1316 users online (293 members and 1023 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 52 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 771
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    296

    Casey Anthony Legal Defense Strategies #2

    WFTV published a report today regarding a "death penalty attorney" named Lenamon that left Casey Anthony's legal defense team. The publication quotes Lenamon as follows:

    "We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the approach that is mental health related," Lenamon told CNN's Nancy Grace during an interview Tuesday night." Lenamon explained he would have had Casey plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

    See http://www.wftv.com/news/19448158/detail.html

    If Lenamon really said that he believes Casey should plead NG by reason of insanity, then I think this is very irresponsible and may even be an attorney ethical violation. Most people would interpret "not guilty by reason of insanity" as meaning that "Casey killed Caylee, but was insane when she did it." This would mean that Casey's former attorney, who has presumably "seen all the evidence" and discussed attorney-client protected information with his client and fellow defense team members, is announcing to the world that Casey "did it." He's doing it at a time when Baez has apparently chosen to pursue a defense strategy of "she didn't do it." If Lenamon is really her former attorney, then this former member of the defense team is hurting his former client's defense and possibly her chances of being put to death by the State of Florida. I don't know what thread to put this in, so I started a new one.
    Last edited by JBean; 05-13-2009 at 10:29 AM. Reason: clarify second thread

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    3,193
    I have to say that this is bordeline ethical misconduct. One has to ask did Mr.L. do this deliberately?
    All I can say with one cup of coffee WOW!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Waiting
    Posts
    4,523
    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Lawyer View Post
    WFTV published a report today regarding a "death penalty attorney" named Lenamon that left Casey Anthony's legal defense team. The publication quotes Lenamon as follows:

    "We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the approach that is mental health related," Lenamon told CNN's Nancy Grace during an interview Tuesday night." Lenamon explained he would have had Casey plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

    See http://www.wftv.com/news/19448158/detail.html

    If Lenamon really said that he believes Casey should plead NG by reason of insanity, then I think this is very irresponsible and may even be an attorney ethical violation. Most people would interpret "not guilty by reason of insanity" as meaning that "Casey killed Caylee, but was insane when she did it." This would mean that Casey's former attorney, who has presumably "seen all the evidence" and discussed attorney-client protected information with his client and fellow defense team members, is announcing to the world that Casey "did it." He's doing it at a time when Baez has apparently chosen to pursue a defense strategy of "she didn't do it." If Lenamon is really her former attorney, then this former member of the defense team is hurting his former client's defense and possibly her chances of being put to death by the State of Florida. I don't know what thread to put this in, so I started a new one.
    ITA! By making this announcement, IMO, he is essentially saying that KC is guilty, but he feels that she wasn't in her right mind. Speaks volumes to me. I have wondered already how ethical his blogging about the case was, and this is also something I question. I can't imagine JB won't try to use this if she is foung guilty to say that the jury pool was tainted. Makes me wonder if there may not have ever been a signed contract for TL to work for them, or if perhaps he was never paid by JB.




    It Was Ancient Aliens!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Lawyer View Post
    WFTV published a report today regarding a "death penalty attorney" named Lenamon that left Casey Anthony's legal defense team. The publication quotes Lenamon as follows:

    "We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the approach that is mental health related," Lenamon told CNN's Nancy Grace during an interview Tuesday night." Lenamon explained he would have had Casey plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

    See http://www.wftv.com/news/19448158/detail.html

    If Lenamon really said that he believes Casey should plead NG by reason of insanity, then I think this is very irresponsible and may even be an attorney ethical violation. Most people would interpret "not guilty by reason of insanity" as meaning that "Casey killed Caylee, but was insane when she did it." This would mean that Casey's former attorney, who has presumably "seen all the evidence" and discussed attorney-client protected information with his client and fellow defense team members, is announcing to the world that Casey "did it." He's doing it at a time when Baez has apparently chosen to pursue a defense strategy of "she didn't do it." If Lenamon is really her former attorney, then this former member of the defense team is hurting his former client's defense and possibly her chances of being put to death by the State of Florida. I don't know what thread to put this in, so I started a new one.
    He didn't say or imply she did it. He said,

    "We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the approach that is mental health related".

    That simply could mean she is incapable of doing a crime of this nature, concealing, covering up, lying, etc...

    I'm not defending anyone just for the record. I think she did it. I believe he was simply referring to a defense strategy.
    -Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    -Senatus Populus Que Romanus

    -Why is it, if you help someone get away with a crime before they are arrested you are an accomplice...but if you help them get away with a crime after they are arrested you are a defense attorney?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    9,903
    bailee......I'll second your WOW!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    9,903
    Quote Originally Posted by chefmom View Post
    ITA! By making this announcement, IMO, he is essentially saying that KC is guilty, but he feels that she wasn't in her right mind. Speaks volumes to me. I have wondered already how ethical his blogging about the case was, and this is also something I question. I can't imagine JB won't try to use this if she is foung guilty to say that the jury pool was tainted. Makes me wonder if there may not have ever been a signed contract for TL to work for them, or if perhaps he was never paid by JB.
    That is a good possibility since TL said JB called him back after the dp was put back on the table.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    3,193
    Anyone want to bet TL retracts this statement? He will say it was taken out of context, blah blah. Wait and see.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,860
    But Casey admitted/agreed that lying to police wasn't helping them find Caylee.

