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

[CowboyMcCoy]

Yes. My understanding was she was convicted of four misdemeanors. Therefore, they it's unlikely they can be stacked.

Very unlikely, even though the media is speculating he may stack consecutive sentences to protect her from being harmed by the mob..

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is trial advocacy 101. Heed these words and you'll have a leg up on over 80% of Americans right now when it comes to talking law.

I'll stick with my own thoughts on criminal law. Thanks for setting criteria for us though.

 

[casmith07]

Very unlikely, even though the media is speculating he may stack consecutive sentences to protect her from being harmed by the mob..

From my understanding (and peplaw can step in at any moment) you can't stack consecutive sentences for misdemeanors, especially because each count is of the same offense.

The only way they could essentially stack the sentences, from what I understand, is if she were convicted on three separate misdemeanor charges, i.e. 1 charge of reckless driving, 1 obstruction of justice, and 1 drug possession. 4 counts or specifications under the same charge generally can't be "stacked". The sentence will end up running concurrently. It'll get reviewed on appeal if that were the case and it would absolutely get remanded.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Like I said, I need to see it in context. I didn't hear it, and I know you don't have the transcript. I highly doubt though that through his questioning, he directly claimed the child drowned, that her dad covered it up, and that he molested Casey as a child.

I hear that he may have done that in his opening statement. Opening statements are NOT evidence. Opening statements are what the party believes the evidence WILL show. Baez would have said essentially, I believe the evidence will show ________. It's not a claim or accusation.

Then when you get to evidence, he's questioning Casey's dad, he cross-examines him with the "theory." Baez is thinking that if he tells the truth that it backs up his theory. Apparently the evidence didn't show what he believed it would. What happens then? In closing argument, Baez CANNOT make an argument that is not supported by the evidence. The prosecution makes a Motion in Limine to prevent Baez from mentioning that theory.

If the jury is presented a theory in opening statements that is not supported by the evidence that is introduced, then it is not available in closing argument. And the jury is only supposed to consider the evidence, so the theory is basically thrown out.

So like I said, I need to know how this "accusation or claim" as you call it was presented, and the context. My first impression is that Baez could only have presented his theory in opening statements. If that's not the case, I want to see how it was done before I make a determination on whether your concern is valid.

Firstly, there was testimony where the question was brought up "can you rule out an accidental drowning?" This from the defense.

And, of course, since the body was decomposed so much they could not tell.

And Baez can make an argument based on anything, because testimony, questions..lies, perception, et cetera are all evidence.

Not to mention the other aspects of law you don't bring up like knowing the actual facts of how the testimony about her possibly drowning was brought in.

Of course you don't make claims during questioning; you insinuate them, imply them, make innuendos about them etc.

This is a bit winded, but all he would have had to do in closing, and I'm sure he did, is touch on the fact that the examiner said he could not rule out accidental death....

The jury is then obligated by logic to consider that as a possibility.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

From my understanding (and peplaw can step in at any moment) you can't stack consecutive sentences for misdemeanors, especially because each count is of the same offense.

The only way they could essentially stack the sentences, from what I understand, is if she were convicted on three separate misdemeanor charges, i.e. 1 charge of reckless driving, 1 obstruction of justice, and 1 drug possession. 4 counts or specifications under the same charge generally can't be "stacked". The sentence will end up running concurrently. It'll get reviewed on appeal if that were the case and it would absolutely get remanded.

In Texas you can stack but it's very not likely, there is a code meant to keep the jails from being crowded with offenders with multiple minor offenses.

I'm not sure if the law is the same in Florida. But it likely is. However, it's up to the judge ultimately to grant the statue for a consecutive sentence(s).

 

[casmith07]

In Texas you can stack but it's very not likely, there is a code meant to keep the jails from being crowded with offenders with multiple minor offenses.

I'm not sure if the law is the same in Florida. But it likely is. However, it's up to the judge ultimately to grant the statue for a consecutive sentence(s).

I understand that...I didn't say you couldn't stack, just that generally it isn't allowed for multiple counts of the same offense. Basically, only the overall charge will carry the sentence...you get sentenced once for lying to investigators, for example, not four times.

She's also going to get time served for whatever sentence she receives, so it won't be that long.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I figured they knew she wasn't innocent. They weren't willing to convict on circumstantial evidence like they did Scott Peterson.

Well, yeah, one thing good that came out of this case is that unless it's vs. the government, these sorts of cases shouldn't be hammered on Nancy Grace.

That witch, for lack of a better word, need to begone. Begone witch, begone!!

