1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Casey Anthony trial starts today...*Found not guilty*

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Doomsday101, May 24, 2011.

  1. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,747 Messages
    3,094 Likes Received
    also, lol @ Wikipedia being the definitive source of legal information.

    Watch out pep - got a hot new summer associate armed with knowledge gunning for your job :laugh1:
  2. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Waiting to hear where you got yours.

    In the meantime, I have provided numerous sources (legal dictionaries, publications, attorneys) that specifically back up what I am saying about attorneys being required to limit their opening statements to what they intend to try and prove in the trial, and that attorneys are not supposed to make an argument in opening statements.

    What have you provided other than a smug attitude that carries not a single shred of weight? But hey, if you act superior enough people will believe you whether you have any basis for what you say or not, right?

    Wow, you can comicially twist anything to mean anything you want. If someone says a balloon floats up, you can convince yourself that it really means it floats down.

    For 13 pages you have been saying that it is permissible for the defense attorney to present nonevidentiary information in his opning statement, and this speicifically says the goal of they judge is to try and prevent the jury from being influenced by that. Now why in the world would the judge have to concern himself with that if it were proper for Mr. Baez to do it?

    Your logic is simply weak.

    In addition, I see you chose to ignore the multitude of other posts that quoted a variety of sources that specfically say that what Mr. Baez did was improper.

    Again, if you act superior enough people will ignore the facts and just believe you, right?

    Here we go again, ignore a multitude of sources, and ignore that even in the case of Wikipedia they are quoting other sources rather than making up their own information -

    Meawhile you ignored the words of the Supreme Court, the legal-dictionary.com, the North Dakota Law Review, the Duhaime.org legal dictionary, and other sources.

    Nice work - only acknowledge whatever tiny thread of the mountain of proof behooves you ... great strategy!
  3. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Again, do you have a quote of what he said? Cause I don't think it was argument. I know it's easy to confuse you. And no Baez did not present as fact things he didn't expect to prove in the trial. I suppose you're some sort of mind reader though, and know that Baez knew exactly what everyone would say word for word in their testimony.

    False. I have not been saying that. I know you have a hard time actually reading someone's comments and rationally responding to them if they are not in agreement with yours. But please don't make stuff up. It doesn't help your flailing case at all. It makes you look ignorant.

    He asked the questions of George Anthony. That alone shows that he intended to introduce the evidence.

    Presumably there are only two people who could testify to what he stated in opening, George and Casey. He probably thought that the state would be able to prove their case... And if he had thought that it did prove its case, he probably would have had no choice to put Casey on the stand. If the theory was needed, he would have had her testify to it. As it turned out, he didn't think he needed it.

    When an attorney makes a proper opening statement, you give them the benefit of the doubt that they can back up what they state. Opening statements almost never draw an objection from the other side. Because, wait for it...... THEY'RE NOT EVIDENCE. It really doesn't matter what is said in an opening statement, because the jury cannot rely on it AT ALL. You've worked up a lather in your head thinking that this was the most important thing that happened in the case, when it's not even close.

    And you can tell a person's intent from their actions. By his questioning of George, it was clear that he intended to prove his theory. If he hadn't intended on proving it, he wouldn't have asked those questions.

    I know the rules regarding what can and can't be said in an opening statement, because I've given them before. How many times have you given an opening statement at trial? And I never said he was "completely unrestricted" in what he could say. That strawman is a complete figment of your imagination. Not that this tactic is unusual for you. Just figured I'd point out, yet again, how outmatched you are in every way in this discussion, despite the riveting online research you got from wiki and a couple online law review articles. Still you insist on making yourself look worse. I look forward to your next post when you will lower the bar even further.
  4. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    My main specialty is family law.
  5. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,747 Messages
    3,094 Likes Received
    George Washington. Top 20 Law School in the nation. Carry on.

    You still don't get it.

    Legal knowledge is what I've provided from actually being trained/learned in the field....but my knowledge has nothing on your Wikipedia skills.

    ad hominem.

