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

[peplaw06]

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.

Oh, so tell me how many times have you been a criminal defendant and testified after being admonished by the Court on your 5th Amendment rights?

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.

It's certainly not the norm. And your posts in this thread are exactly the reason why it's not supposed to be considered one way or the other by the jury.

The O.J. jury was unanimous.

And? You just cited another case that was seriously botched by the state.

 

[peplaw06]

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.

If you honestly did not kill your child, then the state should not be able to prove that you did beyond a reasonable doubt. What do you have to gain by testifying if they can't do that? Clearing your name? News flash, you're not going to clear your name by testifying if it makes it to trial.

All you're going to do is take the chance that you get caught lying on the stand and screw up the whole trial. And it doesn't matter if it's a big lie or not. Sometimes all it takes is one little lie, and you're toast. Then it could cost you your life, like it could have in this instance.

Just so you can "clear your name." Like I said, I hope you hire a good attorney if your life is on the line.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

If you honestly did not kill your child, then the state should not be able to prove that you did beyond a reasonable doubt. What do you have to gain by testifying if they can't do that? Clearing your name? News flash, you're not going to clear your name by testifying if it makes it to trial.

All you're going to do is take the chance that you get caught lying on the stand and screw up the whole trial. And it doesn't matter if it's a big lie or not. Sometimes all it takes is one little lie, and you're toast. Then it could cost you your life, like it could have in this instance.

Just so you can "clear your name." Like I said, I hope you hire a good attorney if your life is on the line.

Things go wrong in every aspect of trial. Juries are supposed to be able to sympathize with the situation yet still decipher all the evidence for what it "really" is..

In any case, posts like yours in this thread makes me know if you are a lawyer, I wouldn't hand you a criminal case.

Irony here is slowly but surely holes are being poked in your story and you don't have to testify or speak to it either.

 

[Doomsday101]

Just watching archives of the case; I did not watch Nancy Grace to know that...I didn't follow this case at all much other than her few clips lying to the police until the verdict. Now I have just been watching the trial and Baez is slick and he really makes the impression on the jury of the underdog who came from nowhere.

He is a likable, great attorney. And, honestly, so is Casey when she is sitting there in white and pink...innocently dressed.

But looking through the b.s., she's guilty.

Through the looking glass, this is the reality of our system.

I think she was involved in some manner and I'm sick that she will serve no time. However I can't see enough to convict her for capital murder with life or death penalty. As for the system it is not perfect none are but I will say I would not trade ours for another. I firmly believe that all are innocent until proven guilty. The state over reached and it ended up cost them.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Oh, so tell me how many times have you been a criminal defendant and testified after being admonished by the Court on your 5th Amendment rights?

It's certainly not the norm. And your posts in this thread are exactly the reason why it's not supposed to be considered one way or the other by the jury.

And? You just cited another case that was seriously botched by the state.

Dude, did you watch that case? Obviously not. . .

The state did its job just fine in that case. THAT case was nationally televised. We all saw the evidence, so it's not like juries can't be fallible. They are.

Which was my point since you said it was unanimous....

 

[casmith07]

Funny thing, maybe Peplaw should watch this clip. . .

Baez actually claims she drowns during opening....


"How in the world can a mother wait 30 days before ever reporting her daughter missing?" Baez asked in open court. "It's insane. It's bizarre. Something's just not right about that .

"Well, the answer is relatively simple -- she never was missing. Caylee Anthony died on June 16, 2008, when she drowned in her family's swimming pool."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...866417.html#s303160&title=Casey_Anthony_Trial

It was during opening statements.

"ORLANDO, Fla. -- Casey Anthony's attorney shocked a packed courtroom during opening statements Tuesday, telling the jury that Anthony's 2-year-old daughter Caylee was the victim of an accidental death and not a murder as the prosecutors contended."

 

[Doomsday101]

Things go wrong in every aspect of trial. Juries are supposed to be able to sympathize with the situation yet still decipher all the evidence for what it "really" is..

In any case, posts like yours in this thread makes me know if you are a lawyer, I wouldn't hand you a criminal case.

Irony here is slowly but surely holes are being poked in your story and you don't have to testify or speak to it either.

I'm not a lawyer but have been working at a court house for 26 years now and it is a mistake for a lay person to try and represent themselves. There are so many technicalities and procedures that have to be followed and I have been in a court where the judge flat out told one guy "if you expect to have any chance of winning I advise you to get an attorney if you can't afford one my court will provide you with one."

