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

[peplaw06]

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 could press charges, but they're not going to. It would reek of desperation.

 

[Aikmaniac]

Now the question is...

What will Casey do to "try to found out what happened to her daughter"?

I imagine it will go the same way as OJ. She'll say that tireless investigations are under way...and then fade away into obscurity.

That's the sad part to all of this. What happened to Caylee?

 

[casmith07]

They could press charges, but they're not going to. It would reek of desperation.

This, too...looks bad and makes it look like a witch hunt. There are probably bigger fish to fry in the 9th Circuit.

 

[zrinkill]

Sad that the only way Justice will be served is through vigilantism.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

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

In my view, your own body is your private property. Unless you think the government owns you, which the government sometimes does view it that way.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

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.

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.


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

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

I was looking for that Pink Panther Icon for this one. But I guess that was a different site.

In any case, I was saying that justice does exist as the 5th amendment. Me, personally, I never waive my right to testify. And I would have testified if I were here, because I likely wouldn't have had anything to hide.

She obviously did.

Again, positivism as you'd have it, as it has been brought out in this case, doesn't always dictate the outcome.

+1 for the positivists, I guess.

In my view, and again I think most arguing she didn't (to the point where a jury could prove it) do it aren't parents (aside from the grandparent I saw in here, which impressed my on their thinking). Otherwise, you'd know if you had nothing to do with your child missing you sure the heck will be looking for your child the minute your two year old goes "out of town".

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Sad that the only way Justice will be served is through vigilantism.

Sometimes it's the only way, sadly. Vigilantes founded this country.

And should take it back.

 

[Reality]

They were not unsubstantiated claims in court

So there was proof provided in court those claims were true? I must have missed that. Can you point me to it because that would answer my question on this?

-Reality

 

[joseephuss]

I was looking for that Pink Panther Icon for this one. But I guess that was a different site.

In any case, I was saying that justice does exist as the 5th amendment. Me, personally, I never waive my right to testify. And I would have testified if I were here, because I likely wouldn't have had anything to hide.

She obviously did.

Again, positivism as you'd have it, as it has been brought out in this case, doesn't always dictate the outcome.

+1 for the positivists, I guess.

In my view, and again I think most arguing she didn't (to the point where a jury could prove it) do it aren't parents (aside from the grandparent I saw in here, which impressed my on their thinking). Otherwise, you'd know if you had nothing to do with your child missing you sure the heck will be looking for your child the minute your two year old goes "out of town".

The potential problem with someone testifying even if they have nothing to hide is that they may not be able to tell their whole story. The opposition attorney can ask questions in such a way where you don't get to fully explain a circumstance. They can ask yes/no questions that do not provide you with an opportunity to provide a full narrative of events. They can also ask questions that end up twisting your own words and use them against you. You would need to make sure you have a good attorney that twists those words back in the right direction. That is the worst case risk of testifying and why sometimes it is a good choice not to testify even when you are innocent.

 

[Reality]

They could press charges, but they're not going to. It would reek of desperation.

Well that much is very obvious but there were a lot of shouting going back and forth between the prosecution and the defense lawyers to the point the judge had to halt proceedings to deal with them in his chamber. Given that level of animosity and a not guilty verdict, it would not surprise me to see a little spitefulness from the prosecution no matter the perception.

-Reality

 

[Reality]

As a juror in a case like this, if Casey took the stand, I would have viewed that as "the defense does not believe their other evidence/testimony is strong enough to win their case." I mean guilty or not, if the defendant takes the stand, of course they will deny everything which would carry very little weight in most cases beyond emotional with the jury.

Not to mention, as joseephuss mentioned, the prosecution could limit or twist the testimony of the defendant making matters worse. Of course the defense could come back and give the defendant a chance to correct or further explain comments they made but in many cases, the damage would be done and now the situation is worse.

I think we all know that Casey Anthony was either involved in the death of Caley or at the very least negligent which led to her death. The problem is that the prosecution went to trial without enough evidence and like all good defense attorneys, they attacked it.

-Reality

 

[vta]

Let the exploitation begin.

Juror #6 Wants $50,000 For Casey Anthony Story…

It was inevitable. The hoopla that has surrounded the Casey Anthony story, the public interests, why not cash in your hand. This is what one juror, only identified as “Juror #6″ has done. The “college educated” juror has hired a publicist to shop his story around. In a release from his publicist sent to network heads, Rick French juror #6 details his requirements which includes cash for convo…

 

[Doomsday101]

As a juror in a case like this, if Casey took the stand, I would have viewed that as "the defense does not believe their other evidence/testimony is strong enough to win their case." I mean guilty or not, if the defendant takes the stand, of course they will deny everything which would carry very little weight in most cases beyond emotional with the jury.

Not to mention, as joseephuss mentioned, the prosecution could limit or twist the testimony of the defendant making matters worse. Of course the defense could come back and give the defendant a chance to correct or further explain comments they made but in many cases, the damage would be done and now the situation is worse.

I think we all know that Casey Anthony was either involved in the death of Caley or at the very least negligent which led to her death. The problem is that the prosecution went to trial without enough evidence and like all good defense attorneys, they attacked it.

