2009.03.25 - Motions Hearing

[JSR]

What is a retainer agreement? I'm not law savy.

A retainer agreement is an agreement that sets out terms and conditions for payment of legal services. It's sometimes interchangeable with Engagement agreements or letters which lay out the terms of the services which will be rendered. The retainer and engagement letters are the most important tool for attorneys and can be very very specific. It sets boundaries and avoids any future misunderstandings about the legal services you will provide.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

I think that it just appears to many that it is more the defense than the State that is being over zealous in their mud-slinging. .......In other words - I get your point, and bet many others do, too, but thus far, the State is still looking good. JB et al, is not. :crazy:

**bolded & snipped**


To add to Tater's thoughts:

The way in which a bench hearing is conducted does not necessarily reflect, by any means, how a skilled trial attorney will be presenting a case in front of a jury.

It's very "apples & oranges."

The Prosecution does not need to dress rehearse their trial skills during a contested motions hearing in front of a Judge.

Not sure if JB has different settings or an adjust-as-appropriate mode though.

Humble-Opinion:wolf:

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I think we're both largely on the same page here. I also believe that the proof is in the prosecution - not the pundits. I know you want justice, too, and are just educating so people don't assume it is a slam dunk.

The only point we *might* disagree on, is that I just haven't seen evidence of behaviors by the State in this case to date that satisfies my definition of 'spite', and you may have?

I think they want justice for Caylee, and that is their motivation. But I think a good defence lawyer can make that sort of "passion" look quite different and can use it to their advantage, particularly in a case like this where we have no eyewitnesses etc and the jury will be asked to draw conclusions largely based on circumstantial evidence.

IMO, the most devastating prosecutors to a defence attorney, are the ones that, in front of a jury, bend over backwards to be fair and accommodating of the defence...jurors tend to trust them a lot more when they behave that way and feel more comfortable in convicting when they feel assured the Defence was treated fairly.

 

[RammerJammer]

I think we're both largely on the same page here. I also believe that the proof is in the prosecution - not the pundits. I know you want justice, too, and are just educating so people don't assume it is a slam dunk.

The only point we *might* disagree on, is that I just haven't seen evidence of behaviors by the State in this case to date that satisfies my definition of 'spite', and you may have?

I can see both sides of this...I don't see "spite" by the State but I do see disdain for KC and JB. I would prefer they check that emotion at the door and concentrate on Caylee and bringing justice to her. I know emotions are hard to contain, especially since this is such a heartbreaking case. However, the SA needs to maintain his professionalism as we are still very early in the game. This trial is still months away and will likely drag out for quite a while. I just hope that the SA(s) keep their cool and maintain focus as to their purpose---to get a conviction for the killer of this sweet little girl.

 

[RammerJammer]

I think they want justice for Caylee, and that is their motivation. But I think a good defence lawyer can make that sort of "passion" look quite different and can use it to their advantage, particularly in a case like this where we have no eyewitnesses etc and the jury will be asked to draw conclusions largely based on circumstantial evidence.

IMO, the most devastating prosecutors to a defence attorney, are the ones that, in front of a jury, bend over backwards to be fair and accommodating of the defence...jurors tend to trust them a lot more when they behave that way and feel more comfortable in convicting when they feel assured the Defence was treated fairly.

Bolded by me...I totally agree--well said!

 

[sarah7855]

Not sure if JB has different settings or an adjust-as-appropriate mode though.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[coco puff]

Clear to me....the Ant's are in charge of the money. If Cindy handles her new found company the way she handled her house finances, Baez will be a long time collecting. Conway is there to protect G & C's money. This is now a game of spin the money.

They started a trust fund for Caylee, didn't they, at least at one point, I recall hearing about that. All monies steered to that, I suppose. Maybe Milstead left Lee in charge of his foundation's income and all is well.....poor Caylee..she is forgotten by the family.

I once, read that the house is paid off....true? I think so. Cindy may have put it up for collateral. Jackie Peterson did that...so have many others. Jackie lost it too. The Peterson's lost over a million dollars on the defense. The Anthony's appear to be doing just "fine", don't they?

during the first bond hearing, she indicated that they owed a great deal on the house. How could they have paid it off? I believe they said they owed ~120k. i will find the link.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

**bolded & snipped**


To add to Tater's thoughts:

The way in which a bench hearing is conducted does not necessarily reflect, by any means, how a skilled trial attorney will be presenting a case in front of a jury.It's very "apples & oranges."

The Prosecution does not need to dress rehearse their trial skills during a contested motions hearing in front of a Judge.

Not sure if JB has different settings or an adjust-as-appropriate mode though.

Humble-Opinion:wolf:

I totally agree.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I can see both sides of this...I don't see "spite" by the State but I do see disdain for KC and JB. I would prefer they check that emotion at the door and concentrate on Caylee and bringing justice to her. I know emotions are hard to contain, especially since this is such a heartbreaking case. However, the SA needs to maintain his professionalism as we are still very early in the game. This trial is still months away and will likely drag out for quite a while. I just hope that the SA(s) keep their cool and maintain focus as to their purpose---to get a conviction for the killer of this sweet little girl.

ITA...particularly the bolded part.

 

[JSR]

no conflict exists.....how in the world is she paying for it????
could ca and ga sell their story (pics, videos, etc.,) and pay the defense/expenses w/out conflict of interest?

