Casey Anthony attorneys: Throw out murder indictment

[notthatsmart]

Jbean There are post that are way off topic in this last page. I hope something can be done about it.
I dont know if it is off topic or designed to draw someone off topic.

Back on topic, I really wish the SA would produce some evidence that I can believe, otherwise the Judge needs to drop these charges.

 

[cecybeans]

Jbean There are post that are way off topic in this last page. I hope something can be done about it.
I dont know if it is off topic or designed to draw someone off topic.

Back on topic, I really wish the SA would produce some evidence that I can believe, otherwise the Judge needs to drop these charges.

That just happens sometimes with excited, ADD people. JBean is wonderful about herding us cats back when we get too far OT. And if you feel there are substantive posts that are still OT, feel free to add tags at the bottom of the page so they can be found later when the subject is searched.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Jbean There are post that are way off topic in this last page. I hope something can be done about it.
I dont know if it is off topic or designed to draw someone off topic.

Back on topic, I really wish the SA would produce some evidence that I can believe, otherwise the Judge needs to drop these charges.

The SA is not required to release any info that the defense doesn't have or that has not been requested by the defense. They are not required to release their strategy, work product, or current investigations. Because the testimony of the GJ is sealed, we will not see the testimony of GA. There are no grounds to drop charges. There may be legal basis to alter them if necessary, but cases have gone to trial on much less. While we are anxious to see everything.....there is much yet to be seen. I think it is a bit early to talk about dropping charges. There is nothing wrong with being an advocate for the defendant....but if a judge were to "drop charges" after all we have seen, would any of us feel safe that OUR rights or those of our loved ones would be protected by the legal system?? There is a system in place for a reason. It is not the SA job to provide evidence WS posters can use to believe...it is the SA job to present evidence collected to a jury. The decision will be in their hands.

 

[Harmony 2]

No offense taken of course. When i say pro-reality, I really mean I want to know the good, the bad and the ugly about a case;not just the information that favors a conviction if I feel a defendant is guilty. I want to know everything.
Still and all you shouldn't hate all of it. If the state cannot prove their case,then the jury should find a defendant innocent despite the fact that they 'feel" he might be guilty.
Most of our laws are designed to protect the innocent, it just doesn't always work that way.

Excellent post!! My sentiments exactly, especially on the part I bolded.

 

[Rlaub44]

I suspect you are referring to searches for 'neck breaking' and 'chloroform'. I'll wait to see if it's proven that Casey made those alleged searches. Moreover, if she did, the defense can still offer a reasonable explanation that jurors would be required to accept.

Did Caylee die from chloroform or a broken neck?

BBM

I'm not certain I agree with your wording here. The defense can offer a reasonable explanation, and, after weighing the contrasting pieces of evidence, the jury must decide if, overall, it leaves them with a reasonable doubt that KC is guilty.

One reasonable counter-explanation for a piece of State's evidence does not automatically place that one in the defense column. I believe you yourself argued earlier today against a jury foreman "scoring" things in that way.

Hope this helps to clarify.

 

[JBean]

you guys can we get back to the motion to dismiss and what it means?

 

[notthatsmart]

The SA is not required to release any info that the defense doesn't have or that has not been requested by the defense. They are not required to release their strategy, work product, or current investigations. Because the testimony of the GJ is sealed, we will not see the testimony of GA. There are no grounds to drop charges. There may be legal basis to alter them if necessary, but cases have gone to trial on much less. While we are anxious to see everything.....there is much yet to be seen. I think it is a bit early to talk about dropping charges. There is nothing wrong with being an advocate for the defendant....but if a judge were to "drop charges" after all we have seen, would any of us feel safe that OUR rights or those of our loved ones would be protected by the legal system?? There is a system in place for a reason. It is not the SA job to provide evidence WS posters can use to believe...it is the SA job to present evidence collected to a jury. The decision will be in their hands.

Thank You for getting us back on topic. I was just wishing they would give us something so these motions to drop have no creedence. I can wish. I hope SA doesn't withold evidence to the last minute. I find that to be unfair in any trial. Not asking for their strategy, just want to see something I can grasp and come to the other side. Not happening for me so far. That is my opinion only.

 

[notthatsmart]

This may be a silly question. When the Judge makes a decision on these motions, Does he know the SA strategy or case?

 

[shellsbells]

Thank You for getting us back on topic. I was just wishing they would give us something so these motions to drop have no creedence. I can wish. I hope SA doesn't withold evidence to the last minute. I find that to be unfair in any trial. Not asking for their strategy, just want to see something I can grasp and come to the other side. Not happening for me so far. That is my opinion only.

Honestly, and JMHO, but our opinions don't matter because we aren't on the jury. I hope the SA is withholding whatever they can because then whatever jury that's been swayed by nonfictional nonsense can be shown it with no prejudice. It would have been better off probably if the defense had held their cards much closer to their chests, but they didn't and that is their cross to bear. As it is, they *should* have the truth on their side... and if they don't, then the jury will "come to the other side" on their own during the trial. JMO, again.

Of course, I think we have far reached the point of all ludicrousness and the trial just needs to happen.

 

[Rlaub44]

Thank You for getting us back on topic. I was just wishing they would give us something so these motions to drop have no creedence. I can wish. I hope SA doesn't withold evidence to the last minute. I find that to be unfair in any trial. Not asking for their strategy, just want to see something I can grasp and come to the other side. Not happening for me so far. That is my opinion only.