-Reality

I think we all know that Casey Anthony was either involved in the death of Caley or at the very least negligent which led to her death. The problem is that the prosecution went to trial without enough evidence and like all good defense attorneys, they attacked it.

That is the sad part of this, a young child is dead and no one is held accountable for their actions.

I just hope this push for “Caylee’s Law” passes

More than 37,000 people in all 50 states have joined a ***BLOCKED*** campaign calling for a federal law -- called “Caylee’s Law” -- that would make the failure of a parent to notify law enforcement of a child’s disappearance a felony.

 

[Doomsday101]

Let the exploitation begin.

Juror #6 Wants $50,000 For Casey Anthony Story…

It was inevitable. The hoopla that has surrounded the Casey Anthony story, the public interests, why not cash in your hand. This is what one juror, only identified as “Juror #6″ has done. The “college educated” juror has hired a publicist to shop his story around. In a release from his publicist sent to network heads, Rick French juror #6 details his requirements which includes cash for convo…

There is just something morally wrong with this. Either stand up and talk to people about why you came to the verdict or shut up.

 

[peplaw06]

In any case, I was saying that justice does exist as the 5th amendment. Me, personally, I never waive my right to testify. And I would have testified if I were here, because I likely wouldn't have had anything to hide.

Then I hope you would hire a good attorney to slap some sense into you. Don't represent yourself. The person who represents himself has a fool for a client.

In my view, and again I think most arguing she didn't (to the point where a jury could prove it) do it aren't parents (aside from the grandparent I saw in here, which impressed my on their thinking). Otherwise, you'd know if you had nothing to do with your child missing you sure the heck will be looking for your child the minute your two year old goes "out of town".

One has literally nothing to do with the other. I believe in the rule of law, and will when I have a child. I haven't seen anyone argue that she "didn't do it." What is being argued are legal points, and reasons why the prosecution didn't prove their case like they're supposed to.

This wasn't a hung jury. It was unanimous. Even alternate jurors were in agreement.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Then I hope you would hire a good attorney to slap some sense into you. Don't represent yourself. The person who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Funny you say that because any time I've taken the stand I've won based on my own testimony. And of course you hire a lawyer to question, but you want him to talk to you about your story and he may ask you questions before you ever go to trial...if you plan on testifying.

Some lawyers from around here do it differently and actually try cases with their witness and everything. Some win; some lose. But taking the stand where I'm from isn't taboo, nor should it be.

One has literally nothing to do with the other. I believe in the rule of law, and will when I have a child. I haven't seen anyone argue that she "didn't do it." What is being argued are legal points, and reasons why the prosecution didn't prove their case like they're supposed to.

This wasn't a hung jury. It was unanimous. Even alternate jurors were in agreement.

The O.J. jury was unanimous.

 

[Stautner]

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 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.

By who's testimony could the claims have been supported? Who knew of the supposed cover up that Casey and her father were supposed to have committed ...... Casey and her father, right? And the father denied it happenning, so who exactly was left to lean on to support the claim.

Same applies to the sexual molestation - the father didn't admit it, so who was left? Casey was it.

Besides, he never offered anyone's testimoney. Saying some unknown person out there "could have" testifiied doesn't cover the defense - you can't claim actual knowledge of something that happened and just pass it off as something that some unknown person may be able to testify to. An actual claim that something did, in fact, occur, requires testimony/evidence. Otherwise you could walk over to any stranger in the gallery and point a finger at them and claim as fact that they kidnapped Caylee and were showing up at the trial out of some morbid curiosity.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Let the exploitation begin.

Juror #6 Wants $50,000 For Casey Anthony Story…

It was inevitable. The hoopla that has surrounded the Casey Anthony story, the public interests, why not cash in your hand. This is what one juror, only identified as “Juror #6″ has done. The “college educated” juror has hired a publicist to shop his story around. In a release from his publicist sent to network heads, Rick French juror #6 details his requirements which includes cash for convo…

Perhaps the verdict had monetary motives written all over it...Hence the ruling.

One thing I find odd, is all the reasonable doubt people claim to have not watched the case.

I've since watched over 30 hours of the case...

I've seen more than enough.

 

[joseephuss]

Funny you say that because any time I've taken the stand I've won based on my own testimony. And of course you hire a lawyer to question, but you want him to talk to you about your story and he may ask you questions before you ever go to trial...if you plan on testifying.

Some lawyers from around here do it differently and actually try cases with their witness and everything. Some win; some lose. But taking the stand where I'm from isn't taboo, nor should it be.



The O.J. jury was unanimous.

I don't think anyone says it is taboo or that it shouldn't be done. There is no set rule either way. You just have to take it on a case by case basis. Sometimes testifying is a good way to make the case and sometimes it is not worth the risk. You weigh those risks with each different case.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I don't think anyone says it is taboo or that it shouldn't be done. There is no set rule either way. You just have to take it on a case by case basis. Sometimes testifying is a good way to make the case and sometimes it is not worth the risk. You weigh those risks with each different case.

OK, based on your right to testify or not. If the state comes along and says you killed your child and you honestly did not kill your child, would you sit back and trust your lawyer or would you want the jury to hear you talk about it...so you can set the record straight.

Mind you, your lawyer is there to protect you. And as long as you're not lying, which I hope you wouldn't be about this, then you have nothing to hide.