    Unfortunately you don't possess the skill set necessary to properly read any of the sources that you posted. If you would actually like to learn something, let me or peplaw know...otherwise I would recommend that you do what most everyone else did and stick to your emotions on the matter. The legal field is obviously above your pay grade.
  6. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,747 Messages
    3,094 Likes Received
    Jeeze...you're a better man than me. Couldn't do it, bro.
  7. MarionBarberThe4th

    MarionBarberThe4th Well-Known Member

    12,096 Messages
    228 Likes Received

    I am correct so I am going to respond just so I get the last word
  8. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    33,288 Messages
    1,004 Likes Received
    Close your mouth ...... your DNA is spilling out.
  9. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,012 Messages
    18 Likes Received
    hahaha, that was fast. Post deletion!

    lol @ people actually trying to argue with lawyers in here.
  10. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Even George Washington needs custodial staff. I can't say I'm inmpressed.
  11. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,747 Messages
    3,094 Likes Received
    Not only is he a Holiday Inn Express lawyer, he's a stand up comic!
  12. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Damn, I'm good.
  13. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    I've asked thise kinds of questions before, and you two have avodided them like a plague, but here goes again.


    What would have prohibitied Mr. Baez from doing the following:

    Before the trial starts Mr. Baez walks up to a random man in the gallery - a man he neither knows nor had ever even heard of - and he says he looks familiar and asks him his name. After hearing the name he apologizes to the man and passes it off as mistaking him for someone else.

    Then, the trial starts. Mr. Baez begins his opening statement, and as it progresses he walks over toward the gallery, points to the man, and says that Casey shouldn't be on trial because that man, Mr. Jonathan Brown, killed Caylee Anthony. He then goes on to describe exactly how he did it - he came to the house in the dark, just after midnight, he broke in through the kitchen door wearing dark clothes, and he went to Casey's bedroom, tied her up at gunpoint, then went to Caylee's room where he put duct tape on her mouth and raped her repeatedly for the next several hours. Caylee eventually died, and he took her body, but before he did, he threatened to come back and kill Casey and her entire family if she ever told anyone what happened. Then he left and took her body to the wooded area and dumped it. Mr. Baez expresses anger and outrage that Mr. Jonathan Brown is sitting there a free man right in the courtroom while the police should be arresting him and putting him on trial instead of Casey, and he accusses Mr. Jonathan Brown of showing up in the gallery to remind Casey of his threat to kill her entire family if she talked.

    Of course, Mr. Baex had no knowledge before that day that Mr. Jonathan Brown even existed, and Mr. Baez makes no effort at any point in the trial to present any evidence or testimony to back up his story. He just destroyed a man's reputation on national TV by accussing him of things Mr. Baez not only was in no position to know, but that Mr. Baez didn't even have a way to try and prove during the trial.

    AND ACCORDING TO YOU THIS IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTIBLE AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OPENING STATEMENT BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS NO BURDEN OF PROOF.


    Sorry Mr. George Washington, but your claim to being a distinguished law school graduate just flew out the window. It doesn't take an attorney to know that our courts do not provide for even the defense to have the unrestricted ability to make any accusation or claim of fact or to destroy a person's reputation without the burden of having to back it up, even if such claims/accusatioins/character assasinations are made during opening statements.

    This is not what it means for the burden of proof to be on the proscution. Not being burdened with having to prove innocence does not equate to not being burdened to prove what you claim as fact.
  14. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,747 Messages
    3,094 Likes Received
    pep, you want to take this one?
  15. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Hold on... gotta do some googling and check wiki. BRB.
  16. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Yep, as usual, glib with no backbone. Your entire argument is based on how smug and sarcastic you can be, but like Mr. Baez, you have never produced a single shread of foundation for what you claim.

    I also noticed that once again, you avoided the question like the plague. I think this is the 3rd time i have presented a similar question.


    I also am getting a chuckle out of reembering how you started backpeddling when I provided all the quotes from legal publications and changed your tune and started claiming that Mr. Baez CLEARLY INTENDED to present eveidence to back up his claim, backing off your previous 13 page claim that Mr. Baez had no obligation to do so. Now that Casmith showed up with his sarcastic, but 100% hollow one liners you are suddenly emboldened to jump badk on the bandwagon of writing words with no substance.
  17. Stautner

    Stautner New Member

    10,690 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Practice and Procedure Column
    W.F. Gallagher




    OPENING STATEMENT


    Purpose, Scope and Importance of Opening Statement.