Small Claims court is one thing criminal court a total different beast.

I say this as a person who is not overly fond of the legal profession.

 

[casmith07]

Dude, did you watch that case? Obviously not. . .

The state did its job just fine in that case. THAT case was nationally televised. We all saw the evidence, so it's not like juries can't be fallible. They are.

Which was my point since you said it was unanimous....

And are you an attorney? Obviously not. The OJ Simpson case is regarded by almost every criminal law attorney I know as the biggest prosecutorial blunder in the history of legal practice.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

And are you an attorney? Obviously not. The OJ Simpson case is regarded by almost every criminal law attorney I know as the biggest prosecutorial blunder in the history of legal practice.

That's not necessarily true. They presented enough evidence to convict O.J. Simpson.

Again, I'm wondering how old you guys are.

I mean, yeah, it's a joke because we all saw the evidence the prosecution presented...so it is a joke that he was acquitted. By all means, I agree with that..

But that's not the prosecutions fault. That's on the jury, who we know have some perspective on now.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

And are you an attorney? Obviously not. The OJ Simpson case is regarded by almost every criminal law attorney I know as the biggest prosecutorial blunder in the history of legal practice.

I took some time out of school after my daughter died. Hopefully, I'll be back if not the fall in the spring.

 

[Doomsday101]

That's not necessarily true. They presented enough evidence to convict O.J. Simpson.

Again, I'm wondering how old you guys are.

I mean, yeah, it's a joke because we all saw the evidence the prosecution presented...so it is a joke that he was acquitted. By all means, I agree with that..

But that's not the prosecutions fault. That's on the jury, who we know have some perspective on now.

I think the turning point in that case was really when the defense change it from the OJ trial to the Mark Furman trial.

 

[casmith07]

That's not necessarily true. They presented enough evidence to convict O.J. Simpson.

Again, I'm wondering how old you guys are.

I mean, yeah, it's a joke because we all saw the evidence the prosecution presented...so it is a joke that he was acquitted. By all means, I agree with that..

But that's not the prosecutions fault. That's on the jury, who we know have some perspective on now.

It was absolutely the prosecution's fault. At no point should you ever, under any circumstances, ask the accused to "try on" the murder glove. OF COURSE he was going to go up and make it look as if it didn't fit. They should have pointed to the DNA evidence of his skin inside the glove, DNA of the blood outside the glove, purchase history of how the glove made it into Simpson's possession....so many things that they could have done that they didn't. It was bad prosecution strategy and piss poor police work.

This case also had piss poor police and forensics work, and the State Attorney's office was handed a dog of a case. STILL, it's on them to prosecute it right. There's no way they should have went for first degree murder. They were shooting for the moon with a BB gun.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I'm not a lawyer but have been working at a court house for 26 years now and it is a mistake for a lay person to try and represent themselves. There are so many technicalities and procedures that have to be followed and I have been in a court where the judge flat out told one guy "if you expect to have any chance of winning I advise you to get an attorney if you can't afford one my court will provide you with one."

Small Claims court is one thing criminal court a total different beast.

I say this as a person who is not overly fond of the legal profession.

I never said it was wise to represent yourself. Even attorneys don't do that. Taking the stand isn't a horrible idea, though, if your story is straight.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

It was absolutely the prosecution's fault. At no point should you ever, under any circumstances, ask the accused to "try on" the murder glove. OF COURSE he was going to go up and make it look as if it didn't fit. They should have pointed to the DNA evidence of his skin inside the glove, DNA of the blood outside the glove, purchase history of how the glove made it into Simpson's possession....so many things that they could have done that they didn't. It was bad prosecution strategy and piss poor police work.

This case also had piss poor police and forensics work, and the State Attorney's office was handed a dog of a case. STILL, it's on them to prosecute it right. There's no way they should have went for first degree murder. They were shooting for the moon with a BB gun.

OK, bro. O.J. was innocent.

I would love you on my jury if I were on trial.

Man, I'd could get away with double homicide.

Every attorney makes mistakes in almost every case unless it's one question win case, which does happen. LOL

I'm just saying there was SO much overwhelming evidence that it was him in that case.

Leather shrinks. A logical jury could figure that out.

 

[Stautner]

I think those lies were more clever than you think. Maybe she knew it would give her all the reason to stay of the stand.

I don't know. All I know is it's been a year for me and I don't see how Casey can go on acting the way she did while she obviously knew her daughter was dead.

