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

[CowboyMcCoy]

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.

I disagree. The Constitution protects life, liberty and justice. Do you really believe those were done for the child in this case?

Even if you're speaking from a strictly positivist law view, which you are, the spirit of the law failed in this case. And my argument for the child being Constitutionally protected still works and I think carries more weight than the mother's rights.

I also argue that the guarantees of life, liberty and justice for that little girl trump anything granted by the justice system for that lying mother. I don't know if you have children, but I think you'd see what I was saying if you did...

If you do, and I'm wrong, then I apologize ahead of time.

 

[peplaw06]

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.

Nope what?

The lawyer can only tell a story on cross if the witness gives him the answers that allow him to. And you have to be speaking hypothetically, because best I can remember George Anthony denied the theory Baez was trying to present in his cross examination.

And again, if the lawyer is successful on cross, it is the testimony of the witness. It's not the lawyer's testimony, or the testimony of some third person.

 

[peplaw06]

I disagree. The constitution protects life, liberty and justice. Do you really believe those were done for the child in this case?

The fifth amendment protects a defendant's right not to be compelled to incriminate herself. Case precedent tells us that a defendant exercising this fundamental right cannot be used against the defendant. So disagree with that all you want, but you're wrong.

Even if you're speaking from a strictly positivist law view, which you are, the spirit of the law failed in this case. And my argument still works and I think carries more weight than the mother's rights.

No one person's rights are more important than another's.

I also argue that the guarantees of life, liberty and justice for that little girl trump anything granted by the justice system for that lying mother. I don't know if you have children, but I think you'd see what I was saying if you did...

If you do, and I'm wrong, then I apologize ahead of time.

A person has no "right to justice." I don't know where you're getting that from.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

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.

This I agree with. But implications are often interpreted in favor of the more clever and likable lawyer....not necessarily the case that a juror's interpretation from implied testimony isn't influenced by the insinuations implied by the context and phrasing of the questions presented by the defense. Which are, again, not "claims".

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

Which is the ruling. I just diagree..and all attempts at even keeping her in on consecutive will be remanded. That is even unlikely. I think she'll be out scott-free on Thurs.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The fifth amendment protects a defendant's right not to be compelled to incriminate herself. Case precedent tells us that a defendant exercising this fundamental right cannot be used against the defendant. So disagree with that all you want, but you're wrong.

It's not that she didn't testify in and of itself. It's that she never rebutted to the lies she told which lead me to believe that's her story, which is a complete pack of lies. Therefore, if that's her story she's likely guilty of something dealing with her daughters death. The hair evidence, the google search, the duct tape, the stench in the car, the materials found in the car, the manner in which she was buried was similar to the way they admittedly buried their pets.

And on and on...a coincidence or two, sure. But put them all together and I slam dunk reasonable doubt. She's guilty.

No one person's rights are more important than another's.

A person has no "right to justice." I don't know where you're getting that from.

The 5th amendment grants the right to due process. it was granted...just failed. Which is why I say I disagree with your positivist view.

Back to the basics, the letter of the law failed the spirit of the law....

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [1]


[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [1]


[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

what are you trying to imply re without just compensation?

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

I wasn't drawing any sort of comparison other than the "how'd they do it" aspect.

Has there never been a conviction for murder without knowledge of how the crime was committed, knowing only that it had? And I know the response is going to be "nobody knows if she did" but just for giggles, lets move beyond that.

As far as the chloroform smell, I was under impression there was testimony regarding the actual levels of chloroform present, not just the smell of it.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I wasn't drawing any sort of comparison other than the "how'd they do it" aspect.

Has there never been a conviction for murder without knowledge of how the crime was committed, knowing only that it had? And I know the response is going to be "nobody knows if she did" but just for giggles, lets move beyond that.

As far as the chloroform smell, I was under impression there was testimony regarding the actual levels of chloroform present, not just the smell of it.

Chloroform doesn't kill..

Also, i don't understand why this is still a discussion.

If you can't prove that a person killed this child, or even that she was at the scene of the murder.. or that you don't even know where or when the murder occured, how in the blue hell do you expect to get a conviction?

