2008.09.14 Casey Enters No Guilty Plea On Fraud Charges - REVISITED

[suddenlyobsessed]

I don't know why but I'm still in awe of Casey's ability to spit in the faces of authority. How can somebody be that blatantly guilty and still fail to accept responsibility? I mean maybe she could plead guilty and use the defense of why she stole the money as a way to ask for a lesser sentence, but to say flat out not guilty. Not guilty means she's saying "I am innocent of these charges" with the evidence mounted against her and pleading like that it's obvious that she thinks she is above the law. Hopefully the court sees this attitude and is as repulsed by her lack of accountability and regret and teaches her a lesson about how the real world works. I hope they throw the book at her!

 

[Shutterfly]

I bet she throws AH under the bus. She'll swear that AH told her she could do it.

 

[Themis]

I don't know why but I'm still in awe of Casey's ability to spit in the faces of authority. How can somebody be that blatantly guilty and still fail to accept responsibility? I mean maybe she could plead guilty and use the defense of why she stole the money as a way to ask for a lesser sentence, but to say flat out not guilty. Not guilty means she's saying "I am innocent of these charges" with the evidence mounted against her and pleading like that it's obvious that she thinks she is above the law. Hopefully the court sees this attitude and is as repulsed by her lack of accountability and regret and teaches her a lesson about how the real world works. I hope they throw the book at her!

"Not Guilty" simply means after consultation with her defense counsel she wants the prosecution to go to trial and prove their case. She is not required to put on any defense at all. It is not saying affirmatively that she is innocent of the charges. A not guilty plea makes no difference in the maximum allowable punishment. A plea deal can make a difference in the maximum the court can impose.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

I bet she throws AH under the bus. She'll swear that AH told her she could do it.

She has no power to throw Amy under the bus. :woohoo:

Assuming Casey gets on the stand to assert that her use of the money was authorized, and keeping in mind that Amy would have already told the story, as the prosecution is going to go first.....

Casey will then be sliced, diced, shredded, and duly processed by any trial atty with more that 15 seconds of experience.

It will be the most experienced staff handling this case. The only bus there is going to go to :behindbar with Casey inside.....

jmo

 

[magic-cat]

she'll say something like she had no choice but to do it, she stole to help desperately 'find her daughter'. watch and see.

She had better have bought diapers and milk if she is going to say she did it all for Caylee...I don't think dinner fixings for two and new outfits for Casey will qualify as "finding her daughter" type items... Not guity? That is one for the record books right there...I know you have my signature on the checks, I know you can prove the online payment was made via MY ISP, I know there is video of me in the stores shopping and checking out. I know that I had possession of the car and they came up missing while I did, but none of this means I am guilty. It is all a huge conspiracy against me and I am the innocent victim in all of this...

She really is out there isn't she? And what kind of attorney does she have that will allow a NOT GUILTY plea to be entered when she is so OBVIOUSLY guilty...Seems he should have talked her out of this one...

It boggles the mind...it really does.

 

[Cerenity2u]

I bet she throws AH under the bus. She'll swear that AH told her she could do it.

I've been thinking the same exact theory. She might claim that Amy gave her the checkbook, along with her car to use as needed, while Amy was on her trip to Puerto Rico. BTW, anyone know the exact date that Amy filed charges against KC?

 

[Can't Sleep]

Oh for the love.... how in the world can you plead not guilty when they have your name on the checks and they have you on vid camera?? It just goes to show this girl thinks she can get away with everything and deny, deny, deny, even when the truth is pushed in her face!

It's just how the system works. NOBODY just walks into court on arraignment and say's, "Yes. I'm guilty." She may indeed plead guilty to lesser charges, but that will come after some negotiations between D.A. and Defense. Sometimes the D.A. will plea down to lesser charges because the defendant is entitled, by law, to a jury trial if they demand it. That costs taxpayers (that's you and me) a huge amount of money. The D.A. is an elected position and one of their jobs is to get convictions and to keep costs down. If they can avoid the expense of a jury trial, even if it would be a 99% sure shot, (there are NO 100% sure shot cases...) they will often offer a plea.

The arraignment is just an opportunity for the accused to face the charges (like facing the accuser) and have the charges explained to them. If she waives that right, it just means that she understands what she's being charged with and whatever consequences are involved. Since she is already out on a huge bail and is represented by counsel, there really is no reason for her to whizz into court just for a 20 second appearance before the court to say, "Yes, Your Honor. I understand."

 

[Can't Sleep]

I keep reading on here different threads that kc left house yesterday but didnt see her come back... i can't find a link no where about it tho.. im sure she would be hiding on floor .. she can't face all the protestors anymore.. shes a guilty chicken and running now..

Sorry if this has been responded to already.

On The Web Cam Thread Saturday, Jose Baez was at the Anthony's house. When he left, it appeared that Casey was in the front passenger seat of his BMW. We all saw it and agreed. We did not see her return to the house and the only possibility was if she was buried in George's car when he came home from work. None of us thought that happened. The time she left was outside of her allowed "attorney visits" schedule.