    Chief Justice Burger, concurring in United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 612, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1082, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976) stated:

    An opening statement has a narrow purpose and scope. It is to state what evidence will be presented, to make it easier for the jurors to understand what is to follow, and to relate parts of the evidence and testimony to the whole; it is not an occasion for argument. To make statements which will not or cannot be supported by proof is, if it relates to significant elements of the case, professional misconduct. Moreover, it is fundamentally unfair to an opposing party to allow an attorney, with the standing an prestige inherent in being an officer of the court, to present to the jury statements not susceptible of proof but intended to influence the jury in reaching a verdict.
  18. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    I've never seen you ask this question before... let's get that out of the way now. If you feel you have, feel free to link it.

    That's a fun story... but ultimately has no bearing on what actually happened. Do you know what a straw man is? I've called you out on that tactic in this very thread, and I know you've used it in other threads. Yet you continue to do it.

    I've still not seen you address the fact that Baez actually cross-examined George Anthony on his theory about him molesting Casey and wanting her to cover it up. Do you not get that? Do you understand what that line of questioning gets at?

    So while "Mr. Jonathan Brown" is a sympathetic figure, ultimately, he's irrelevant, since it didn't happen that way.

    But since you asked. If Mr. Baez HAD done something comparable to that -- which he didn't -- you can bet that the prosecution would object to the opening statement, and Mr. Baez would face a grievance or other reprimand from the court for unethical behavior.

    What Mr. Baez did, was put forth a theory that actually had a connection to the case, and that witnesses could actually testify to. Your example is the epitome of a strawman.

    You can bold it, capitalize it, italicize it, underline it, put it in red font, whatever you want to do with it... it doesn't make it correct. No one in here has claimed that the defense can do whatever they feel like doing without restriction in opening statements. You really need to reread this thread. Well... check that. I don't know that it would help, seeing as your reading comprehension is on par with a member of the custodial staff at George Washington University Law School.

    You're going to have to show us where casmith said that a defense attorney is unrestricted as to what he can say in opening statements...

    Like I said, there are presumably two people that could have testified to the defense's theory re: Casey and her father. If the defense feels like it might call Casey, then it can include in its opening statement what Casey would testify to. If the defense does include such a theory, it does not mean that Casey MUST testify. If that were the case, no defense attorney would get to put on an opening statement with a defensive issue, as they would automatically waive their client's 5th Amendment right to testify. Then the defense can subsequently question and cross-examine state's witnesses regarding their theory. Likewise, such lines of questioning do not waive their client's 5th Amendment right to refuse to testify, regardless of what the witnesses actual testimony is (whether they back up the defense theory or not).

    The 5th Amendment right is not waived until the defense actually decides to put the defendant on the stand, have them admonished of their 5th Amendment right to refuse to testify, waive said rights, swear to tell the truth, and answer questions. No opening statement theory, no line of questioning of other witnesses, and no arguments from defense counsel in closing waives that right.

    Sorry to break it to you... but it's obvious that you don't know how the 5th Amendment had been applied consistently over the years to a criminal defendant's rights. There's something you aren't getting about it. It's ok. It's not easy to pick up on. It's takes education on the subject and actual practice using the 5th A to know how it is used, and what it means. You don't get it from doing a google search and pulling up some law review articles or other off-point case law.

    I really don't think I have the words to convey to you how silly it is that you continue to claim that essentially the defense's opening statement could waive a defendant's 5th Amendment rights. It's the difference between real world legal experience and Holiday Inn Express legal education.
  19. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    I've provided tons more information and foundation than you have. It comes from experience, not wikipedia, so I know it may be foreign to you.

    I've answered all of your questions. Do you think you'll ever get around to mine? Tell me, what was the point of Baez's questioning of George Anthony regarding his theory, if it wasn't to prove the theory he put forth in opening?

    Where do you get this crap? It's not even in the same atmosphere as what I've been saying. You're not doing yourself any favors. Look at all the people backing you up in this thread. The only person who was debating us with you has long since left. You catch a person every now and then commenting on how over your head this conversation is, yet you keep at it.

    It's like you're being suffocated by a python and are still putting up a struggle. The problem is, it's been a foregone conclusion that you were on the losing end of this battle for about a week now. At some point, when you're watching National Geographic, you just tell the animal to capitulate to the python. That time has come for you. It's time to stop. I've called checkmate days ago, and you're still looking for a move to be made. There isn't one.
  20. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Another google search... Guess what, THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN!!

    That's what people who know legal research refer to as case law that is not on point. The emphasis added by you doesn't change that fact.

Share This Page