 

[casmith07]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [1]


[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

....when did we start talking property in here?

 

[joseephuss]

Yea, please let me know of one other case in the history of mankind that an innocent accident was staged to look like a murder.

The alternate juror was on TV last night saying it was an accident that was staged to look like a murder. He also said there was no evidence the baby was in the trunk. Are you serious??? Hopefully this guy will now go back to his single wide and never come out again. Hoepfully one day he will get a dose of common sense. Apparently the jury in this trial had 12 people without a lick of it. And I thought the dumbest jurors in the world were from Los Angeles. These morons from Pinellas make those OJ Jurors look like bright.....

I'm not a law historian. If you want to know if such a case exists, look it up yourself. I mentioned that it is a possibility. That doesn't mean it did happen that way, but it is possible.

 

[joseephuss]

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.

Proving how the murder occurred is part of how you determine if the mother was responsible for the death. It is difficult to separate the two things. Sure the jury is not responsible for determining cause of death. That is the job of the investigators and they are supposed to provide that information to the jury. The investigators and prosecution gave the jurors a puzzle to solve, but did not give them a picture of what the puzzle would look like because they could not provide cause of death. That can go a long way in showing how everything ties together.

I don't think she is a sociopath. I think she is unstable, narcissistic and a little off, but I don't think sociopath applies. Then again I am no psychologist.

 

[peplaw06]

This I agree with. But implications are often interpreted in favor of the more clever and likable lawyer....not necessarily the case that a juror's interpretation from implied testimony isn't influenced by the insinuations implied by the context and phrasing of the questions presented by the defense. Which are, again, not "claims".

At this point, you've basically agreed with me. The original point was that Baez shouldn't be able to put these theories out there, or "testify," without Casey's testimony. You agree that perceived implications, which are up to the jury to connect the dots and decide what implication the testimony takes, are not testimony. Baez was not "testifying." So the original point is without merit.

It's not that she didn't testify in and of itself. It's that she never rebutted to the lies she told which lead me to believe that's her story, which is a complete pack of lies. Therefore, if that's her story she's likely guilty of something dealing with her daughters death. The hair evidence, the google search, the duct tape, the stench in the car, the materials found in the car, the manner in which she was buried was similar to the way they admittedly buried their pets.

And on and on...a coincidence or two, sure. But put them all together and I slam dunk reasonable doubt. She's guilty.

OK, if you were a juror, and you felt that there was enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt and possibly sentence her to die, then we know how you would have voted. But you are directed by the Court that you can not consider at all Casey's decision not to testify, whether you thought the implications of the attorney's questioning indicated that she had a story to tell or not. If she doesn't testify, you're not supposed to hold that against her.

Side note: I heard the prosecutor mention something else to think about in an interview after the trial. Regarding Baez mentioning these theories in his opening statement, and the fact that he's allowed to do that. They could have been planning for Casey to testify at the beginning of trial.

When you're defending a case, your trial strategy is always changing. You may think the defendant will testify, and you can discuss what you believe she will testify to. But the 5th Amendment right is not something you have to waive at the beginning of trial. It's basically dependent on whether you feel it's necessary when you present your case. If you feel that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt in their case-in-chief, then there is little to be gained by putting the defendant on the stand. You would give the state a second chance to prove their case. They cannot call the defendant and compel them to testify.

The 5th amendment grants the right to due process. it was granted...just failed. Which is why I say I disagree with your positivist view.

Back to the basics, the letter of the law failed the spirit of the law....

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Due process of law was granted to Casey. How did it fail?

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [1]


[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

Are you applying this to Caylee? I'm lost on your point. You should probably re-read the 5th Amendment, and notice the punctuation.

 

[Stautner]

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.

He made that claim in his opening statement, along with the claim that Casey's dad molested here as a child.

