Casey Anthony Grand Jury Meeting Details Leaked

[Noway]

With as many witnesses as will be called, it's certainly going to be a long process, won't it?

I mean it's not like a one-day deal?

 

[whiteangora]

I don't see his criticism is "whining" and he doesn't need confidence in his client's innocence in order to defend her. That's his job. I don't see any lack of experience either - so far he's had eight motions heard in a case where there have not even been any charges.


JMO

There have been charges,
Child Neglect
Lying to LE
and
the new forgery related charges.

I strongly disagree about his whining, he has done it from day one.
Any lawyer that does not believe in the GJ process should not
hold a law license. moo

 

[cfromcanada]

Why? He's not exactly being called as a defence witness, so I think it's a fair description to say he's being called to testify against her.

The only thing secret about the GJ is who is on it and what is said. It is fine to know when they are meeting and possible witnesses. George is going to have to tell about the confrontation with the gas cans and going near the trunk so that pretty much makes it "against" KC. The GJ is a prosecuturial tool so what do people expect? Especially a defense lawyer.

 

[AnnInFlorida]

What bothers me is the incorrect statements that George is going to testifyagainst casey etc...

A Grand Jury accepts evidence; such as testimony.....

There is no such things as testifying for or against......one mearly testifies and answers all questions from the Grand Jury or a member of the Prosecution team.

All people presented to the Grand Jury are just merely answering questions under oath and subject to prosecution for admiting crimes or lying to the gj.

I find it repulsive that news organization would twist reality to report that George will testify against his daughter and the fact that the gj will even convene and when.

Everyone testifying tomorrow will be "testifying against KC." The State will be there to present evidence against her....not support for her.

 

[weasel]

<<he doesn't need confidence in his client's innocence in order to defend her>>

I don't think he's "whining" either. I think he's doing his best to defend a client in a very difficult situation. That's his job. Which would the public prefer, "whining" now or an appeal based on ineffective council?

 

[weasel]

<<There is no such things as testifying for or against>>

I agree. GJ proceedings are used as a fact finding tool pretty much. The prosecution presents facts of the case to the GJ. This includes the witnesses who are called. They just pretty much lay out the meat of their case and let the GJ decide of they have cause to make an arrest.

 

[CaliKid]

He's whining about the GJ process, he whined in court on Friday and he's been whining to the press since Day 1.

 

[AnnInFlorida]

If the GJ says the state has a case will Casey be charged with murder and arrested immediately?

Regarding Jose Baez.....I think his assistant is 100% better attorney than he is.

After speaking with a friend in LE, I found out that as soon as the GJ signs the indictment, the paperwork is processed and turned over to LE. They then make the arrest.

 

[weasel]

<<Sorry Jose........this is the American justice system at work.>>

Which is exactly what he's trying to do. Like it or not, and I am not sticking up for Casey or another other suspect, the American justice system allows for a person accused of a crime to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not the court of public opinion) and afforded the right to have adequate council for defense. Whether the public likes HB or not, he has taken an oath and he has a job to do. Regardless of what people think of defense lawyers, they have their place in the justice system.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

<<he doesn't need confidence in his client's innocence in order to defend her>>

I don't think he's "whining" either. I think he's doing his best to defend a client in a very difficult situation. That's his job. Which would the public prefer, "whining" now or an appeal based on ineffective council?[/QUOTE]

I think the way he has dealt with the press contributes to his appearing to be incompetent counsel. He may be doing his best, and I agree with
the fact he was granted disclosure of various things on Friday, but I don't think he is much of a defence attorney, and I think the jury will cringe at his smirks and that won't help his client at all. IMOO of course.

 

[Chezhire]

A state can seat a grand jury for any case they want to, not just capital cases.

The Supreme Court states the importance of secrecy but does not mandate it. IIRC, Florida grand jury's are routinely seated, and not done in secret for the most part.

IMO, the article is making a mountain out of a molehill.

ITA - and I also suspect that the newswriter has done the same with the alleged comments by the Anthony neighbors...I rather doubt they're "outraged" about anything except for the constant protesting.

