Will Casey face probation?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
zpz1 said:
OK let's say she was "on probation" in jail. She was found guilty of lying to LE. Does that violate her probation or was it "over" at that point?
Click to expand...

She lied to LE before she was on probation and it did not result in new charges after she was on probation. IOW, she can't violate probation before she is on probation.
So that would have no play here.
 
snowdaze said:
Ha! JVM just said it right! The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing!, LOL And the TH, this is an embarrassment to the state of Florida. Boy, they got that right!

And also added that this whole circus is disrespectful to the memory of Caylee Anthony! IMO, I agree!
Click to expand...

Honestly? This is the case all over the US. This is not at all unusual,IMO and typically the court pays no attention as to how their orders are carried out-they move on and leave it to the next agency. The court doesn't check to see if the DOC is doing their job correctly as a rule. if they were checking and cross checking with each other it would be an even bigger cluster.
 
Schu7 said:
"IF" I got this correct, a lowest level non-court person makes the law in Florida. A lowly clerk writes up the orders. How ever he feels like it. And those orders he writes is law. So all one has to do is bribe a minimum wage county worker to get what you want. Al Capone never had it this great in Chicago for himself. He had to at least bribe 12 jurors.:twocents:
Click to expand...

Except the Judge still had to sign the order and it is assumed , he would have read it.
 
rotterdam said:
Except the Judge still had to sign the order and it is assumed , he would have read it.
Click to expand...

well it could be said that the jude would assume that the order was written the way he said it and was proofed before being brought to him for signature-everything is of record. This is arguable and amendable imo. now whether they do argue and/amend is an entirely different issue. can it be done? i think so. Will it be done? probably not. I wonder if there could even be a time limit on amending the order. It is pretty far after the fact. has this been addressed at all does anyone know? Technicalities can bite you.
 
I stayed completely away from this circus after the aquittal. Then, I'd come and only read a bit. Now, I'm starting to get all agitated with this whole injustice to Caylee AGAIN! If I don't stop, I may just go mad! This whole fiasco is inexcusable! We all KNOW what happened here and who did it! The prosecution was right on the TRUTH! I am so SICK of these Anthonys that I could truly puke!!!
 
Just K said:
From this article: "Plessinger also confirmed Casey was visited by a probation officer once during the year she spent on probation in the Orange County Jail. Other contacts to verify she remained in jail were done through reporting checks by phone.


So, they didn't meet with her on a monthly basis, so did she pay her $20.00 a month for 12 months? Did she get a job? Don't know about the payments but certainly the answer to the last question is NO.
Click to expand...

This right here says to me that the DOC is going to maintain that she did indeed serve probation. If they are satisfied then the buck stops there.

If you think about it, she was unable to serve her probation because she was awaiting trial and that may all she needs to say the probation conditions were met.
Just one take on it and since our justice system is adversarial by nature-there will be a counter argument to be sure LOL.
 
badme102 said:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12857734486638895579

"When there is a discrepancy between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement prevails."

(tweeted by Richard Hornsby a few days ago. I didn't read the case he cited)
Click to expand...

That may be true, but perhaps not if the punishment was already undertaken...i.e. probation already served. To be honest, I don't think a single person knows what went down as opposed to what should have gone down. And not sure it is "fixable."
 
badme102 said:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12857734486638895579

"When there is a discrepancy between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement prevails."

(tweeted by Richard Hornsby a few days ago. I didn't read the case he cited)
Click to expand...

I concur as everything is of record. However, I still wonder if there are any time issues associated with this and/or if the DOC is going to take the position that she served probation while incarcerated since she was incarcerated pending trial.

Oh wait-was she serving her sentence for the check fraud? or was she sentenced to time served after the check fraud conviction and she was in jail pending trial?
 
JBean said:
This right here says to me that the DOC is going to maintain that she did indeed serve probation. If they are satisfied then the buck stops there.

If you think about it, she was unable to serve her probation because she was awaiting trial and that may all she needs to say the probation conditions were met.
Just one take on it and since our justice system is adversarial by nature-there will be a counter argument to be sure LOL.
Click to expand...

HLN has been showing copies of documents one of which is a letter to CA obtained from DOC that clearly state that she has successfully completed her probation and her status is released.....IIRC the date stated on the letter was 1.24.11.
 
I think HHJP is just letting CM write the orders. May as well...he'll do whatever CM wants. Why waste time on it. The darling of HHJP's courtroom needs to get on with her life and not be bothered by the State of Florida anymore!! She wasted 3 yrs. of her life over LE and JA and LDB getting all bothered because Caylee died. Time to move on.....gag
 
raeann said:
HLN has been showing copies of documents one of which is a letter to CA obtained from DOC that clearly state that she has successfully completed her probation and her status is released.....IIRC the date stated on the letter was 1.24.11.
Click to expand...