A panel of attorneys last night discussed whether the defense attorney acted unethically by making those claims and not providing evidence or testimony to back them up, and the same question was posed to Mr. Atkins, the prosecutor. Mr. Atkins started to speak, caught himself, then carefully chose his words, saying he couldn't speak to Mr. Baez's intentions, and that he will give Mr. Baez the benefit of the doubt that when he made those claims he intended to put Casey on the stand to corroborate them, but that at some point during the trial he may have changed his mind and decided it was not best to put Casey on the stand. The panel all indicated that was very gracious of Mr. Atkins, but the clear tone was that had Mr. Baez made those claims with no intention of putting Casey or someone else on the stand to corroborate them, then he would be acting unethically.

Frankly I believe he intentionally acted unethically because Casey was the only person who could corroborate the claims and Baez knew from the beginning he could never put Casey on the stand because with all the lies and the party behavior after Casey was missing the prosecution would have destroyed her.

 

[peplaw06]

He made that claim in his opening statement, along with the claim that Casey's dad molested here as a child.

A panel of attorneys last night discussed whether the defense attorney acted unethically by making those claims and not providing evidence or testimony to back them up, and the same question was posed to Mr. Atkins, the prosecutor. Mr. Atkins started to speak, caught himself, then carefully chose his words, saying he couldn't speak to Mr. Baez's intentions, and that he will give Mr. Baez the benefit of the doubt that when he made those claims he intended to put Casey on the stand to corroborate them, but that at some point during the trial he may have changed his mind and decided it was not best to put Casey on the stand. The panel all indicated that was very gracious of Mr. Atkins, but the clear tone was that had Mr. Baez made those claims with no intention of putting Casey or someone else on the stand to corroborate them, then he would be acting unethically.

Frankly I believe he intentionally acted unethically because Casey was the only person who could corroborate the claims and Baez knew from the beginning he could never put Casey on the stand because with all the lies and the party behavior after Casey was missing the prosecution would have destroyed her.

None of this supports your point that he was presenting testimony. Sorry.

He could have just as easily believed that George Anthony would testify to it. It's not as though he made the claim in opening statements and didn't mention it again in the evidence portion of the trial.

 

[Reality]

This brings a question to mind .. could the prosecutors now go after the father? Now before everyone says, "No evidence was presented.." let me explain.

The goal really wouldn't be to prosecute the father but rather to have Anthony's lawyer sanctioned in some way for providing unsubstantiated claims in court?

If they started investigating the father, the lawyer's publicly made on-the-record comments would not be protected in any way. Meaning, could they not then compel Anthony's lawyer to turn over all evidence to back up that claim? And if he could not provide such evidence, then the lawyer would be at risk for some type of sanctions?

I really have no vested interest in this case beyond general curiosity but given the bad blood between the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, I would not be surprised if the the prosecutors were vengeful in some way.

Personally, I think the defense was using the commonly used "point the finger at someone else" strategy in the beginning. Then they realized the prosecution had presented a weak case and shifted to the also commonly used "they did not prove anything" strategy. Meaning, I don't see anything wrong with what they did. The prosecution had every chance to dispute and discredit the "father is to blame" comments.



-Reality

 

[Stautner]

None of this supports your point that he was presenting testimony. Sorry.

He could have just as easily believed that George Anthony would testify to it. It's not as though he made the claim in opening statements and didn't mention it again in the evidence portion of the trial.

It absolutely does. Stay with me here.

The reason it was unethical was because it was making claims that could only be based on and supported by Casey's testimony, and when he chose not to put her on the stand it was left that he had presented Cathe testimony that only Casey could have made in her place. Had he put her on the stand there would have been no question as to ethics because he would have had Casey testifying to the events he claimed herself.

You have to keep in mind that an attorney can make some suppositions, throw out some what if's etc. etc without being burdened with having to present evidence, but when you make claims and accusations it has to be supported by evidence/testimony.

 

[Stautner]

This brings a question to mind .. could the prosecutors now go after the father? Now before everyone says, "No evidence was presented.." let me explain.

The goal really wouldn't be to prosecute the father but rather to have Anthony's lawyer sanctioned in some way for providing unsubstantiated claims in court?