Missing?

Uh huh...

We believe you.

Of course, you're not to hear that evidence from the media and inject it into the trial. But it was presented at trial.

The media ought to learn not to overplay these things. They sure do get a lot of commercial profits from harping on these dead children stories..

So, you think she did things that would clearly make her the lead suspect in order to keep from testifying 3 years later?

They were not claims, they were only theories.

The thing is, outside of Jim Crow era court proceedings, there isn't a judge in this country that would sit idly by and allow an attorney to testify before the bench, and there isn't an attorney worth his JD that would not immediately object if that were to occur.

Oh no, they were claims. In the defense's opening statement they said it was a drowning that Casey's father decided to cover up after Casey panicked, and they claimed Casey's father had molested her as a child, and they said they would prove these things durning the trial. Thse weren't mere, "what ifs".

As for your argument that "testifying before the bench" would not have been allowed, what you aren't getting is that at that point in the trial it wasn't seen as improper becauase opening statements can and often do state such claims with the understanding/promise that evidence/testimony will be provided by an actual witness who is able to corroborate those claims. As such, at that point in the trial there was no reason for the judge to shut the attorney down because the expectation was that the attorney will follow through with the promised evidence/testimony that he believes corroborates the claim. Where it is improper is when the trial winds down and the defense never actually followed through, meaning they never presented the actual testimony of the witness, and therefore the jury is left only with a second party claim from the attorney in lieu of the first party testimony.

 

[casmith07]

OK, bro. O.J. was innocent.

I would love you on my jury if I were on trial.

Man, I'd could get away with double homicide.

Every attorney makes mistakes in almost every case unless it's one question win case, which does happen. LOL

I'm just saying there was SO much overwhelming evidence that it was him in that case.

Leather shrinks. A logical jury could figure that out.

You are not reading. And you are getting far too emotionally involved with this and are now making wild accusations about me based on those emotions.

Please, go back and carefully read what I said and then reconsider your response.

 

[Doomsday101]

I never said it was wise to represent yourself. Even attorneys don't do that. Taking the stand isn't a horrible idea, though, if your story is straight.

I think most would advise against it. As some have said a lot has to do with how the trial is going. I think most would like to tell their side of the story but often a person’s words can be twisted and brought into doubt by a good prosecutor. Often you are subject to yes or no question without being allowed to say what you may really mean. I tend to think the rule of thumb is when it looks as if you about to lose then put the defendant on the stand as Leslie Abramson did in the Mendez brother’s trials

 

[joseephuss]

No, it goes away and so does she once it's over.

Nancy Grace would rant for a coupla days then find a new case with a new victim to exploit for ratings. Then the United Media Sheeple, like you and I, make the newest Nancy Grace case our next fan favorite.

I was told this jury were a bunch of dumb people who didn't have common sense. Now you are saying they were smart enough to think it through and concluded that giving a not guilty verdict would make them the most money. That is an interesting.

 

[peplaw06]

I took some time out of school after my daughter died. Hopefully, I'll be back if not the fall in the spring.

Oh, so you're in law school...? All I needed to know. Thanks. Have a good one.

Taking the stand isn't a horrible idea, though, if your story is straight.

This is just naivete speaking.

 

[joseephuss]

So, you think she did things that would clearly make her the lead suspect in order to keep from testifying 3 years later?



Oh no, they were claims. In the defense's opening statement they said it was a drowning that Casey's father decided to cover up after Casey panicked, and they claimed Casey's father had molested her as a child, and they said they would prove these things durning the trial. Thse weren't mere, "what ifs".

As for your argument that "testifying before the bench" would not have been allowed, what you aren't getting is that at that point in the trial it wasn't seen as improper becauase opening statements can and often do state such claims with the understanding/promise that evidence/testimony will be provided by an actual witness who is able to corroborate those claims. As such, at that point in the trial there was no reason for the judge to shut the attorney down because the expectation was that the attorney will follow through with the promised evidence/testimony that he believes corroborates the claim. Where it is improper is when the trial winds down and the defense never actually followed through, meaning they never presented the actual testimony of the witness, and therefore the jury is left only with a second party claim from the attorney in lieu of the first party testimony.

Does the prosecution have a right to go back and have those comments stricken from the record? Even if they can't go to that extent, the prosecution does have the ability to address those accusations at any time during the proceedings and certainly during closing arguments. Seems as if they didn't do a good enough job of squashing the accidental drowning theory.