This affects any information that could be understood from communications between them, even lip reading.
 
What would I do without you? Honestly, Everytime I read your hat name I just know I'm going to hera something wise and imformative. Other aspects of this case are disturbing when sluething but the legal part of watching this being discussed on the threads keeps me rivited. Thanks!
 
kagey, I know you are hoping as I am that we don't have long to wait for rulings on this matter. The media must be champing.
 
How could it be considered that she was deprived of her counsel when he was in court that morning arguing for her. I seriously doubt the "significant" amount of time he claimed he was kept from her. He signed into the jail at 11:55 and saw his client about half an hour later according to depositions. Just cuz Baez says it's so doesn't make it so. He's requested a delay in the judge's ruling so he obviously doesn't think his original argument was enough to keep it out of the media.

I have to wonder what is so damning to Casey on this video. We have the depositions from those who were with her and nothing sounds bad. So why is Baez making such a huge issue of this. What is he hiding? What is on that video that is making him fight so hard for something that the prosecution isn't even opposing it?
 
If I were prosecuting, I would combine the visuals from December 11, her taped reaction to the discovery, with the statement she made one week later when the remains were identified, "This cannot be happening now!"
 
How could it be considered that she was deprived of her counsel when he was in court that morning arguing for her. I seriously doubt the "significant" amount of time he claimed he was kept from her. He signed into the jail at 11:55 and saw his client about half an hour later according to depositions. Just cuz Baez says it's so doesn't make it so. He's requested a delay in the judge's ruling so he obviously doesn't think his original argument was enough to keep it out of the media.

I have to wonder what is so damning to Casey on this video. We have the depositions from those who were with her and nothing sounds bad. So why is Baez making such a huge issue of this. What is he hiding? What is on that video that is making him fight so hard for something that the prosecution isn't even opposing it?

This just sounds like JB making a lot of noise. We know there was was minimal delay in JB being reunited with KC. We know there is surveillance everywhere in that jail. We know KC has no right to privacy, whether she is being shuffled off to see a doctor or she is using the toilet. The only privacy she is allowed is the communication with her atty. Just the communication.

JB has made way more noise and brought way more attention to this video than it would gotten if it had just been tossed into discovery. No doubt, JB has an agenda for this and everything else he throws a tantrum about.

JB is so worried about KC's right to privacy being invaded, but JB depo'd the two officers KC was with on 12/11, then had a little presser as he walked out of the office! He claims the officers said the way KC was treated bordered on abuse and torture, but he didn't tell us what was asked to make them say that. Could it be they were asked; "Would you say KC's treatment that morning was more like a walk in the park or torture?" Then WTH are they going to truthfully reply?

How much more leeway is going to be given to JB as he piddles away the courts time? He obviously has been fairly compensated, otherwise he wouldn't keep chalking up the billable hours. The state on the other hand is is a huge drain on the taxpayers.

Honestly, I am starting to worry about KC getting a fair trial. I want no excuses when she is found guilty and told her life is over. The same way she stole the life away from her beautiful baby. But if the jury has to pick apart everything that comes out of JB's mouth, if they have to question everything he says, how can her trial be fair? If the jury can't believe anything that comes out of JB's mouth; how can they believe any of the testimony of his witnesses?



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 
My answer to a lot of these questions is becoming routine now-
If she's innocent.... what does it matter? :rolleyes:
 
If it is difficult to read against the MSN blue background, here is the quote from Baez.

"This is certainly not a capital case, and if it were they certainly would file it, if they had the evidence to," Baez said. "There is cirumstantial evidence of a possible homicide, I will give them that. But circumstantial evidence has not made them confident enough to charge her with any specific homicide or kidnapping, or any capital offense."
 