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I understand that...I didn't say you couldn't stack, just that generally it isn't allowed for multiple counts of the same offense. Basically, only the overall charge will carry the sentence...you get sentenced once for lying to investigators, for example, not four times.

She's also going to get time served for whatever sentence she receives, so it won't be that long.

Oh, I thought she had several different charges. That I have not kept up with. In any case, she'll most likely be out on Thurs.

But this is one case where I could see a judge keeping his thumb on her for a few just to keep her safe.

 

[peplaw06]

From my understanding (and peplaw can step in at any moment) you can't stack consecutive sentences for misdemeanors, especially because each count is of the same offense.

The only way they could essentially stack the sentences, from what I understand, is if she were convicted on three separate misdemeanor charges, i.e. 1 charge of reckless driving, 1 obstruction of justice, and 1 drug possession. 4 counts or specifications under the same charge generally can't be "stacked". The sentence will end up running concurrently. It'll get reviewed on appeal if that were the case and it would absolutely get remanded.

I've never seen stacked sentences on misdemeanors, but I don't know for sure it can't happen. It sounds like most of the TV pundits are saying she can be in for four years, which could only be stacked sentences, so maybe it can happen. I don't know for sure. And I don't practice in Florida either.

Firstly, there was testimony where the question was brought up "can you rule out an accidental drowning?" This from the defense.

And, of course, since the body was decomposed so much they could not tell.

That would not be a "claim or accusation" as some have stated. That's called creating reasonable doubt.

And Baez can make an argument based on anything, because testimony, questions..lies, perception, et cetera are all evidence.

Questions are not evidence. And you can only make an argument in closing if evidence is presented that supports the argument.

Not to mention the other aspects of law you don't bring up like knowing the actual facts of how the testimony about her possibly drowning was brought in.

This is what I'm asking... I didn't hear all of the witnesses. If there was testimony about Caylee possibly having drowned, I would be shocked if it was Baez who directly claimed that. It just doesn't happen.

Of course you don't make claims during questioning; you insinuate them, imply them, make innuendos about them etc.

OK, then if Baez didn't make a claim, then we can't say he presented Casey's testimony though she avoided taking the stand.

This is a bit winded, but all he would have had to do in closing, and I'm sure he did, is touch on the fact that the examiner said he could not rule out accidental death....

The jury is then obligated by logic to consider that as a possibility.

The evidence from the medical examiners was that they could not pinpoint a cause of death. They likely could have had a couple of possible causes of death, but still have been able to rule others out. I mean, I think they probably ruled out that she was burned or shot to death. But if they couldn't rule out that it was an accidental death, of course Baez is going to hammer that. That doesn't mean he claimed in closing argument that the medical examiner couldn't rule out an accidental death, therefore my theory that she drowned and there was a coverup is true. He just created the doubt that it could have been an accident, and the jury can run wild with their own theories.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They have to prevent the state from proving their case.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I guess what i'm saying is you can make insinuations, which can be interpreted as claims. I don't think it's necessary to belabor the point that she didn't make that claim, per se. But her lawyer, very capably, insinuated it and implied it so successfully that one juror believe this person is innocent...not just not guilty, but innocent.

He said something like,"I'm convinced it was an accident they tried to cover up."

Not verbatim, but point made.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I've never seen stacked sentences on misdemeanors, but I don't know for sure it can't happen. It sounds like most of the TV pundits are saying she can be in for four years, which could only be stacked sentences, so maybe it can happen. I don't know for sure. And I don't practice in Florida either.

Depends, but most judges allow for consecutive cases as far as I know. I have heard of the threat of stacking, but have never seen a defense attorney who couldn't run them consecutive.

That would not be a "claim or accusation" as some have stated. That's called creating reasonable doubt.

Semantics. As a lawyer, you know damn well what you're doing from a jurisprudence aspect. You do what you have to in order to raise reasonable doubt.

Questions are not evidence. And you can only make an argument in closing if evidence is presented that supports the argument.

Questions dictate testimony and are kept on record and transcripts. I find it odd you don't see these as part of the evidence. If nothing else, the examination can bring out evidence...and on the cross-examination, I think you're leaving out something very crucial to this case and, imo, it's result.

The defense can lead, insinuate...imply ..even make a claim if it's in question form. There is a lot more leeway on cross-examination with making ...let's call them pseudo-claims disguised as questions....

Of course, I agree with you, technically, they are not "claims".

This is what I'm asking... I didn't hear all of the witnesses. If there was testimony about Caylee possibly having drowned, I would be shocked if it was Baez who directly claimed that. It just doesn't happen.

