Casey Anthony attorneys: Throw out murder indictment

[TotallyObsessed]

BBM.
And, to be fair, the cadaver dogs were not taken inside the Anthony home, either. You need to get a warrant for stuff like that, which means you have to prove to the magistrate (at least here in Va) that you have at least something to go on. You just can't barge into people's houses and start looking for stuff, even if you ARE the police. That's what is cool about being an American. So, apparently they have no evidence pointing to these other homes, yards, storage units, etc or they WOULD have been searched. Just my very humble, though admittedly pro-LE opinion.

Well..that's not entirely true anymore. Under the Homeland Security Act...did you know that your home can be searched, at any time, for any reason, and you don't even have to be there. If they have suspicion that you are suspicious....they could come in while you are at work, go thru your stuff, and you need not even know.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I've been reading through the exhibits for the motion and the last one, Exhibit B, is a copy of the indictment for Leonard Gonzalez, Sr. in the Billings murders. Apparantly, this is a prime example of a well written indictment for the defense team. The description and facts of the crime are not very detailed, just the basic facts known at the time.

snipped for brevity...

I used to work for the DA's office - Grand Jury to be exact, and back then we typed the indictments up on a manual typewriter (telling my age, I guess)...The indictments were very brief, included the date of the crime, place of the crime, perps name, and section under which they were being charged. In the case of a MURDER indictment, especially in this case wehre the exact date of murder is not know, you would only have to put the perps name, and criminal section for indictment. You CERTAINLY did not have to lay out your entire case on the indictment. REDONKULOUS!

Just FWIW

 

[impatientredhead]

Surprise, surprise...Baez says Casey Anthony is indefensible...we knew that MONTHS ago...and it has NOTHING to do with the way the indictment was written.

Well if she indefensible they could always take the option that remains available to them of entering a guilty plea and putting this thing to rest

Honestly though I am thrilled to see all of these attempts to have the case dismissed. If there were no attempts to keep evidence from being entered or have the case be thrown out all together it would play right into her hands for an appeal based on lack of adequate representation.

I consider all of these motions, while irritating to read and attempt to follow the logic of the defense, I consider them all to be an another piece that will help her conviction stand after the fact.

 

[doogiesgirl]

You may be right about that - although it's a very small community. I remember TL on NG saying he had declined JB's offer to return as her DP attorney. I think he took one look at the thing and said "accidental death, overdose, ugly coping, best I can do, Bud" the first time, and the second time "no way, Jose". Regardless of who sought out who, JB was running out of time in replacing TL with a DP qualified attorney. He is lucky he found one that, so far, will put up with the idiotic hijinks of this defendant and her family, not to mention the shoddy work that has been done by JB so far.



Actually, I hope LDB answers them. I just loved her appearance at the last hearing in which she raked JB over the coals for sloppy, unprofessional verbiage (not to mention the cheesy notarizing KC's sig) and was quick to remind the court that she was not there to protect the Anthony family but Caylee. I like the way she turns a phrase. And she doesn't roll her eyes or make goofy faces like her cohort, who, imo, needs to get rid of the behavior or he will come across as juvenile as JB in court. She is gentle but firm, and elegantly succinct.

I agree her male co council may be brilliant but he needs to stop the vigorous head shaking and face scrunching, laughing, etc as it does come off badly to spectators and I fear it will to the jury also. I wish he would behave more like LDB....just my opinion. MOO

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

In the motion the defense argued

The Death Penalty would be a grossly disproportionate punishment in this case
state chose not to dispute

There are 15 additional arguements in the motion that the state chose not to dispute
Why did the state chose not to dispute?

If the state doesn't dispute does that mean they agree with the arguement, and if so wouldn't the judge then have to dismiss?

 

[JSR]

Originally Posted by trusttheping
Legal people, can the state withhold "smoking gun" type evidence all the way until trial, preventing the defense from knowing and being able to counsel their client accordingly?

sniped due to length

No. The same is true for the defense. Every trial exhibit each side intends to admit at trial needs to be exchanged and notice of that intention needs to be given well before the commencement of trial.

