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

[Stautner]

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.

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.

Wow, both you give continually provide the argument "Because I say so", as if that's proof of anything and is supposed to carry some weight.

And you both contunually say Baez is not restricted from directly accusing people people not on trial of horrible crimes without the burden of haviing to try and substantiate it during the trial, and EVEN IN THE FACE OF THE SUPREME COURT TELLING OU THIS IS NOT ALLOWED you pass it off by saying that's not really what the Supreme Court is saying.

and finally, Casmith, you back away from your claims that the defense has no restrictions in what he can claim or accuse in opening statements by now saying, well, PRESUMABLY there were two people that could have testified to what Baez claimed ........ owhich has not been your point previously = you are backpeddling just like peplaw did after I provided all the other info from legal publications.

Of course one of those that "presumably" could have testified (Casey;s dad) had never in any way indicated those things ever happened and could not be "presumed" to suddenly, out of the blue admit to things no one had ever even suggested before, and the other was Mr, Baez's client who he did not put on the stand and I believe he never had any intention to put on the stand The fact is, in opning statements it is always "presumed" that the attorney plans to present the defense he offers in the openning, and that he plans to present evidence/testimony to support direct claims of fact - it's when the attorney doesn't actuall follow through on that presumption that you find he has acted improperly.

All that said, just like I mentioned to Peplaw the other day, I never had a problem with disagreeing with me based on a belief that Baez may have INTENDED to put Casey on the stand but changed his mind - I think that is almost certainly not the case, because even Baez had admitted Casey was a habitual liar, and he would have known the prosecution would have destroyed Casey;s credibility on the stand.

But that hasn't been your argument all along. Your argument has been that there is nothing that prohibits the defense from making claims of fact and direcly accusing people not on trial of horrible crimes without the intention or oboigation to try and prove the claim/accusatin during the trial. The Supremem Court tells you this is wrong.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Ok this has been beaten to death