    This is just one example that suggests to me Casey clearly understands right from wrong.


    “Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when every one has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? Or are you not terrified by it?" - Soren Kierkegaard

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,971
    I thought that JB would have had a problem w/ TL's theory about it being an "accidental overdose". JB is going to have a REAL hard time finding a DP lawyer that will go along with his "she's innocent and that's that" strategy. Seems to me any experienced atty will demand a different approach.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,009
    I still can't believe TL said what he said...if I believe I understood correctly that he was saying he disagrees with JB's approach to NOT have KC plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Obviously, there is a lot more to it than we know. But as far as I remember my ethics course and the ethics exam I had to pass before taking the Bar Exam...that is a breach of attorney client privilege. Already, KC's team is setting up ample grounds for appeal based on an inadequate defense. To which legally, she may have an ability to do. To her, to her defense: KC is guilty. This is not a case in which there is any reasonable doubt as far as her involvement in the disappearance and death of Caylee...plead out. Stop this mess. KC will not ever get out of jail and if she does...she will be less popular than OJ Simpson ever thought about being. This is not a winnable case. Lying to the public about how KC is waiting for her day in court to tell what really happened is bs. All the defense wants to do is whine and complain and play the blame game and try to tear down evidence that a grand jury found her guilty with very little deliberation.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    I took it to mean that JB and KC simply refused to put any mental health issues on the table. It is not an admission of guilt, but if they were to claim that KC has some diagnosed, or currently undiagnosed but legitimate mental illness it would very cleanly take the death penalty off the table permanently, and return the case to a standard homicide prosecution. It would have also given weight to an inapriate response to an accidental death and sought to explain KC's aberrant behavior paterns.

    It really is the better defense plan for her. A jury is not going to sentance a hot young mentally ill girl to death.

    His statements make no pressumptions of guilt or innocense. They meerly reflect the approach he would have preferred to save or spare his clients life.

    I think he is dancing ethically close to the line. I suspect that he is doing it in order to burn JB and get help force the client to get responsible skilled councel.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    308
    I saw this too and thought... "wow, he basically said she was guilty". Why would he have done that? I can't help but think that the defense's strategy is to let her go to prison. Then get her out on an appeal. Then maybe she'll win the appeal because some people will have forgotten about everything, and they can see that she had an unfit lead attorney.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by spqr View Post
    He didn't say or imply she did it. He said,

    "We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the approach that is mental health related".

    That simply could mean she is incapable of doing a crime of this nature, concealing, covering up, lying, etc...
    Perhaps, with respect that one quote. However, the article goes on to paraphrase him as saying "Lenamon explained he would have had Casey plead not guilty by reason of insanity." If he indeed said as much, than that is more than just vaguely saying "mental health" is "on the table" or some such. We don't have the exact quote, so we don't know. But I think the paraphrase is damaging.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    2,244
    Although KC doesn't have to prove her innocence, I assume there will have to be some sort of damage control put out in her defense. I'm thinking of the circumstantial evidence that the prosecution will introduce and how the defense will provide a reasonable explanation for it.

    For instance:
    Prosecution calls detective to the stand who states that KC told him that she spoke to Caylee on the phone on July 15th. KC goes into detail about what was said, etc.

    Another state's witness claims that phone records prove no such phone call was received.

    State's witnesses are called that offer evidence that Caylee was dead on July 15th so could not have called KC that day.

    Now comes the defense. What do they ask on cross? Who do they call to the stand? How do they offer a reasonable explanation to this lie KC told?

    There's so much that will be brought out and I realize that some will be refuted with expert testimony. But, I wonder what the defense will do to offer their reasonable explanation to many other things without calling KC to the stand.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Foothills of Northern Colorado
    Posts
    2,369
    There is no possible defense, IMO. The only thing they can do is attempt to pick apart LE and everyone involved in this case. They will spin everything that comes out of the SA and their witnesses mouths in hopes of confusing the jury enough to leave them without a clue of what just happened.
    100 years from now, it won't matter what kind of car you drove or how big your house was. What will matter is that you were important in the eyes of a child.


Page 1 of 52 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-06-2010, 01:16 PM
  2. The spokeswoman for Casey Anthony's defense team has resigned.
    By Tulessa in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 02-20-2010, 08:42 PM
  3. Replies: 107
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 12:52 PM
  4. Casey Anthony's defense wants prosecutors removed
    By GirlinCentralFL in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 06:40 PM