You can read discussion and see screen shots beginning at post #147 on this page: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71049&page=6
There are additional shots in pages that follow that one.

I do believe that it's possible that Casey was whisked away to jail unceremoniously while JB took care of additional bail that would be required. Remember he was frustrated by the LE "show of force" during her previous re-arrest. It's possible that she is in jail now and would be sprung on Monday morning. JMO

I don't know about Orlando, but most big cities do have magistrate courts open all the time. It allows arrested persons to process quickly if they can post bond and avoids a huge Monday-morning backlog and jail expenses. Remember, not all cases are like this one.

I'm going to be watching tomorrow to see if Casey miraculously arrives home...after a weekend in jail that no one is talking about. Hmmmm. We'll see.:eye:

 

[EastSideOfSaddness]

It's just how the system works. NOBODY just walks into court on arraignment and say's, "Yes. I'm guilty."

My husband did when he was younger when he ran into some problems. Some may think it stupid but he paid for what he did, it's called accepting responsibility.

 

[Ezryder9]

I've been reading all night, between having my server drop me. Gotta type fast...Now mind you, I am sooo waiting for the day that KC will be charged with much more serious charges regarding Caylee. I'm afraid the child will not be home, IMO. BUT, as far as pleading not guilty to the money charges? Well, if she plead guilty, she'd go to jail. Period. No bail. She start pulling time. Surely not even she can think she can say, oh, yeah, I did it, and expect to walk? Just saying...

 

[suddenlyobsessed]

"Not Guilty" simply means after consultation with her defense counsel she wants the prosecution to go to trial and prove their case. She is not required to put on any defense at all. It is not saying affirmatively that she is innocent of the charges. A not guilty plea makes no difference in the maximum allowable punishment. A plea deal can make a difference in the maximum the court can impose.

I found this by doing a simple Yahoo search...
"A plea of not guilty means you believe you have not violated the law." "If you plead guilty, you are admitting to the Judge that you have committed acts which violate a valid City law. The judge will then decide what penalty will be assessed. At this time, you will have an opportunity to tell the Judge any special circumstances that you believe lessen the seriousness of the violation" http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Court/plea.php

My point is that she knows she is guilty, they know she is guilty, so to stand up and say to their faces "I have not violated the law" is definately an insult to everyone's intelligence. Who do you think the judge has more mercy on the thief who says I'm guilty but here was the circumstance? Or the Lying thief who says "I have not violated the law" and then is proven guilty? The sentenceing would depend upon which of the two has a better shot at rehabilitation.

 

[not_my_kids]

I found this by doing a simple Yahoo search...
"A plea of not guilty means you believe you have not violated the law." "If you plead guilty, you are admitting to the Judge that you have committed acts which violate a valid City law. The judge will then decide what penalty will be assessed. At this time, you will have an opportunity to tell the Judge any special circumstances that you believe lessen the seriousness of the violation" http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Court/plea.php

My point is that she knows she is guilty, they know she is guilty, so to stand up and say to their faces "I have not violated the law" is definately an insult to everyone's intelligence. Who do you think the judge has more mercy on the thief who says I'm guilty but here was the circumstance? Or the Lying thief who says "I have not violated the law" and then is proven guilty? The sentenceing would depend upon which of the two has a better shot at rehabilitation.

It may be an insult to everyone involved, but it's an insult that is handed out by people everywhere, everyday. Not guilty pleas are much more common that guilty pleas because everyone thinks that they had a good reason for the crime that they committed. No one is going to say, "Yes, I did it. Please put me in jail before I defraud again." It does happen, very rarely. But not with people as immature as Casey. And her defense attorney allows her to plea that way because that is his job, to defend his clients innocence regardless of the evidence stacked against her.

 

[GameTheory]

Okay my question might be stupid due to my lack of knowledge regarding the legal system and the laws in the US.....but....here it is:

The no guilty plea on those fraud charges (even with the videos, her confession to police during those interviews, etc. etc.) is to destroy somehow the prosecution's case later for murder/accidental death charges?

What I mean? Many people suspect Baez and Casey will admit to the acts of fraud but will defend Casey as doing it to find her child and all that. Casey missing is irrelevant to the fraud charges but they will bring her in the trial. So....if some evidence are used in this trial (like for example the police interviews where Casey says she would steal and lie to find her daughter, or other physical or circimustantial evidence that the prosecutor might want to keep for a murder trial)......my question is can that same evidence be used in a later trial if Casey is charged with murder?

 

[Thinking_Out_Loud]

Haven't they been saying on TV ever since this started that Florida has laws where she will have to be tried for the related crimes at once? To me, this sounds like if they are related (right now they say they are not), then all of this will be meshed together when she goes to court for homicide charges.