There was indeed... He raised the question. But the media got wind of it during the discovery or something...but they knew exactly what he was going to do and he did it.

OK, then if Baez didn't make a claim, then we can't say he presented Casey's testimony though she avoided taking the stand.

We can't say that. But even though most people don't testify. In this case, I think it's telling that she did not.

The evidence from the medical examiners was that they could not pinpoint a cause of death. They likely could have had a couple of possible causes of death, but still have been able to rule others out. I mean, I think they probably ruled out that she was burned or shot to death. But if they couldn't rule out that it was an accidental death, of course Baez is going to hammer that. That doesn't mean he claimed in closing argument that the medical examiner couldn't rule out an accidental death, therefore my theory that she drowned and there was a coverup is true. He just created the doubt that it could have been an accident, and the jury can run wild with their own theories.

That's the obvious implication. I don't see the reason to belabor this point though.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They have to prevent the state from proving their case.

In my view, they did prove it with very much evidence supporting it. They just didn't have a finger print. But any logical person knows she was involved with her daughters death. Therefore, should be punished.

Just my view.

 

[casmith07]

Oh, I thought she had several different charges. That I have not kept up with. In any case, she'll most likely be out on Thurs.

But this is one case where I could see a judge keeping his thumb on her for a few just to keep her safe.

She had four charges.

I. Murder, First-Degree
II. Aggravated Child Abuse
III. Aggravated Manslaughter
IV. Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer (4 Counts)

One huge problem with charges II and III is that in order for a crime to be "aggravated" there must be some sort of use of a deadly weapon or means likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death...without a cause of death, there is virtually no way to prove aggravation as a modifier to those offenses.

 

[peplaw06]

Semantics. As a lawyer, you know damn well what you're doing from a jurisprudence aspect. You do what you have to in order to raise reasonable doubt.

No, it's not semantics. The point being made is that Baez testified in place of Casey. I would be shocked if that were true. Presentation of a theory by a defense attorney is not testimony.

Questions dictate testimony and are kept on record and transcripts. I find it odd you don't see these as part of the evidence. If nothing else, the examination can bring out evidence...and on the cross-examination, I think you're leaving out something very crucial to this case and, imo, it's result.

The defense can lead, insinuate...imply ..even make a claim if it's in question form. There is a lot more leeway on cross-examination with making ...let's call them pseudo-claims disguised as questions....

Just cause it's on the record doesn't make it evidence. Opening statements and closing arguments are on the record too. Not evidence. The question an attorney asks is also not evidence. The only pieces of evidence are exhibits and testimony, generally speaking.

There was indeed... He raised the question. But the media got wind of it during the discovery or something...but they knew exactly what he was going to do and he did it.

I think you're wrong. I never heard anything about this theory until the opening statements were made. And even if he did it then, it's still not a direct claim. Raising the question is not testimony, and he is allowed to raise questions in a court of law. That's the whole point of the defense.

We can't say that. But even though most people don't testify. In this case, I think it's telling that she did not.

It may be telling to you. But it cannot be telling for a juror. The Constitution specifically prohibits it from being telling to a juror.

That's the obvious implication. I don't see the reason to belabor this point though.

Maybe to you. Again, you're not a juror. And a juror's own biases impact the implication they get. An implication a juror comes up with is not testimony.

In my view, they did prove it with very much evidence supporting it. They just didn't have a finger print. But any logical person knows she was involved with her daughters death. Therefore, should be punished.

Just my view.

She may have been involved. But according to the jury, the elements of the crime weren't satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Passepartout]

What is even sicker. Is now books and movies. Are going to be made, out of this case. And it just goes to show you justice delayed is justice denied for little victims like little Caylee.

The media is calling this the crime of the century. OJ or the Lindbergh baby case were more of the crime of the century.

Sure our justice system is not perfect. Far from it. But it is the best system in the world compared, to other world systems of justice.

Still though, it is sad for victims like Caylee when we know, people that are guilty like Casey Anthony. Get off and get movie and book deals swarm at them.

RIP Caylee as you deserved better! Much more better.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think the cause of death angle is a little ridiculous.

If some brilliant mastermind cleans out a bank, is caught after the fact and no one can figure out how he did it they don't just say, "well we don't know so it must not have happened".

What a ridiculous standard to apply. "We don't know so it didn't happen".

What does it matter if the method of murder is known? The baby is dead, was discarded like a piece of trash and there's a plethora of irrational behavior pointing directly to the mother. Who cares how it was done?

The jury isn't there to determine the proximal cause of death. They are they to determine if the mother was responsible for the death, no matter how it occurred.