You might have many trial exhibits but many times not all of them will be admitted into evidence.

 

[doogiesgirl]

BBM

The state does have to hand over the reports, interviews of witnesses and evidence they have that they are going to use in the trial. They have been doing so on a timely basis. The state doesn't have to explain their reports, their theory of the case or their trial strategy.

Looks like the defense is trying to goad the prosecutors into doing exactly that.

jmo

Why don't the defense just hang signs around their necks saying....."Goin' Fishin'". They have zip. MOO

 

[Intermezzo]

No, there has been over 10,000 pages of discovery. It just took the defense a year to get an attorney that filed typical motions instead of selling photos when he should have been filing for a speedy trial and yachting with Geraldo when he should have agreed to a gag order. Oh, that would have precluded all the press junkets on national TV for his wonderful attempt to get this tried in the media so he could moan and groan about that.

BBM
I concur.

 

[JSR]

I think that Judge Strickland will strike this motion but may require the state to give up some facts.

He struck the other motion to dismiss, but he left the door open for the Defense to prove their claim in Febuary. That is a lot of time. Something must be up with that.

I dont think he addressed the motion to drop the death penalty. Does anyone know whatever happened to that?

I have a legal question. If a defense keeps putting in motions to drop charges, at what point does a Judge have to explain why he is striking? Or does a Judge have to explain his actions at all?

I agree. I think in the end Judge S will deny this motion. To answer your question. A judge must always give legal foundation for his or her rulings. Its THOSE decisions that can give a defendant a right to an appeal. If there is an error in application of the law then a defendant may be granted an appeal.

 

[JSR]

I've been browsing over this thread. In regards to the questions of if this motion is normal or common, it is. And don't be surprised if we see another one again before trial starts. The defense absolutely has to try. None of these motions will succeed.

A jury needs to hear the evidence in this cae and decide there is enough evidence. And any thoughts by other posters that there isn't enough evidence should also note many other people have been convicted on far less and have been appropriately convicted. Defendents must be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The key word in there is reasonable. Not every crime is going to be videotaped. Jurors rely on the TOTALITY of evidence. And common sense plays a large role in how evidence is evaluated.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

snipped for brevity...

I used to work for the DA's office - Grand Jury to be exact, and back then we typed the indictments up on a manual typewriter (telling my age, I guess)...The indictments were very brief, included the date of the crime, place of the crime, perps name, and section under which they were being charged. In the case of a MURDER indictment, especially in this case wehre the exact date of murder is not know, you would only have to put the perps name, and criminal section for indictment. You CERTAINLY did not have to lay out your entire case on the indictment. REDONKULOUS!

Just FWIW

Thanks, that's what I thought. I wish I had your legal background so I could explain it better!

 

[spqr]

Well..that's not entirely true anymore. Under the Homeland Security Act...did you know that your home can be searched, at any time, for any reason, and you don't even have to be there. If they have suspicion that you are suspicious....they could come in while you are at work, go thru your stuff, and you need not even know.

I don't believe that is true. Unless I mis-read the Homeland Security Act and Patriot Act. If you can provide a link or a specific title and paragraph I will definitely revisit and re-read.
Thanks

 

[Wudge]

I've been browsing over this thread. In regards to the questions of if this motion is normal or common, it is. And don't be surprised if we see another one again before trial starts. The defense absolutely has to try. None of these motions will succeed.

A jury needs to hear the evidence in this cae and decide there is enough evidence. And any thoughts by other posters that there isn't enough evidence should also note many other people have been convicted on far less and have been appropriately convicted. Defendents must be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The key word in there is reasonable. Not every crime is going to be videotaped. Jurors rely on the TOTALITY of evidence. And common sense plays a large role in how evidence is evaluated.

I have no idea where you came up with the notion that "jurors rely on the totality of the evidence". That is not true. Jurors are required to follow jury instructions, and you will not find such an instruction.