This Motion just seems so open and shut to me. The grand jury found sufficient cause for an indictment, and as long as defense cannot show that State is unduly withholding discovery, everything else will be argued at trial.

I fully recognize that this is a standard defense tactic, occurring in many major trials. There is, IMO, no way that Judge Strickland could not allow this case to proceed. Far too much forensic evidence (car, dog hits, Henckel tape, items from house) and behavioral evidence (31 days, La Bella Vita, imaginanny, lies to LE) to not have a prima facie case.

We don't need to have proof at this point - just enough to show cause to take it to a full trial. I believe they have met this standard, clearly so in my opinion.

 

[Bittiness39]

As far as being on topic. I wish to have some form of proof that this trial should go on. The Judge needs to address this motion in a clear and fair legal manner. I am taking this motion very serious and expect a reasonable response from the Judge.

My take:
Judge Strickland's response (after careful review of the latest boilerplate motion from the defense): Laughter. Motion denied.
The defense's response: Whine about a change of venue. Continue to blame someone else in the crime against Caylee. Continue to insist they have evidence that exonnerates KC and yet somehow can't turn that same evidence over to the prosecution.

The defense is hand tied by their client's LIES. There was never a Zanny the Nanny. If KC is not smart enough to understand that then she deserves what she gets.

 

[JSR]

This may be a silly question. When the Judge makes a decision on these motions, Does he know the SA strategy or case?

No, no one other than the SA and their staff know how they intend to present their case. Nor are they required to provide their case strategy.

They are required to hand over any evidence or documents that are requested by the defense. And even if not asked the SA is required to hand over any exculpatory evidence ie. see the Brady v. Maryland case.

 

[notthatsmart]

No, no one other than the SA and their staff know how they intend to present their case. Nor are they required to provide their case strategy.

Then how can the Judge not take the motion seriously? I think he may opt for a hearing on this matter.

 

[sleutherontheside]

When someone quotes me and then uses off topic items to make their point, I can not respond. It is against the rules to respond to an off topic post. So therefore it is unfair. Please take your off topic items and use the appropriate thread.

As far as being on topic. I wish to have some form of proof that this trial should go on. The Judge needs to address this motion in a clear and fair legal manner. I am taking this motion very serious and expect a reasonable response from the Judge.

I think we can rest assured that SS is reasonable. He has gone by the letter of the law. He has granted motions in favor of both sides. He usually takes time to fully evaluate a motion and often denies or grants it the next day or later. He has been patient with defense while they are side stepping protocol and reigned them back in as opposed to admonishing them. He made sure early on that KC was well aware of all motions on her behalf and went so far as to require she attend ALL hearings. He allowed her the courtesy of wearing street clothes instead of jail attire as it typical of inmates attending a hearing. He is not the party to "drop charges". He presides over hearings and trials. He is there to make sure that both sides follow the rules. The evidence thus far meets the requirements for trial. All motions are serious for one reason or another. He has been reasonable so far. I don't think we should doubt him now. I am less worried about SS and his rulings than I am about defense counsel and their history thus far.

 

[Trapshooter]

Then how can the Judge not take the motion seriously? I think he may opt for a hearing on this matter.

Are you saying that Judge Strickland order the SA to present their case so the defense knows what's coming? Then quid pro quo for the Defense also!

 

[JSR]

Then how can the Judge not take the motion seriously? I think he may opt for a hearing on this matter.

Because in my opinion there is plenty of probable cause to bring the charges against Casey. Dropping the charges and dismissing this case is premature, in my opinion. The issues the defense brings up is a matter for a jury to decide, not a judge.

He might hold a hearing on this motion, but no way is it going to be granted.

 

[notthatsmart]

I think we can rest assured that SS is reasonable. He has gone by the letter of the law. He has granted motions in favor of both sides. He usually takes time to fully evaluate a motion and often denies or grants it the next day or later. He has been patient with defense while they are side stepping protocol and reigned them back in as opposed to admonishing them. He made sure early on that KC was well aware of all motions on her behalf and went so far as to require she attend ALL hearings. He allowed her the courtesy of wearing street clothes instead of jail attire as it typical of inmates attending a hearing. He is not the party to "drop charges". He presides over hearings and trials. He is there to make sure that both sides follow the rules. The evidence thus far meets the requirements for trial. All motions are serious for one reason or another. He has been reasonable so far. I don't think we should doubt him now. I am less worried about SS and his rulings than I am about defense counsel and their history thus far.

Thank you for quoting my post in a kind and sensible manner. I respect your opinion.
I have a question though. If he is not the party to drop charges, Who is?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Thank you for quoting my post in a kind and sensible manner. I respect your opinion.
I have a question though. If he is not the party to drop charges, Who is?

The SA would be the one to drop charges as they were acting on behalf of The State of Florida. The Judge would dismiss charges if deemed appropriate based upon a motion. While very similar, they require different circumstances.

 

[notthatsmart]

Are you saying that Judge Strickland order the SA to present their case so the defense knows what's coming? Then quid pro quo for the Defense also!

I did not say that at all.

 

[Bittiness39]

Thank you for quoting my post in a kind and sensible manner. I respect your opinion.
I have a question though. If he is not the party to drop charges, Who is?

If the judge during trial after the state rests determines that there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendent, the judge can dismiss the case. The State's Attorney's office currently has the power to drop the charges against Casey. And they are seeking the death penalty so I don't imagine that they will drop the charges. If the state thought there was not enough evidence against Casey they would have already dropped the charges. JMO.