Casey Anthony attorneys: Throw out murder indictment

[sadyjade]

I don't think that anyone is disappointed by JB's actions, as much as perplexed by them. Let's face it..... the guy is green. Why she was compelled to put her trust in him may never be known. I think that the SA as well as JS gave her an out and she failed to take it. Both sides will make mistakes, there will be missteps, and moments that leave us puzzled. But at the end of the day......I think that the biggest question will be WHY did KC gamble with her life? JB alienated KC's parents and left no room for negotiation. HE insisted upon keeping this train wreck moving as opposed to derailing it in his clients best interests. I have to ask WHY??

Tha answer to 99 out of 100 questions is money.

 

[njustice]

**snort**

I just read the new motions. AL has had her class working overtime. She is most evidently a federal defender. Among other things, she is claiming that the death penalty in and of itself, because it calls for a death qualified jury, prejudices "Miss Anthony's" right to due process. Yeaaah, go with that one AL.

That's awesome, because they are the ones who asked to move back the trial date, weren't they? You always have the option, upfront, to have a speedy trial. The downside is, you don't have the time to create a "dream team" for your defense. I'm surprised AL is even arguing this fact. I'm starting to wonder why she has the "golden status" she's been given.

 

[Paladine]

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.

 

[njustice]

Okay, so I'm seeing a predominant theory about these latest motions that they are designed to get the prosecution to define more "facts" in their case. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but insn't that what the trial is for?

It almost seems like the defense wants a detailed playbook on the prosecution's case strategy. Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but if the defense doesn't need to reveal their strategy before trial (the truth will come out at trial), why should the prosecution have to do it?

 

[notthatsmart]

Okay, so I'm seeing a predominant theory about these latest motions that they are designed to get the prosecution to define more "facts" in their case. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but insn't that what the trial is for?

It almost seems like the defense wants a detailed playbook on the prosecution's case strategy. Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but if the defense doesn't need to reveal their strategy before trial (the truth will come out at trial), why should the prosecution have to do it?

I think at this time a year after the indictment it is reasonable for the Defense to ask the Judge to take a look at it. If he strikes the motion then that must mean the SA has some facts. I dont believe that the sunshine law is the SA's statement of facts. They may not bring a lot of this up at trial. If the Judge strikes the motion, it means he believes the State has more facts. Smart move by the Defense to draw some conclusions.

 

[cecybeans]

I often wonder how much JB had to do with adding Andrea L.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was she who approached him.

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.

I personally can't wait to read Ashton's responses to these motions! :dance:

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.

 

[TorisMom003]

I would think that putting the death penalty back on the table would be enough proof that the State has more facts. There has to be a reason for them to do that when it had been taken off the table before. At the rate JB is going with his trying to hold up the trial the State will have more time to find even more facts to use against Casey.

 

[RR0004]

I think at this time a year after the indictment it is reasonable for the Defense to ask the Judge to take a look at it. If he strikes the motion then that must mean the SA has some facts. I dont believe that the sunshine law is the SA's statement of facts. They may not bring a lot of this up at trial. If the Judge strikes the motion, it means he believes the State has more facts. Smart move by the Defense to draw some conclusions.

...or he believes in the sound judgement of the grand jury. I know, I know...it's "easy" getting an indictment. Phooey!

 

[RR0004]

I would think that putting the death penalty back on the table would be enough proof that the State has more facts. There has to be a reason for them to do that when it had been taken off the table before. At the rate JB is going with his trying to hold up the trial the State will have more time to find even more facts to use against Casey.

The SA isn't messing around here. JB would want you to believe the SA filed frivolous charges. I really don't see that being the case. There's way too much at stake.

 

[Friday]

Resp snipped:

It is my opinion that the defense is just doing their job and a darned good one at that.

I think you're right--the defense attorneys are just doing their job, and probably doing it darned well, but it's hard to admire a job that generally entails loathesome behavior and the single-minded pursuit of despicable goals.

I'm not referring specifically to KC's defense attorneys, and I can certainly applaud the efforts of a defense attorney whose goal is to get his guilty client the lightest possible punishment. But I cringe when the Defense's goal is to get a patently guilty murderer off entirely with arguments such as, "Although my client was video-taped in the act of murdering the victims, my client had an expectation of privacy, so the video tape is inadmissable." .... "The video tape of my client butchering the victim is the only evidence the prosecution has, and it's inadmissable because it was obtained without a proper search warrant."

Defense attorneys would regard the above as great victories and congratulate themselves on a job well done when their clients were turned loose on society again. I find that attitude revolting. And a little frightening.

Someone said, "Power corrupts," and it does. We have Prosecutors whose job it is to prosecute people accused of crimes, and Prosecutors can get way out of line. We have Defense Attorneys whose job it is to protect people accused of crimes from Prosecutors, and to keep Prosecutors in line. Lately, I feel as if we--society--needs someone to protect us from Defense Attorneys.

IMO, of course.

 

[RR0004]

Resp snipped:



I think you're right--the defense attorneys are just doing their job, and probably doing it darned well, but it's hard to admire a job that generally entails loathesome behavior and the single-minded pursuit of despicable goals.

I'm not referring specifically to KC's defense attorneys, and I can certainly applaud the efforts of a defense attorney whose goal is to get his guilty client the lightest possible punishment. But I cringe when the Defense's goal is to get a patently guilty murderer off entirely with arguments such as, "Although my client was video-taped in the act of murdering the victims, my client had an expectation of privacy, so the video tape is inadmissable." .... "The video tape of my client butchering the victim is the only evidence the prosecution has, and it's inadmissable because it was obtained without a proper search warrant."