Technically, I think, yes. And that might be why LE was so interested in the meeting with the ABC woman at the Ritz. CA and GA want Casey to walk in a really bad way and it wouldn't surprise me if they're footing the bill. CA and GA have long left Caylee's memory in the dust.

 

[trixi491]

I'm interested to see who Strickland looked at when he made that comment. I'm guessing JB b/c KC was smirking/trying to hold back one as JB said it and then after Strickland said it she quickly wiped it off. Plus Ashton said "yes it is getting old" so I'm guessing he was addressing Baez? It also seems JB felt pretty damn good about himself today, even though I wouldn't say he "won the day." The SA said they just wanted to make sure there wasn't a conflict of interest and that's exactly what the judge agreed to do. Even though there wasn't, the judge still sided with them by making Baez explain how he was getting paid (off camera, although the SA said they'd have no problem with that to begin with).

 

[aprilshowers]

I wasn't able to watch KC's appearance today ... would like to ask:

Was today about releasing the video of her reactions to them finding Caylee?

What about Jose and her ... the videos of them together, etc.?

Thanks guys

 

[trixi491]

I'm surprised the camera guy zoomed in on her notes again after being told not to last time. How much do you wanna bet JB will b*tch about this during the next hearing (even though you totally can't see what's written)?

 

[gastew]

It seemed to me that Casey was more attentive to the proceedings today. She seemed to be actively following the conversations. She leaned to hear the Judge when the sidebar was held, listened to the Judge's comments on the bench prior to that.

It could be one of two things:
1. Somehow the thought has sunk in to her brain that she actually may be convicted. She may actually be realizing that Jose's talents are limited....and those he has won't be able to save her from her new lifelong home.
2. OR it could be that today was all about Miss Anthony's rights!! Her right to fair representation free of conflict. So it was all about her today, and not about Caylee's rights at all!!!
The actual trial will be much harder on her.

Caylee, we remember you.

 

[tiredofthis]

I wasn't able to watch KC's appearance today ... would like to ask:

Was today about releasing the video of her reactions to them finding Caylee?

What about Jose and her ... the videos of them together, etc.?

Thanks guys

No. Today was about finding out how the defense is getting paid and if there is a conflict. The judge decided there is no conflict.

 

[amethyst221]

I'm not too worried about a moment of human reaction by the SA in a motion hearing, especially given what he was responding to. JB is a constant source of in and out of court improprieties. A comment about his belief or opinion that his client is innocent was totally out of line and improper. Having said that, I sort of enjoyed it, watching today. JB is full of bravado (scared ya, didn't I?) when performing for his client, so open and candid, but as soon as the judge indicated he was going to ask some questions, he was practically running to an in camera proceeding. He got a look of controlled panic when the court was questioning Casey. She fired off her usual disrespectful answers, including a very quick "yes" to the fact there had been only one retainer agreement. JB had to correct her fib, because there had been more than one agreement. It sort of sets the tone.

As for Casey, I think she's going to lose in any future juror comparison with Judge Strickland, if he is the trial judge. He is pretty nice while judicial, without teetering into indecisive, and her disrespect could annoy a lot of people. As far as smirking at the end, I always find that unpersuasive when accompanied by the clanking of leg shackles. Is there such a thing as a hollow smirk?

I never expected to hear the details of the money, but to get the conflict issue off the table, on the record, probably in camera. Since she may get convicted, she has to sell what she has to sell now. There must be arrangements where someone else acts for her in that, other than JB, or handles her "Connecticut money" from whatever freak would pay for her defense, as opposed to thousands of worthy causes.

 

[cajun]

When Strickland said "this is getting old, I'm getting sick of it" do you think he was addressing that at JB or both JB and Ashton?

Jose B

 

[Manny]

I'm surprised the camera guy zoomed in on her notes again after being told not to last time. How much do you wanna bet JB will b*tch about this during the next hearing (even though you totally can't see what's written)?

Maybe they will decide no camera in the courtroom. That cameraman should stop playing little games. Boredom can do a lot of damage.

 

[warbuckle]

I hope you are right. But please remember, you only need 1 juror who thinks the SA MAY be motivated by spite and not the evidence, to get a hung jury. One or two of those hung juries, and she probably walks.

I thought the OJ case was also sad, and the evidence quite compelling, but the jury acquitted. Spector got a hung jury, even though many women testified he'd used a gun with them before. And I could go on and on. I don't
think a conviction for Murder 1 is an open and shut case here, not even close, but that's jmo. That's not to say I don't think Casey is dangerous and most likely a child killer, as I think that is probably the case. But convincing 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt may not be as easy as many here assume, though I hope you are all right and I am wrong.

I agree. Don't blast me with negative comments, but I am not honestly convienced beyond a reasonable doubt. Just not sure at this point. Maybe when I see the States case I will change my mind but as of right now I think there is reasonable doubt and all the negative media (NG) and petty issues of the state are leading me to believe she is being unfairly convicted by the public. If they through out the "junk science" in the case, then I think the states case is not that strong.

 

[cajun]

during the first bond hearing, she indicated that they owed a great deal on the house. How could they have paid it off? I believe they said they owed ~120k. i will find the link.

selling pictures, of course. Is there a way to find out if it's been paid off or if there is still a mortgage?