To prove first degree murder in this case, highly reliable circumstantial evidence is needed -- there is no direct evidence in this case -- that, at a minimum, proves beyond a reasonable doubt the key elements necessary to convict on a murder one charge; i.e., intent (willful), premeditation and reflection (consideration). A jury can't say that 60% of the evidence or 80% of the evidence or even a 100% of the evidence favors the State, so we'll convict Casey.

HTH

 

[KenoshaKid]

Well..that's not entirely true anymore. Under the Homeland Security Act...did you know that your home can be searched, at any time, for any reason, and you don't even have to be there. If they have suspicion that you are suspicious....they could come in while you are at work, go thru your stuff, and you need not even know.

Not sure about that, TotallyObsessed, (Are you referring to a delayed notification warrant?) but I know that does not apply to local police.

Sheesh, cops can't even pull someone over for not wearing a seatbelt to enforce Click It or Ticket. How messed up is *that*???

 

[JSR]

I have no idea where you came up with the notion that "jurors rely on the totality of the evidence". That is not true. Jurors are required to follow jury instructions, and you will not find such an instruction.

To prove first degree murder in this case, highly reliable circumstantial evidence is needed -- there is no direct evidence in this case -- that, at a minimum, proves beyond a reasonable doubt the key elements necessary to convict on a murder one charge; i.e., intent (willful), premeditation and reflection (consideration). A jury can't say that 60% of the evidence or 80% of the evidence or even a 100% of the evidence favors the State, so we'll convict Casey.

HTH

You obviously didn't understand my post. Jurors DO rely on the totality of the evidence presented. A case is like a puzzle. When all the pieces fit together and any REASONABLE person can come to a conclusion that the evidence points to either guilt or innocence. There is NEVER a smoking gun that points with absolute certainty that a person is guilty. The totality of evidence does. And when you have a person such as yourself that is pro defense anyone can pick apart a single piece of evidence. Most cases today have overwhelming strong circumstantial evidence that when put together speaks to a persons guilt or innocence. And if you only want to convict someone unless there is one singular piece of evidence such as videotape showing the commission of the crime, then no one would ever be found guilty. The criminal justice system relies on the common sense of many jurors.

And I strongly disagree with your assertion that the state can't prove first degree murder. Premeditation only needs to be a nanosecond. That duct tape on Caylee's face proves murder one.

 

[JSR]

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." - Abe Lincoln


Thought this quote was very appropriate to this case, and this thread ....

 

[RR0004]

A capital charge enables prosecutors to select and seat a death-qualified jury -- Witherspoon a jury. All facts being equal, death-qualified jurors are generally considered more apt to convict than jurors who do not support the death penalty.

I have long considered death-qualified juries to be a significant factor behind the absurdly high wrongful conviction rate for defendants who are sentenced to be executed. I believe a death-qualified jury drawn from a poisoned jury pool to be a hideous brew.

Well, JB once again shot himself in the foot. Shame on him for poisoning the pool! If only he had taken some of his own advice..."say nothing"!!

 

[RR0004]

In 'Gonzalez', prosecutors had a cause of death, an instrument of death and a videotape of the circumstances of surrounding the death of Bird Billings (highly reliable inculpatory evidence). In their motion to dismiss the charges, Casey's defense team is necessarily saying that, to the best of their knowledge, prosecutors do not possess such highly reliable inculpatory evidence.

Ya know Wudge...I get that...really I do. But how often do you get a group of really stupid criminals together to commit a crime on videotape?

(Geez...I sure hope the answer is "not often".)

 

[RR0004]

In the motion the defense argued

The Death Penalty would be a grossly disproportionate punishment in this case
state chose not to dispute

There are 15 additional arguements in the motion that the state chose not to dispute
Why did the state chose not to dispute?

If the state doesn't dispute does that mean they agree with the arguement, and if so wouldn't the judge then have to dismiss?

IMO...they want to engage the State...they are fishing...and the State isn't biting.

 

[RR0004]

I don't believe that is true. Unless I mis-read the Homeland Security Act and Patriot Act. If you can provide a link or a specific title and paragraph I will definitely revisit and re-read.
Thanks

I think they were called "sneak and peak" warrants...or something like that.


ETA: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/08-8