If they started investigating the father, the lawyer's publicly made on-the-record comments would not be protected in any way. Meaning, could they not then compel Anthony's lawyer to turn over all evidence to back up that claim? And if he could not provide such evidence, then the lawyer would be at risk for some type of sanctions?

I really have no vested interest in this case beyond general curiosity but given the bad blood between the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, I would not be surprised if the the prosecutors were vengeful in some way.

Personally, I think the defense was using the commonly used "point the finger at someone else" strategy in the beginning. Then they realized the prosecution had presented a weak case and shifted to the also commonly used "they did not prove anything" strategy. Meaning, I don't see anything wrong with what they did. The prosecution had every chance to dispute and discredit the "father is to blame" comments.



-Reality

I don't know about this - seems like a pretty hard tactic to put the father through the ringer to get at the lawyer.

I have wondered if there is any legal way to go after the lawyer for defamation or something like that. After all, if you or I went on TV and claimed someone was a child molester and had no proof the guy would sue our pants off. Why would it be okay for an attorney to do the same thing?

One additinal note - the panel discussed why the prosecution didn't make a motion to have the judge specfically instruct the jury that they should disregard the claims in their deliberations since they were unsubstantiated, and while some were insistent they should have done that, others said the problem was that it would come dangerously close to suggesting to the jury that Casey should be judged on her refusal to testify, which obviously would be a big no no.

 

[casmith07]

This brings a question to mind .. could the prosecutors now go after the father? Now before everyone says, "No evidence was presented.." let me explain.

They absolutely could, if they wanted to go after him for a crime such as conspiracy. In fact, the government probably would have had a more solid case against the Anthony's if they had taken it to trial as a conspiracy case rather than first degree murder.

The goal really wouldn't be to prosecute the father but rather to have Anthony's lawyer sanctioned in some way for providing unsubstantiated claims in court?

They were not unsubstantiated claims in court, which would be immediately objected by the opposing counsel and sustained by the judge. Theories as a defense in order to attempt to raise reasonable doubt do not have to be substantiated. The burden of proof rests solely with the government to present factual evidence in order to support the charges that they have brought against someone.

If they started investigating the father, the lawyer's publicly made on-the-record comments would not be protected in any way. Meaning, could they not then compel Anthony's lawyer to turn over all evidence to back up that claim? And if he could not provide such evidence, then the lawyer would be at risk for some type of sanctions?

Which comments are you discussing? I am unsure of what you are trying to say here...the defense is allowed to submit things to be admitted into evidence, but these "claims" or theories that you are talking about do not have to be supported by any evidence. Again, even the burden of the presentation of evidence rests with the government. The defense could literally sit at the desk through the government's entire case, and if they think that the government has not met their burden of proof, then can then simply rest without calling a single witness.

I really have no vested interest in this case beyond general curiosity but given the bad blood between the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, I would not be surprised if the the prosecutors were vengeful in some way.

Personally, I think the defense was using the commonly used "point the finger at someone else" strategy in the beginning. Then they realized the prosecution had presented a weak case and shifted to the also commonly used "they did not prove anything" strategy. Meaning, I don't see anything wrong with what they did. The prosecution had every chance to dispute and discredit the "father is to blame" comments.

All about raising reasonable doubt.

 

[peplaw06]

It absolutely does. Stay with me here.

The reason it was unethical was because it was making claims that could only be based on and supported by Casey's testimony, and when he chose not to put her on the stand it was left that he had presented Cathe testimony that only Casey could have made in her place. Had he put her on the stand there would have been no question as to ethics because he would have had Casey testifying to the events he claimed herself.

The claims could have been supported by more than just Casey's testimony. So no, it's not prima facie unethical. And no, it's not testimony.

You have to keep in mind that an attorney can make some suppositions, throw out some what if's etc. etc without being burdened with having to present evidence, but when you make claims and accusations it has to be supported by evidence/testimony.

You can make the claim as to what you believe the evidence will show in opening statements... then you can seek to prove it in evidence, which Baez did. If it is not supported by the evidence, then you cannot argue it in closing. There's a huge distinction that you're either not picking up on, or are intentionally ignoring. Either way, opening statements are not evidence, and it's not testimony.