 

[Chezhire]

: I don't see a single quote from a "neighbor" of the Anthony's. Lee Vista is NOT East Orlando where the Anthonys live. Overgeneralization by the press, I'd say

...and I'd also call it sensationalism, in that the newswriter was trying to make more of a "story" than he/she really had. 'Course, what's new?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

<<Sorry Jose........this is the American justice system at work.>>

Which is exactly what he's trying to do. Like it or not, and I am not sticking up for Casey or another other suspect, the American justice system allows for a person accused of a crime to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not the court of public opinion) and afforded the right to have adequate council for defense. Whether the public likes HB or not, he has taken an oath and he has a job to do. Regardless of what people think of defense lawyers, they have their place in the justice system.

Defence lawyers play a very important role in the judicial process and I think it is imperative that all persons, no matter how heinous their actions, receive adequate and competent representation. JB may be trying his best to give that to her, but IMO, he's not very good at it. Those wins on Friday were easy wins, frankly, I'm surprised the Prosecutor made him fight for those things. I think it would be smarter if they appeared to be as fair as possible. I want her to get a fair trial, just like we are all entitled to.

 

[Gaia713]

<<he doesn't need confidence in his client's innocence in order to defend her>>

I don't think he's "whining" either. I think he's doing his best to defend a client in a very difficult situation. That's his job. Which would the public prefer, "whining" now or an appeal based on ineffective council?[/QUOTE]

I think the way he has dealt with the press contributes to his appearing to be incompetent counsel. He may be doing his best, and I agree with
the fact he was granted disclosure of various things on Friday, but I don't think he is much of a defence attorney, and I think the jury will cringe at his smirks and that won't help his client at all. IMOO of course.

It takes a great deal to get a conviction overturneed because of inadequate counsel. He has already proven that he is actively (altho poorly) working for his defendent. There's no such thing as someone getting a conviction overturned because of a lazy or stupid counsel.

 

[Chezhire]

What bothers me is the incorrect statements that George is going to testifyagainst casey etc...

A Grand Jury accepts evidence; such as testimony.....

There is no such things as testifying for or against......one mearly testifies and answers all questions from the Grand Jury or a member of the Prosecution team.

All people presented to the Grand Jury are just merely answering questions under oath and subject to prosecution for admiting crimes or lying to the gj.

I find it repulsive that news organization would twist reality to report that George will testify against his daughter and the fact that the gj will even convene and when.

...more sensationalism... and it is sad these newswriters think the public will believe them, isn't it?

 

[Bev]

Well, any attorney who doesn't believe in the grand jury should be losing his license to practice law is going to include a supreme court judge or two. Many constitutional law scholars are critical of the grand jury process and some jurisdictions in the U.S. have eliminated it altogether, while some are reforming the proceedings through statutes.

Weasel is correct, whether you like him or not, or whether you think KC is guilty or not, JB is doing his job.

 

[cfromcanada]

My biggest problem with JB is that he continues to use the mysterious third party as his defense. It will be easily debunked and not hard to prove that it was CA herself calling in misleading tips!! This is a defense that has nothing to back it up and he should have thought that through. His client is a pathological liar. How is she going to provide any proof of a mysterious third party? He is going to be up a creek with that mode of defense

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "...Weasel is correct, whether you like him or not, or whether you think KC is guilty or not, JB is doing his job. (Emphasis added by Chezhire.)

I would agree that he has a job to do, not that he is doing his job. I found his performance during Friday's motion hearings to be nothing more than barely adequate, and that takes into account Judge S squiring him around the courtroom throughout.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

It takes a great deal to get a conviction overturneed because of inadequate counsel. He has already proven that he is actively (altho poorly) working for his defendent. There's no such thing as someone getting a conviction overturned because of a lazy or stupid counsel.

I agree. You can have a very very bad lawyer who made a lot of serious mistakes and still not stand a chance of getting a re-trial. And many criminals are not smart enough to know they have a bad lawyer til it's too late.

 

[Insomnia Momma]

Defence lawyers play a very important role in the judicial process and I think it is imperative that all persons, no matter how heinous their actions, receive adequate and competent representation. JB may be trying his best to give that to her, but IMO, he's not very good at it. Those wins on Friday were easy wins, frankly, I'm surprised the Prosecutor made him fight for those things. I think it would be smarter if they appeared to be as fair as possible. I want her to get a fair trial, just like we are all entitled to.

I honestly think the prosecution didn't put up much of a fight, more filibustering IMO.

I have said from the start that I want Casey to have a fair trial and I pray JB is up to this job, it's a tough case for any attorney let alone someone green. I pray that there is NOTHING in this trial, when it comes, that keeps a jury of her peers from convicting her to the fullest extent of the law based on the overwhelming evidence in the case.