crucibelle
Pisces
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 2
I'd let that man go anywhere he wanted to go lol
Me, too! :blushing: :tmi:
I'd let that man go anywhere he wanted to go lol
I thought about the "multiples" defense early on. Makes it real easy to explain "Zanny the Nanny" now don't it? I don't believe it for a minute - but it would be an interesting defense. tThey (DT) would have to have psychologists testify that she was indeed a multiple - and thus this defense is out.
There is a very good Law & Order SVU about a person with multiples. Cynthia Nixon (Miranda Hobbs - Sex In The City) plays the woman with the multiples. I thought she did a really good job. The story is about a woman that alledgedly killed her baby. I recommend giving a look se - especially if you are a SVU fan.
I went back to see if Judge Perry actually did say what Mason accused him of saying ... "unfortunately that is not the law" [regarding automatic death penalty] ... and sure enough the Judge did stumble on his words and say that! Makes it sound like the Judge is saying it is unfortunate that the death penalty is not automatic! Ooopsie!
http://www.wftv.com/video/27952337/index.html
Part 6
(13:01) Juror 3140 -
(22:57) ... no philosophical or religious objections to it [the death penalty] ...
you are not, I would guess, a big advocate either for or against the death penalty ...
the reason I ask you ... ok, have you, in your own mind, thought about what cases you feel are appropriate for the death penalty and which cases are not appropriate?
[no, not really]
(22:19) the reason I ask that question ma'am, some people have strong opinions about certain things, and there are some people who believe, regardless of the facts and circumstances surrounding a murder, if someone is convicted of first degree murder, and they use these words, premeditated murder, or first degree felony murder, that if somebody is convicted, then the death penalty should be automatically imposed regardless of the facts and circumstances
(22:57) unfortunately, that's not the law, you know, we all have our own opinions and preconceived notions that are sometime not consistent with the law. As I told you earlier, if we get to that phase, you will be required to use the law in arriving at whatever decision that you make. If we get to that stage.....
I'm bringing these from another thread because I wanted to be a brat and prove a point (and not be off topic):
This is in reference to a video Tulessa provided about a woman sentenced to death today in Florida. We had a debate about whether casey should be allowed to hang around unshackled, standing there with her attorneys, when the court is in recess. We discussed the ability of defendants to be dressed in street clothes and unshackled, in general. I argued that seeing defendants in streets clothes and unshackled is not the norm. I said: "We see the high profile cases with trials that are televised, observed by tons of media, etc. And most of those involve white defendants from middle class backgrounds who have a private defense team. Try walking into a criminal court filled with poor defendants who no one really cares about. They are usually shackled and often kept in their prison garb for trial. Their public defenders don't often fight hard to have allowances made."
Check out what the defendant was wearing in her murder case there in Brevard County Florida: http://www.wftv.com/video/27950745/index.html
Yeah, casey's given a lot of leeway when compared to the rest of the criminal defendants, IMO.
No, the defense team in my opinion believe they are smarter than anyone and they believe they have Judge Perry in their pocket also.Do you think the defense team regrets getting Judge Strickland removed?