IMO that's that. I think this is a dead horse we are beating here. In the real world this would be a non-issue and is only an issue due to the scrutiny on this case.

I don't think there can be a do-over at this point. But as I said before-they did haul Sarah Jane Olsen all the way back to jail for a year after her release from her 30 year incarceration. But that was within 5 days of the error. I am willing to bet there is a time clock running on amending an order-but I don't know.
But serving out another year is still a far cry from serving probation which the DOC seems to feel was handled.

So who knows?
 
JBean said:
well it could be said that the jude would assume that the order was written the way he said it and was proofed before being brought to him for signature-everything is of record. This is arguable and amendable imo. now whether they do argue and/amend is an entirely different issue. can it be done? i think so. Will it be done? probably not. I wonder if there could even be a time limit on amending the order. It is pretty far after the fact. has this been addressed at all does anyone know? Technicalities can bite you.
Click to expand...

IIRC, time limit was 60 days for any amendment/change. Technically he did not change anything, just a clearer concise written explanation that supported his unchanged oral rule. It can be argued that his written order did not state probation to be served after release but neither did it state probation to be served during incarceration.
Personally I love the mechanics of all that legal wiggling. We have learned so much legal stuff during the KC trial.
 
I have read the threads and didn't see an answer, why did HHJS recluse himself again? I don't understand why he started all this just to go on vacation and not follow through......Did he have to because he wasn't present to hear the case? TIA and sorry if I missed the answer to this, there is so many pages to read lol.
 
JBean said:
The reality is the court doesn't really have a say in how probation is run after they issue the order;it is up to the DOC or governing agency. It is not the courts problem or KC's problem if the probation was inadequate.It is the problem of the probationary body and they will have to deal with that internally. Think Philip Garrido.

The whole notion of serving probation in jail is counterintuitive so I am not addressing that, but how it was run by the DOC is not the courts "business" I assume KC would not be able to live with other felons while on probation-yet she just spent the last year living with plenty;so you can see there are all kinds of problems that go part and parcel with serving probation while incarcerated. Something has got to give. So if they visited her once and did not do drug testing it was because they rolled with the punches and didn't spend the time, money and/or manpower that seemed inconsequential at the time.If the probationary body says she served probation to their satisfaction-then she did.

Also,IMO if this was any other criminal this would be a non issue and would not even be addressed.
Click to expand...

BBM. Thank you. It was what I was trying to get at.
 
rotterdam said:
IIRC, time limit was 60 days for any amendment/change. Technically he did not change anything, just a clearer concise written explanation that supported his unchanged oral rule. It can be argued that his written order did not state probation to be served after release but neither did it state probation to be served during incarceration.
Personally I love the mechanics of all that legal wiggling. We have learned so much legal stuff during the KC trial.
Click to expand...

I will be surprised if she has to serve additional probation. if she was still on probation I would feel differently-but if she has been released from probation and the sentence ha been served? not so much.

When did the written notice say probation was to be served?
JMHO of course.

ETA: also has the issue come up of a time clock running on how far after a probation has been declared complete that they can amend that declaration? that would be key.
 
cuppy199 said:
Yes politics can be rotten but on both JP and JS behave I have to say I dont believe for one minute either of them would use this case or any other case to further their career. Both of them are very highly respected and honorible judges.We cant always help the hand we are dealt and sadly they just happen to be dealt KA.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, let me try this another way. Seeing my previous post got deleted. It sounds to me like there is no superior over-sight judicial check system in place on Judges. And they rule as final say. No matter what they rule. Well that smacks of far too much power.IMO The DT can always go to a higher court for a ruling change. But it seems the prosecution is held completely to what a Judge says. Even judges who make incompetent mistakes. Or make political self serving decisions.

This is far from a fair and equable situation between the two court sides of the law.IMO The burden is on the prosecution in court cases. Yet they must function under a handicap. I would think this must be a far cry from what the founding Fathers laid down for the legal system in the USA. The people of the society should have equal courts rights as the accused.IMO Oh how this Casey case is highlighting a core problem here.IMO I sure do not think this is making for the best legal system in the world, as is widely touted by the people.IMO
 
askfornina said:
also pulled from the ask lawyers thread for all of your information, FWIW, etc:
Click to expand...

YES! and that is how it should be, you can't make someone serve it twice...or at least you shouldn't be able to. That would mean any one of us could be caught in that sort of mess.
 
rotterdam said:
Except the Judge still had to sign the order and it is assumed , he would have read it.
Click to expand...

I doubt he read the paper work. The reality is truth. The courts are rushed do to understaffing. He would get a many page document. And just sign it do to time limitations on his work day. Just how many more judges would be needed at what cost, if they took the time to read the endless paper work?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 4,079 (members: 200, guests: 3,879)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
3,879
Total visitors
4,079
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,697
Messages
17,957,667
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top