Casey Anthony attorneys: Throw out murder indictment

[magic-cat]

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.

Yep and just for the record? Nobody else had a car that reeked of a dead body and nobody else had a missing child that they had neglected to report to ANYONE...so yeah...:banghead:

 

[marspiter]

For a case to go to trial, Florida trial judges mandate the state to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events. Darling, 808 So.2d at 156 (quoting Law, 559 So. 2d at 189). I think the state has more than fulfilled that requirement.

Was just reading through the motion regarding the Reply to Preclude Death Procedures. Based on the defenses arguments in that motion I believe the above quote pretty much shoots the defenses arguments down.

The defense in the motion is arguing that the state has insufficient evidence. based on the fact that a GJ came back with a true bill and the above quote I feel this motion is pretty much dead.

If the defense would like to contest the evidence the state has that is what the trial is for. The motion in places then goes on to say yes the SA in their argument to our other motion was correct as to the actual decision made (Donner) but we don't agree that whats written is what is meant and the try to argue what the spirit of the decision was. Basically arguing what is written in black and white versus what is written between the lines. Just wondering if anyone else caught that or maybe I was just seeing things.

My opinion of this motion is that the defense is trying to argue the evidence with out going to trial. Then of course they state that Casey's constitutional rights are being violated because the state sought the death penalty.

Given that the bad faith and insufficient evidence parts of this motion aren't going to fly I don't see the latter part making it either because it is dependent on the first part of the motion holding true.

This is just my interpretation of the motion though.

 

[noonie]

What Defense?????????????? LOL PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[marspiter]

Re-read the motion to dismiss indictment and exhibit A (the actual indictment).

Casey was indicted by a GJ and they submitted a true bill. This pretty much takes care of clause number 4 in the motion.

The rest of the motion is claiming that the indictment is constitutionally vague basically. After reading the indictment the charges against Casey are made rather clear. The state is not required to state how Caylee was murder or required to present it's evidence with the indictment. This is what the trial is for. Yes they are required to give their evidence to the defense in discovery, but arguments for and against that evidence are to be done in a trial in front of a jury of Casey's peers.

To me this motion seems to be saying that the SA is required to present it's case in entirety or nearly in full with the indictment so that the defense can formulate it's attack strategy then before discovery and other trial proceedings.

After reading this motion I'm reminded of this quote from My Cousin Vinny.

"Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it."

 

[3doglady]

I'd like to know the total hours and bill for these attorney's so far. Has the $200,000 for the photos run out and what do they plan to sell next?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Back on topic: apart from the obvious and expected legal posturing, what does the defense hope to achieve from their latest boiler-plate motion? My guess is that we are due the bug evidence from the car. Not going into pre-meditation or murder...but hasn't it been the contention of the defense all along that there was no "dead baby" in KC's car? Since they can't disprove the obvious (that there was a dead Caylee in KC's trunk) why all of the legal motions (destruction of trees, wasting of time, etc...)? Yes I realize that they, the defense have to do all they can to defend their client to the best of their ability...but to me it still reaks of "KC is sticking to her bullcrud story of the nanny did it". They know just as well as most that there was a dead child in her trunk. That the dead child in question was Caylee...so now they would ask you to disregard the obvious and with a slight of hand do the expected...continue to delay and whine about unfair treatment.

Look at it this way. Say the defense team is a doctor. KC is the patient. She has cancer. The doctor can choose to treat the cancer aggressively, throw every treatment known to mankind (some of which have been proven to work, some not). By the hypocratic oath that the doctor took upon leaving med school...he has to do everything within his power to treat and heal, to do no harm. Just part of his job. The patient can take it or leave it. The treatment may heal the cancer, or the patient might die anyway. :dance:

 

[Jolynna]

Was just reading through the motion regarding the Reply to Preclude Death Procedures. Based on the defenses arguments in that motion I believe the above quote pretty much shoots the defenses arguments down.

The defense in the motion is arguing that the state has insufficient evidence. based on the fact that a GJ came back with a true bill and the above quote I feel this motion is pretty much dead.

If the defense would like to contest the evidence the state has that is what the trial is for. The motion in places then goes on to say yes the SA in their argument to our other motion was correct as to the actual decision made (Donner) but we don't agree that whats written is what is meant and the try to argue what the spirit of the decision was. Basically arguing what is written in black and white versus what is written between the lines. Just wondering if anyone else caught that or maybe I was just seeing things.

My opinion of this motion is that the defense is trying to argue the evidence with out going to trial. Then of course they state that Casey's constitutional rights are being violated because the state sought the death penalty.