 

[nobull]

So....if some evidence are used in this trial (like for example the police interviews where Casey says she would steal and lie to find her daughter, or other physical or circimustantial evidence that the prosecutor might want to keep for a murder trial)......my question is can that same evidence be used in a later trial if Casey is charged with murder?

I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I suspect that the defense would strenously object to that coming into a potential murder trial. Not only due to the content of what was said but also if she is found guilty of fraud....tainting the murder trial due to past convictions kind of thing. But, ultimately, it would be on the court's record, and I'm guessing it would be allowed.

However, the prosecution can easily refer to the interrogation transcripts for that, anyway.

 

[Themis]

IMHO, the financial crimes are not "related" to the neglect (or homicide) crimes. That is because the elements of the crimes are independent of each other. The same evidence can be used in both cases. For example, if the prosecution decided to withdraw the neglect and went to trial on the financial crimes alone, they would use the evidence of financial crimes to prove the elements of the financial crimes. Assume the worst case scenario and she was acquitted of all of the financial crimes. The prosecution could still re-file the neglect or homicide crimes and use the same evidence (if it was relevant and material) and the additional evidence that related to the neglect (homicide) crimes.

The "not guilty" plea only means Mr. Baez and Ms. Anthony want the prosecution to go forward to trial with their burden of proof to prove each element of each crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is not required to put on any challenge to the prosecution's case or to put on any evidence in defense.

 

[Can't Sleep]

Not a legal expert here, but I did go to law school. (It just wasn't for me and so I've made a different career and forgotten a lot, OK?)

Ha ha, as I was typing that I thought to myself, "Not a legal expert here, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night."

With that caveat...

The not guilty plea is just standard. NOBODY EVER goes into court and says, "Yes. I'm guilty. I defrauded my friend out of this much money and so throw the book at me." Never.

The purpose of a not guilty plea is to force the prosecutor to go to trial and prove his case...OR...offer a reduced charge in exchange for a guilty plea. Fraud is pretty big - theft, not so much. Usually, the prosecutor will offer a deal because his job is an elected position and he is supposed to get convictions AND keep the taxpayers burden down. He won't get re-elected if he actually takes every case on the docket to a jury trial. (Which criminal defendants are entitled to.) Just way too expensive and taxpayers don't like that.

Of course this case is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill, stolen check case. The public and media attention may cause the D.A. to take all these economic crimes to trial just to try to get as many convictions as possible to up the sentence(s). The D.A. is a public servant and I guess if his constituents indicate they want these cases tried...then he would be more likely to go all the way to trial. I just dunno' about that.

In fact, the defendant is not required to even put on any defense - the prosecutor is the one who has to prove the case against the accused. So it's really normal for anyone charged with a crime to plead not guilty. It's not the same as saying, "I am innocent." It means the defendant claims that they are not guilty of the crime "as charged." A deal will be struck between the D.A. and the defense attorney. Even when a case looks like a slam-dunk, the expense of a trial and the possibility of losing the case make it likely the D.A. will reduce the charges, which by the way will reduce the bond required to keep her out of jail while she awaits trial or sentencing. There are absolutely no "slam-dunk, positively 100% sure-thing" cases. Juries are very fickle.

The evidence used in the Fraud case will still be considered for admission in any further trials of Casey. (Evidence must be reviewed, argued and cross-examined before the judge before it is admitted as evidence in the trial. Sometimes there are good reasons that evidence is thrown out on either side.) It will not just automatically be rejected or banned because it was used in the fraud trial...it is re-usable. (I don't think they will get as far as a trial on the fraud charges - I think the D.A. will drop to lesser offense, or it is just a way for Casey to call the hand of the L.E. and force a speedy trial like all previous charges.) JMHO.

 

[Themis]

IMHO the fraud charges have merit. Simple theft is one thing, but identity theft to commit financial theft involves the fraud elements.

 

[Themis]

In my observation of prosecutor offices, the plea deals are made because that's what the case is worth and there is a practical advantage of not having to go to trial. Prosecutors do have budgets, but re-election is not player factor; in my observations. The prosecutor may have some media presentation to explain it, but generally there is a decent relationship between the prosecutor's office and the media and the media reports/prints the prosecutor's statements fairly accurately.

 

[Can't Sleep]

IMHO the fraud charges have merit. Simple theft is one thing, but identity theft to commit financial theft involves the fraud elements.

I agree with you. I was just saying that often (in my experience) to avoid a trial, the D.A. will drop the charges to a much lesser offense for a guilty plea - even when the original charge has merit. I live in a jurisdiction that is economically depressed and the expense of many jury trials is truly a burden on taxpayers. The driving factor for plea deals is economic in most instances.

Of course the original charge MUST have merit or the judge is gonna' be very, very harsh on the D.A. Rule number one - you never bring a bogus case before the judge. The D.A. must believe he/she has evidence to prove all the elements of the charged offense - or risk some heavy duty sanctions. I'm sure the fraud charges could be proven up, but the budget is generally a concern with non-violent crimes.

That was my point.

:yow: