Is Geraldo's Prod Co Paying For the Def? UPDATED 1-09 Entertainment Deal Allegations

[ThoughtElf]

http://http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18523723/detail.htm

Wonder what the Fla. Bar investigation is about?

Being discussed in this thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78347

 

[static]

If JB is taken off this case, I am wondering if any and all photos or pictures would mysteriously end up "where inquiring minds what to know." If he knows this case is going down and he knows he is going to LOSE with what evidence the prosecution has, what a wonderful time to bail out and make some money after he gets kicked off the case. Let me know if that is a possiblity. I am not familiar enough with lawyers laws. ty

 

[debs]

You don't have to have a previous criminal conviction for the laws which preclude people from profitting from their crimes to come into play. It's not like you get a free pass on your first murder! Not to mention you don't have to have a conviction to be a criminal....many don't get caught, but it doesn't mean their activities are lawful.

And I never said she had been convicted...this was my post

Bunny,

Until there is a conviction, the law does not preclude a CLIENT of an attorney from offering up that which would pay for that defense (and in this case, set up a lovely vacation home in the Hampton's for her attorney). It is distasteful, despicable, less than desirous of decent human behavior, but it is perfectly within Casey's right, as an ACCUSED person to do what she must in order to provide herself a defense.

Once her conviction happens, whatever deals that have been signed PRE-CONVICTION are still legally binding and ...... I wanna say......unaffected by the law that kicks in once and if she is convicted. In other words, what goes on now won't be bound by the same law as if they tried to do it AFTER her conviction, but if the contracts are in place NOW, they are legal documents and therefore not subject to a law that is not in place at the time of the contract signing.

Wudge? How'd I do?

 

[Wudge]

You don't have to have a previous criminal conviction for the laws which preclude people from profitting from their crimes to come into play. It's not like you get a free pass on your first murder! Not to mention you don't have to have a conviction to be a criminal....many don't get caught, but it doesn't mean their activities are lawful.

And I never said she had been convicted...this was my post

(smile)

If a defendant is not convicted, who decides the defendant is a criminal and therefore can't profit from their action?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

So what you are saying is that crime pays and continues to pay up until they convict the criminal. Lovely! What a legal system we have!! Sheesh. (shaking my head)

Go ahead...kill your child, write your books, do your interviews, sell your photos, sell your videos, and make sure you do all your deals through your attorney BEFORE you go to trial...so you can pay him to get you out of jail to enjoy your newfound wealth because you killed your child and got away with it.

 

[Wudge]

Bunny,

Until there is a conviction, the law does not preclude a CLIENT of an attorney from offering up that which would pay for that defense (and in this case, set up a lovely vacation home in the Hampton's for her attorney). It is distasteful, despicable, less than desirous of decent human behavior, but it is perfectly within Casey's right, as an ACCUSED person to do what she must in order to provide herself a defense.

Once her conviction happens, whatever deals that have been signed PRE-CONVICTION are still legally binding and ...... I wanna say......unaffected by the law that kicks in once and if she is convicted. In other words, what goes on now won't be bound by the same law as if they tried to do it AFTER her conviction, but if the contracts are in place NOW, they are legal documents and therefore not subject to a law that is not in place at the time of the contract signing.

Wudge? How'd I do?

You certainly out did Bunny.

State laws vary. Depending on the state, terms of the contract and the crime, some states might try a post-conviction clawback.

 

[Wudge]

So what you are saying is that crime pays and continues to pay up until they convict the criminal. Lovely! What a legal system we have!! Sheesh. (shaking my head)

Go ahead...kill your child, write your books, do your interviews, sell your photos, sell your videos, and make sure you do all your deals through your attorney BEFORE you go to trial...so you can pay him to get you out of jail to enjoy your newfound wealth because you killed your child and got away with it.

What crime? If not a jury, who decides?

 

[bessie]

So what you are saying is that crime pays and continues to pay up until they convict the criminal. Lovely! What a legal system we have!! Sheesh. (shaking my head)

Go ahead...kill your child, write your books, do your interviews, sell your photos, sell your videos, and make sure you do all your deals through your attorney BEFORE you go to trial...so you can pay him to get you out of jail to enjoy your newfound wealth because you killed your child and got away with it.