Ah but out of the other side of the Baez mouth:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25802988/wid/7468326

See middle paragraph under Still Searching for the Child
:clap: :clap: :clap:​


Maybe, just maybe Jose should care less about what other people are saying about the perp and go back and review things that he has said... :rolleyes:


~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~
 
I think it is a small price to pay even if she WERE deprived of her right to counsel, considering she deprived her daughter of her right to LIVE! But she was not denied access to her attorney. It was a simple delay and he saw her shortly after he arrived. The only deprivation that has occurred is in Caylee Marie Anthony and she was deprived of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness all in one fell swoop from her own MOTHER! Now there is some cruel and unusual punishment! :behindbar :furious: :behindbar :furious: :behindbar
 
Kealing at the Orlando Sentinel is reporting Prosecution seeks a ruling now from Judge Strickland on the release of the infirmary tape without a hearing.
 
Kealing at the Orlando Sentinel is reporting Prosecution seeks a ruling now from Judge Strickland on the release of the infirmary tape without a hearing.

:eek: Whoa! I thought the SA didn't care one way or the other about the infirmary tape. I thought it was the media seeking this, no?
 
:eek: Whoa! I thought the SA didn't care one way or the other about the infirmary tape. I thought it was the media seeking this, no?

Good point. I saw this in the case docket and thought, how are they going to explain this away. In reading Tammy Uncer's dep, it is clear this wasn't standard procedure. The way the recording was taped (zoomed in, etc) is clearly not standard procedure. She asked for her attorney, Uncer told her she couldn't call him until medical was finished with her. She thought she was going there for a medical visit because that is what she was told. She had a medical reaction and was treated medically. Her attorney was kept waiting while they finished their observation. It was unusual and cruel ("mean, brutal", according to Uncer). She was instructed to watch Casey with her attorney who had probably signed in a half hour ago, waiting to see her. She had never been told to do this before, so unusual. She was told to record her observations of the meeting with her attorney, wrong.

Perhaps this is why the state wants it shot down without a fair hearing. These depos opened the door to the other names that Baez has filed notice of deposition for. It is reasonable he needs all the facts so that he can properly address his allegation that this was an improper set up and her rights were violated. If it were proper there would be no need for accidental leaks or objections to this investigation before the hearing, let along saying there should be no hearing. I know this won't be the popular opinion but I think it is more than just simple opinion. The statements support what he is saying. Neither of these two officers were comfortable with what they were ordered to do.
 
Good point. I saw this in the case docket and thought, how are they going to explain this away. In reading Tammy Uncer's dep, it is clear this wasn't standard procedure. The way the recording was taped (zoomed in, etc) is clearly not standard procedure. She asked for her attorney, Uncer told her she couldn't call him until medical was finished with her. She thought she was going there for a medical visit because that is what she was told. She had a medical reaction and was treated medically. Her attorney was kept waiting while they finished their observation. It was unusual and cruel ("mean, brutal", according to Uncer). She was instructed to watch Casey with her attorney who had probably signed in a half hour ago, waiting to see her. She had never been told to do this before, so unusual. She was told to record her observations of the meeting with her attorney, wrong.

Perhaps this is why the state wants it shot down without a fair hearing. These depos opened the door to the other names that Baez has filed notice of deposition for. It is reasonable he needs all the facts so that he can properly address his allegation that this was an improper set up and her rights were violated. If it were proper there would be no need for accidental leaks or objections to this investigation before the hearing, let along saying there should be no hearing. I know this won't be the popular opinion but I think it is more than just simple opinion. The statements support what he is saying. Neither of these two officers were comfortable with what they were ordered to do.

I said a long time ago that this action may be in violation of KC's rights, be it HIPAA or the discussion with her attorney. Since there seems to be a question about it, if I were the SA, I'd leave it out. They don't need it.

I do not think having Baez wait to see his client is so much an issue, but her right to privacy with her attorney would be a big issue. Then of course you have that sticky little HIPAA matter.

Hey, I want to see it all, but not at the cost of jeopardizing the state's case.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
1,740
Total visitors
1,929

Forum statistics

Threads
599,090
Messages
18,090,447
Members
230,792
Latest member
Darla4
Back
Top