Defense attorneys would regard the above as great victories and congratulate themselves on a job well done when their clients were turned loose on society again. I find that attitude revolting. And a little frightening.

Someone said, "Power corrupts," and it does. We have Prosecutors whose job it is to prosecute people accused of crimes, and Prosecutors can get way out of line. We have Defense Attorneys whose job it is to protect people accused of crimes from Prosecutors, and to keep Prosecutors in line. Lately, I feel as if we--society--needs someone to protect us from Defense Attorneys.

IMO, of course.

...and all the while there's a little girl awaiting justice.

 

[Friday]

...and all the while there's a little girl awaiting justice.

You're so right.

 

[legalmania]

Legal people, I'm curious, regarding "mental illness defense". What does the defense do if their client clearly appears to be mentally ill, for example, very delusional, changes stories without seeming to understand the implication of doing this and seems to equally believe both stories, or has a big chunk of missing time/memory, due to a mental trauma or simply due to drug use during the time frame in question, or a pre-existing mental condition, but they believe the client to be innocent of murder for a variety of reasons? I wondered this at the time this occurred

I don't think the McNaughton Rule would apply in Casey's case. There is no testimony of strange behavior during the 31 days. She didn't leave her car in the middle of the road, and she was showering and dressing ( within reason), going out and her behavior was clear and convincing and reasonable. The only thing Casey can prove is she is a bad liar. The Durham rule wouldn't apply here either because Casey was never in any mental institutions, or seeking mental help and therefor couldn't prove any prior mental or criminal history. For a full concept of these rules please read below. This was a quick summary of my opinion and didn't explain the full effect of mental illness.

http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artMcNaughtonRule.php

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

And JB said on the 48 hours show when asked a question he obviously could not answer he said "we will answer that in court". When asked a direct question he always says that and he says KC can clear her name in court. Well ok then lets clear it so we do not have to hear from this evil family again.

These people are using everything they can to stall this because they know she is guilty and there is no way they can defend her. They all need to just get on with it and let it be over. They have to know she lied and still lies. If I were her, I would admit to whatever even if it was an accident (which I doubt) and hope to get life rather than the death penalty that she may get.

I am really tired of this family and everything they do or don't do. There are other things we can spend our tax dollars on other than lies, IMO

Casey can't confess Who would believe her

 

[legalmania]

Casey can't confess Who would believe her

If Casey confesses we are going to have to believe her. A confession is a confession. She will have to say she did it. I have seen several defendants wait until the trial was almost over to confess. I know this much if she does confess the judge will give her the maximum.

 

[cecybeans]

Casey can't confess Who would believe her

I think a jury would be willing to suspend disbelief if this girl actually said something that didn't sound like an eight-year-old child's wild and crazy excuse as to why she doesn't have her homework assignment.

I think anyone at this point would be willing to believe an Anthony if they said something that didn't sound outrageously self-serving. And if there wasn't a lot of ridiculous, unnecessary detail.

 

[Friday]

Casey can't confess Who would believe her

Now that is a problem. LOL.

 

[countzero]

Casey can't confess Who would believe her

Now that is a problem. LOL.

Now that is the truth. Only way I would believe a confession by the A clan if if the confession matched the forensic evidence LE/FBI and the SA has and they are totally satisfied with the confession. An order is entered for the A clan and JB & crew that no one can publish or profit by any means of media content but to include a clause that all monies earned from any publication of their stories MUST be submitted to the courts to be distributed between TES and all state protection and mental health agencies approved by the state.

Now that would convince me of the A clans guilt and party in the murder of Caylee.

 

[magic-cat]

The defense is really stuck on this "bad faith" issue aren't they? And the timing of this motion is kind of an uncomfortable coincidence, to me, since the plant reports, etc, were handed over to the defense about two weeks ago (why haven't we seen those by the way?) Perhaps there was nothing in there which proved anything? OR there IS something in there, and their only hope is to try to get the death penalty off the table and the murder charge dropped or else...I don't know but I have become bored with the games the defense team is playing...a jury of chimps could easily find this gal guilty...so I doubt humans will have any problem at all. She duct taped her child's face shut-case clased!!!

 

[Macushla]

when was there any investigation of any of the other car trunks you mention here (or several others that come to mind) (except TL's which was luminoled for blood/body fluids but cadaver dogs never used there)? Did I miss this? I don't remember cadaver dogs being taken to any of these people's (or several other players') homes, yards, workplaces, vehicles, storage units, boats, etc or any forensics done in any of these places (I'm not talking about Tim Miller of course). Just curious if I missed this avenue of investigation, because I definitely never saw any investigation into any of these, (not even at the next-door-neighbors'), except for the luminol in the back of TL's jeep and on a couple pairs of his shoes, and LE's initial "walkthrough" of TL's place to apparently just check if Caylee was there. (I know about LE's requesting phone records from a few people, computer records from even fewer, taking statements from major players and some of their roommates, and the polygraphs. And the DNA samples from the A family/BB.)

These other people, places, etc. were not 'investigated thoroughly' because there was nothing to point LE in the direction of any of these people. Yes, the A's brought up everyone they could think of as possible suspects, but there was nothing to link anyone other than KC. LE went in the direction the evidence (and KC's story) took them.