I understand your frustration, SS. But when I consider the alternative -- a legal system that would strip the accused of her rights before a conviction -- the status quo looks pretty good.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

They shouldn't be able to profit or sign deals from the time they are legally charged with the crime until after their fate is decided by the jury!!

 

[debs]

They shouldn't be able to profit or sign deals from the time they are legally charged with the crime until after their fate is decided by the jury!!

You will have to take that up with the state(s) legislature(s). We cannot convict and hold guilty someone only charged, and take away any means they have of defending themselves. People have sold all their assets, hocked jewelry, whatever in order to provide funds for their defense. That this person has gone to THIS depth to do so.............well, don't we all agree that it shines light onto the character of the person.

I must say that whenever I have thought I could not have heard anything else that would surprise me, this entire case has been filled with people more than happy to smack me upside the head with the possibilities.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

This is true, Debs. What a case this is! Now what are the 7 deadly sins again?!

 

[cajun]

Plot thickens already:

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18523723/detail.html

I think he doth protest to much

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

This is true, Debs. What a case this is! Now what are the 7 deadly sins again?!

And while I realize you are probably being rhetorical :

Pride, Lechery, Envy, Anger, Avarice, Gluttony, and Sloth.

So far, I've counted all seven in this case:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[bessie]

And while I realize you are probably being rhetorical :

Pride, Lechery, Envy, Anger, Avarice, Gluttony, and Sloth.

So far, I've counted all seven in this case:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

And that's just since she's been in jail.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

This thread is so long I don't know if this has been covered--if it has please ignore. An attorney (In Florida or any state) may not take a position adverse to his or her client. If JB cut a deal with money flowing to him and contingent upon a guilty verdict--then yes, this would be an ethical violation as well as a grounds for appeal. Don't think he's the brightest bulb in the pack but don't think he's this stupid either. On the other hand, his web bio as far as I can tell is BS and that is an ethical violation so who knows.

 

[mitzi]

after watching the defense atty on JVM last night..think the name was John Brown of Fl...wouldn't be surprised if he was soon announced to be lead counsel.....think last night he submitted his resume by announcing her innocence along with not believing anything about mm......just a thought--I remember when Mark G changed his tune about Lacy Peterson....:waitasec:

ITA...It's Jeff Brown and he sure does act like he'd like to "come aboard".:bang:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

And while I realize you are probably being rhetorical :

Pride, Lechery, Envy, Anger, Avarice, Gluttony, and Sloth.

So far, I've counted all seven in this case:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

LOL Actually...I wasn't being rhetorical! I was trying to remember...because I really was thinking this case had them all and we could probably add a few more.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

And that's just since she's been in jail.

Hahahahahaha~ (spewing coke all over the place) Good one!!!

 

[impatientredhead]

This thread is so long I don't know if this has been covered--if it has please ignore. An attorney (In Florida or any state) may not take a position adverse to his or her client. If JB cut a deal with money flowing to him and contingent upon a guilty verdict--then yes, this would be an ethical violation as well as a grounds for appeal. Don't think he's the brightest bulb in the pack but don't think he's this stupid either. On the other hand, his web bio as far as I can tell is BS and that is an ethical violation so who knows.

They can't take a contingency deal in a criminal case at all. Even if the contingency is based on a not guilty verdict. The attorney can't do his job and give objective advise if his pay out is dependent on a trial. For example a plea deal might be in the best interest in the client.

I cannot imagine JB has taken a contingency deal with anyone. Getting paid off Caylee's image, yes, contingency I hope not.

 

[cecybeans]

They can't take a contingency deal in a criminal case at all. Even if the contingency is based on a not guilty verdict. The attorney can't do his job and give objective advise if his pay out is dependent on a trial. For example a plea deal might be in the best interest in the client.

I cannot imagine JB has taken a contingency deal with anyone. Getting paid off Caylee's image, yes, contingency I hope not.

This might net out way better than a contingency deal. That is generally a percentage limited by a settlement amount and might not even apply in a capital case. If he charges her flat out for this and adds billable hours he is only limited by the dollar size of the media deals he can broker on her behalf. Delaying her trial to his advantage is not the same as promising any kind of verdict. She gets the publicity and makes the money either way before the trial and if she is found guilty, all it means for him is that she can no longer personally profit so his cash flow would be cut off. So he can philanthropically represent her in her fraud charges pro bono, lol!