And this is the guy I heard on phone interview talking about how they couldn't determine the actual cause of death.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4365161...uror-sick-our-stomach-over-verdict/?gt1=43001

And motive? How about she's a sociopath? Does anyone beg for a motive when other nut jobs commit these gruesome crimes? No, we just acknowledge they are a bat **** crazy and don't need to understand why.

What a complete failure.

It wouldn't shock me at all if a few months from now one of the jurors comes out and says that they are having 2nd guesses regarding their decision.

 

[Hoofbite]

What is even sicker. Is now books and movies. Are going to be made, out of this case. And it just goes to show you justice delayed is justice denied for little victims like little Caylee.

The media is calling this the crime of the century. OJ or the Lindbergh baby case were more of the crime of the century.

Sure our justice system is not perfect. Far from it. But it is the best system in the world compared, to other world systems of justice.

Still though, it is sad for victims like Caylee when we know, people that are guilty like Casey Anthony. Get off and get movie and book deals swarm at them.

RIP Caylee as you deserved better! Much more better.

This is a fact?

 

[cowboys#1]

What is even sicker. Is now books and movies. Are going to be made, out of this case. And it just goes to show you justice delayed is justice denied for little victims like little Caylee.

The media is calling this the crime of the century. OJ or the Lindbergh baby case were more of the crime of the century.

Sure our justice system is not perfect. Far from it. But it is the best system in the world compared, to other world systems of justice.

Still though, it is sad for victims like Caylee when we know, people that are guilty like Casey Anthony. Get off and get movie and book deals swarm at them.

RIP Caylee as you deserved better! Much more better.

those cases happened last century

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I think you're wrong. I never heard anything about this theory until the opening statements were made. And even if he did it then, it's still not a direct claim. Raising the question is not testimony, and he is allowed to raise questions in a court of law. That's the whole point of the defense.

Nope. And again, I think you're missing the point that a clever lawyer can lead a witness on cross and essentially tell a story. No, technically, it's not a "claim". But harping on that is missing the human, linguistic, anthropological and even linguistic ambiguity.

I guess we come from two schools of thought. Even with questions, you're most of the time telling a story through questions and rhetoric of your own if you have a good defense.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I think the cause of death angle is a little ridiculous.

If some brilliant mastermind cleans out a bank, is caught after the fact and no one can figure out how he did it they don't just say, "well we don't know so it must not have happened".

What a ridiculous standard to apply. "We don't know so it didn't happen".

It wouldn't shock me at all if a few months from now one of the jurors comes out and says that they are having 2nd guesses regarding their decision.

Not the same situation really. If the bank robber is caught, i'd assume there's evidence to show he was in the bank and walked out with the cash.

There is no evidence to show that she killed the kid, in any way. To prove murder or manslaughter you have to satisfy certain criteria.. the prosecution did not.

BTW.. the jurors have already come out and said it "sickens" then that they had to give that verdict, but they were correct.. the evidence just wasn't there. Horrible day for Florida state government officials from the DA, to the prosecuting attorneys, to the police force, etc.. major embarassment.

 

[peplaw06]

I think the cause of death angle is a little ridiculous.

If some brilliant mastermind cleans out a bank, is caught after the fact and no one can figure out how he did it they don't just say, "well we don't know so it must not have happened".

What a ridiculous standard to apply. "We don't know so it didn't happen".

What does it matter if the method of murder is known? The baby is dead, was discarded like a piece of trash and there's a plethora of irrational behavior pointing directly to the mother. Who cares how it was done?

The jury isn't there to determine the proximal cause of death. They are they to determine if the mother was responsible for the death, no matter how it occurred.

And this is the guy I heard on phone interview talking about how they couldn't determine the actual cause of death.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4365161...uror-sick-our-stomach-over-verdict/?gt1=43001

And motive? How about she's a sociopath? Does anyone beg for a motive when other nut jobs commit these gruesome crimes? No, we just acknowledge they are a bat **** crazy and don't need to understand why.

What a complete failure.

It wouldn't shock me at all if a few months from now one of the jurors comes out and says that they are having 2nd guesses regarding their decision.

Comparing a bank robbery to a death is slightly ridiculous. Banks don't get robbed accidentally. And presumably if you're saying the robber was "caught," then there would be some evidence tying him to the scene or to the loot. You can't just say "John Doe was in the area at the time, and well, there's no one else that plausibly could have done it."

Near as I can tell there was no evidence tying Casey to the death other than the fact that she didn't report it and there was a google search on chloroform. The smell in the car was apparently impeached and/or denied numerous times.