Given that the bad faith and insufficient evidence parts of this motion aren't going to fly I don't see the latter part making it either because it is dependent on the first part of the motion holding true.

This is just my interpretation of the motion though.

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

 

[Searchfortruth]

From the Sentinel...

"The indictment does not say how the child was killed or where, other than in Orange County."

"As a consequence, Anthony's attorneys say Circuit Judge Stan Strickland should throw out the indictment, which charges their client with capital murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...casey-anthony-dismiss-20091103,0,264527.story

Well maybe Casey's "defense lawyers" should just ask their client how she killed her child and where the crime took place...there's a wealth of information to be had there.

 

[lovelabs]

Right On Sister!!! Right on!!!

I've had about all I can take! I mean really! Really? Why shouldn't we hold KC accountable for the life, and or death of her daughter? It was she who was caring for the child. It was she, that claimed Caylee was fine, in fact she had been hitting the beaches, the theme park and having a tremendous summer! Of cousre not with her, Mama KC, not with her G'ma, not with anyone that any family member (or friend) could identify, give a description of, or phone number for ..... BUT, Caylee was just fine, gibbering on about her shoes, and a book .... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????

Sumpin *MORE* than stinks here ....

Jose and friends ... if you were really "frineds" of Caylee, we wouldn't have to ever go to trial ... you wouldn't have to put her grandparents through all of this. But, alas, her grandparents apparently have more at stake than the loss of thier precious grandchild ... her name means very little now ... *sigh*

Caylee means something more to us, us here, at a fricking crime forum, than she does to her family ... OUI VEY!!! Shame on you, KC! Shame on you AND your family!

Something terrible happened to this child. Whatever that was, KC, you know what happened, and you chose *NOT* to reach out for help! *YOU* chose to not even report her missing!!!! Your mother only reported Caylee missing once she realized how serious this was, once she realized she wasn't REALLY in control of you. Shame on her too!

I'm overwhelmed with sadness for this little girl! Any one of us would have, could have done more for her!

You said everything I wanted to say. Thank you

 

[BeanE]

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

FYI

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/08/ng.01.html

Lenamon = Terry Lenamon, Casey Anthony's former death penalty qualified attorney

Grace = Nancy Grace

GRACE: Are you trying to say she`s insane?

LENAMON: Absolutely not insane. Insanity is not an issue in this case.

 

[KenoshaKid]

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.)

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.

 

[Friday]

Look at it this way. Say the defense team is a doctor. KC is the patient. She has cancer. The doctor can choose to treat the cancer aggressively, throw every treatment known to mankind (some of which have been proven to work, some not). By the hypocratic oath that the doctor took upon leaving med school...he has to do everything within his power to treat and heal, to do no harm. Just part of his job. The patient can take it or leave it. The treatment may heal the cancer, or the patient might die anyway. :dance:

You're absolutely right, but in my mind KC herself IS the cancer.

 

[cecybeans]

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.

So true - and the only reason they were even brought there to begin with was because, after over 24 hours of getting a silly stories and a wild goose chase from KC, LE realized (perhaps from the DAMNED DEAD BODY in the trunk call from a FAMILY MEMBER) that they should check that out and stop looking for errant imaginannies.

What is also interesting is that KC's parents apparently were not swallowing the Nanny theory either because - even though they had not seen Caylee in over a month - they SEARCHED THE BACK YARD themselves.

LE did not view the Anthony home as a crime scene because a) KC had not been living there and b) the crime was supposedly a kidnapping and had taken place elsewhere

I'm sure that if LE had been given reason to suspect that perhaps a crime had taken place inside the Anthony home they would have had the dogs inside. And I am equally sure that if LE had been given a reason to suspect anyone else of foul play they would have done the same thing.

In fact, I feel sorry for all of the people that have been unnecessarily scrutinized and investigated and taped and had their records pored over and published and been commented on in the media and blogs in this case simply because KC refused to answer truthfully and her family corroborated her lies. In fact, if anyone should be up in arms and suing for invasion of privacy it's everyone in this investigation who has had their lives turned inside out "on a whim" by a lying, thieving little brat whose parents are STILL coddling by using all kinds of scapegoats and wild excuses.

It may work to blame everyone else when your kid is too lazy to make up a high school credit, but it just doesn't cut it when you blame everyone else for the death of a toddler.

 

[USARDOG]

Seems like in many trials there is a motion put forth to throw out the case. Seems like it's kind'a the lawyers version of a lottery. Every once in a while they find some lame judge who buys their ridiculous motion. Or, sometimes they stumble into some police or prosecution procedural violation just by filing one of these ridiculous motions that does cause the case to be thrown out.

I remember once being in traffic court, another guy was charged with "Loud Muffler." Well the judge asks the man if he has anything to say in defense, the guy gets up and says, "Your Honor, how can I be charged with Loud Muffler, I don't even have a muffler!" The judge says, "Case dismissed." The charge should have been excessive noise, not loud muffler.

I think this is the kind of thing that JB is hoping for.

 

[Wudge]

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.

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.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

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.

I'll quote one of them in part here for reference:

... DO PRESENT THAT LEONARD PATRICK GONZALEZ, SR, on or about July 9, 2009, at and in Escambia County, Florida, did unlawfully from a premeditated design to effect the death of a human being, to-wit: BYRD BILLINGS, or while engaged in the perpetration of or in an attempt to perpetrate a felony, to wit: Home Invasion Robbery, did kill and murder said BYRD BILLINGS by shooting him with a firearm, and in the process thereof did use, carry or possess a weapon, to-wit: a firearm, in violation of Sections ......

Okay, this crime was caught on videotape and the perps were caught very soon after the crime.

In Casey's case, she wasn't indicted until months after the disappearace of Caylee after a grand jury deliberated 43 minutes based on the testimony they heard. This testimony is by law secret.

I don't see very much difference between the details in the indictments. In our case, however there was no video tape of the crime, no report of the missing child for 31 days, and no body.

To say that they can't defend Casey due to the lack of facts in the indictment is ludicrous. Stan Strickland will know what to do with this motion. Baez & Co. are only going through the motions, literally.

 

[Wudge]

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.

I'll quote one of them in part here for reference:

... DO PRESENT THAT LEONARD PATRICK GONZALEZ, SR, on or about July 9, 2009, at and in Escambia County, Florida, did unlawfully from a premeditated design to effect the death of a human being, to-wit: BYRD BILLINGS, or while engaged in the perpetration of or in an attempt to perpetrate a felony, to wit: Home Invasion Robbery, did kill and murder said BYRD BILLINGS by shooting him with a firearm, and in the process thereof did use, carry or possess a weapon, to-wit: a firearm, in violation of Sections ......

Okay, this crime was caught on videotape and the perps were caught very soon after the crime.

In Casey's case, she wasn't indicted until months after the disappearace of Caylee after a grand jury deliberated 43 minutes based on the testimony they heard. This testimony is by law secret.

I don't see very much difference between the details in the indictments. In our case, however there was no video tape of the crime, no report of the missing child for 31 days, and no body.

To say that they can't defend Casey due to the lack of facts in the indictment is ludicrous. Stan Strickland will know what to do with this motion. Baez & Co. are only going through the motions, literally.

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.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

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.

True. It's not every murder case where the crime is caught on videotape. In fact, it is the exception rather than the rule.

This case has some physical evidence, but at this point, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence. LE spent the time from July 15 to October 14, 2008 investigating not only Casey and her stories, but many others as well.

The fact that they investigated Jesse Grund, Amy Huizenga, Ricardo Morales, Zenaida's and who knows who-all-else and eliminated them before indicting Casey.

 

[cecybeans]

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.

How apt you use the word poison (Middle English roots and related to the Anglo-French for "potion", which conjures up the idea of Jim Jones' Koolaid to me) to describe what has taken place. But since that hyperbolic term implies intent, let's admit who is intentionally corrupting public opinion. The defense and their endless media interviews and the Anthony family themselves (with a plethora of mistruths and half-truths). Not a peep from the state. The only thing that is "poisoning" the minds of the public is discovery documents that are able to be freely perused due to the Sunshine Laws. So discovery is poison (the public reads evidence and draws their own conclusions) but the highly inflammatory (and largely unsubstantiated) claims the defense makes both in and out of court are not? That is some Koolaid!

 

[tsitra01]

I think I am going to have to testify for the defense. I don't think that LE investigated me. I mean I live in Ohio, don't know any of the principals, wasn't in Fl. when Caylee went missing and wasn't there for the searches. But the way the defense is talking, a lack of evidence that points to anyone else is not a good enough excuse for not investigating others. So do you think that I should point out that I was never investigated?

BTW...I have a cousin down there and she may have been in the Orlando area
around that time. She has been known to wear Baseball hats and has a swaying gait. Yep. theres something the Defense can look into when they
get done with you of course. :dance: