What Is the Defense Strategy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an attorney myself, I am just surprised at the style of JB in this DEATH PENALTY case. He is way, way in over his head here. Okay, so the motions, the substance of them, that the defense has filed so far, I think those are fine. Tactically, the motions are logical for the most part. But the team in general seems a bit disorganized and JB seems to just not belong in this court room. he should be handling misdemeanors, IMO.

I have seen where he has done okay in some arguments, etc, but the questioning I have seen in these motions is painful to watch. He acts like a
child. He appears to think he is impeaching witnesses when he's not at all. I loved Forgey. He was very polite but stood his ground. I felt sorry for the guy because he seemed baffled by the idiocy of some of the questions and the overall snotty attitude of JB: "Let me see if I can break this down for you again. We'll start from the beginning and hopefully even a moron like you will understand." Arghhh!

JB is that deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance. We all know the type. They know just enough to feel they are authorities but not enough to recognize how ignorant they are. He will never realize he's in over his head. And that's why we are where we are. The strategy here seems to be to get as much money as possible from this case (although he surely did not anticipate how much work he'd actually have to do for the money he received, which really made it all not worth it), and to get famous by affiliation with this high profile case. The strategy had nothing to do with the best interest of casey.

If she were my client, very early on I would have challenged her and forced her to see what her statements, demeanor, etc, would seem like to a judge and jury. I would give her the choice but ultimately, my first goal would have been a reality check and hopefully a plea to negligent homicide, child endangerment, something less than murder one. It would be tough to convince a person like her of the reality but that would be my first priority. And that's what I do with my clients in my family law cases. I give them the truth.

Of course, I cannot guarantee that JB didn't do this but I'd bet he did not. The actions of his client, her family and of himself in the early stages show me he didn't care about anything but being involved in a high profile case. It's a mess.

Well yes. But I would also like to think that you (and ALL of our attorneys around here) would recognize the full gravity of the situation, and the range of their own personal experience. At the point where the client decided to take it to trial I am guessing you would politely but firmly tell them, "OK while I will be with you every single step of the way, we will be getting an experienced death penalty attorney in here and they will be taking the complete lead on this. We will both do what they say, when they say it. I do not have the DP experience to lead this case going into trial." You would put your clients life and interests ahead of your own ego or personal image of self. Even if the client begged for it to be otherwise.
 
I just had a thought. Has nothing to do with Defense strategy but thinking about GA got me thinking of his LE friend. We haven't seen an interview from him yet. Well we hadn't see an interview from MH because he was wired. WHAT IF this friend, being LE, offered to go visit GA while wearing a wire??? Wouldn't that be something!
 
Just to throw this out for discussion:

In Memphis a few years back there was the Mary Winkler trial, in which her attorneys Leslie Ballen and Steve Farese successfully argued that Mary shot her preacher husband in the back due to PTSD symptoms caused by abuse. Here is an article that describes the trial in a nutshell -

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-12/...ourth-street-church-matthew-winkler?_s=PM:LAW

She was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter and spent less than a year in jail. Is that really possible here?? In that case Mary herself took the stand and explained her actions and the nature of her marriage prior to the shooting. But of course, Mary did not have the lying issues that Casey does. AZ explained on a prior post here that Casey would not have to take the stand in order for them to float this defense. But I still have a hard time seeing how this could possibly be successful without her testifying.

Just seemed to me to be an interesting case to compare. But when you compare the defendants - a responsible parent & preacher's wife vs. a compulsively lying party girl whose parents were on the verge of having her declared unfit.......you can see where I'm going with this. I think the DT is grasping at straws with this one as well!! Just my :twocents:!!
 
Well yes. But I would also like to think that you (and ALL of our attorneys around here) would recognize the full gravity of the situation, and the range of their own personal experience. At the point where the client decided to take it to trial I am guessing you would politely but firmly tell them, "OK while I will be with you every single step of the way, we will be getting an experienced death penalty attorney in here and they will be taking the complete lead on this. We will both do what they say, when they say it. I do not have the DP experience to lead this case going into trial." You would put your clients life and interests ahead of your own ego or personal image of self. Even if the client begged for it to be otherwise.

But would any DP qualified attorney have let JB get away with doing what he did with the money made from those pictures? He'd have to share. Does not appear he shares well. I'm sure his ex-wife can testify to that. jmo
 
To me it didn't sound as if they were going to try to use the PTSD because Ms. Finnell said that she didn't think the state would need to have someone examine KC. If they were going to use any kind of psychological "excuse", then wouldn't the prosecution need to examine KC also?

Then again, she said it went to ' state of mind' and they are wanting to call in DOCTOR Weitz , who specializes in the treatment of PTSD.

So of course the state will have to examine her, the DT is just trying to avoid it. As usual...
 
I was just thinking of that odd exchange between Jose and George as well. At first, I went AHA!!! and then I said, wait a second. Why would you want it on record that you would be willing to do anything to save your daughter? Would that not negate the whole "I did it" later?

I don't think that George is going to ever say " I did it."

I think the plan is just to accuse him, imply that he COULD have done it, and let him deny it. Even then it plants the seeds of 'reasonable doubt.'
 
And that there is the problem....while everyone was searching for her missing baby she turned to her lawyer and he posed for the media---that one comment of his that he wouldn't let her talk because it would be used against her to me equaled a confession of guilt....anyone who is not responsible for their missing child is all over the press---showing emotion and whatever else--family doing all they can to help NOT HINDER law enforcement...

As for anything related to ga and abuse? I have always been under the impression the main person was la---and possibly ga.....so I bet la will get thown under especially after that "maybe" .....she wasn't happy....



BBM

I would think the stronger abuse allegation would go against LA. Except that I don't believe that LA would ever go along with this diabolical defense. The guy has a decent job, steady friends by all accounts, a soon-to-be-wife and mother of his future children. In other words a LIFE.

I'll have dig up the jail letter where she tells RA about the abuse by her brother for 3 years; and how when he was 15 she finally told him to stop or she would kill him. She also writes that she thinks her father might have abused her too.
 
In rereading this thread it is amazing just how much of a reach it will be for the defense to use any defense to explain away ICA's actions.

GA and CA were grandparents that, despite being fruitcakes themselves, provided a home and some sort of love for Caylee. I don't think trying to place suspicion on them will work.

The ptsd option is the only chance they have in even trying to explain all of the lies, stealing, partying, etc. that occured before and after Caylee died. How they will spin this, I don't even think they know yet.

The history of lying and stealing is so great, it will be hard to blame all of it on ptsd. But they have to use it to diffuse all the Zanni stories and the made up people, places, events. It is a HUGE obstacle even with a good lawyer.

This case is really a simple one if you take away all the people who inserted themselves to create drama.

The SA wants to present a clean, precise, easy to understand account of the truth.

They have seen Jose in action and will need the world's biggest broom to sweep away all the defense's time wasting, mud slingling, mind boggling, bologna packaging courtroom antics.

My only hope is that the jurors will have the stamina to withstand this.
 
Then again, she said it went to ' state of mind' and they are wanting to call in DOCTOR Weitz , who specializes in the treatment of PTSD.

So of course the state will have to examine her, the DT is just trying to avoid it. As usual...

I don't think it's going to be easy to get this evidence in. First, if the doctors' opinions are based on a KC interview or review of a KC interview--the State's doctor should be able to interview KC as well-otherwise it would be an end run around kc testifying and the state having an opportunity to cross-examine. Second, although experts are allowed to rely upon the contents of another expert's report--the underlying "facts" in that report have to independently be admitted into evidence before the expert can rely on it and testify to it. Third, I don't think the DT can "allude" to facts which aren't in the record in order to get this defense theory in at trial. Fourth, how are they going to explain the delay sufficient to have Judge Perry let it in? I don't think the claim that the experts' opinions were a 'fluid' process is going to fly with JP at this late stage of the game.
 
Well GA can't testify that he abused KC because his deposition/statements to police say otherwise. In this case his statement that he would do anything to save KC's life would not help you at all. jmo

I don't think he is going to be the one to say he abused her. Why would he? I think they will try and use Casey's jail letters and if need be, Casey herself.

If they try PTSD then she will have to testify herself. What does she have to lose? If they get to show the jury all of her lies at Universal and on the 911 call, she is toast.

They NEED an excuse for all of those lies and all of the party pictures. PTSD is all they got to try and defend that behavior. If she gets up on the stand and says 'Daddy abused me for years" then what?
 
I didn't get to watch the hearing Thursday and catching up today.
re: PTSD
Wasn't ICA examined by a State psychologist? And that info has not been released? Regardless it doesn't apply to the States case because it's a disorder. IMO ICA doesn't have/didn't have PTSD. One can read about the three main types of symptoms, as on this website,
http://helpguide.org/mental/post_traumatic_stress_disorder_symptoms_treatment.htm

1 - Re-experiencing the traumatic event
2 - Avoiding reminders of the trauma
3 - Increased anxiety and emotional arousal

But the symptoms are not as "cut and dry" nor as simplistically vague as those three examples imply. Number 1 -Re-experiencing the traumatic event is not a one time event, as in, one time crying while looking at a computer at your boyfriends. It is constantly reliving the event, so much so that you cannot function and just drag yourself through the day. 2 - Avoiding reminders of the trauma is difficult since one is constantly reliving the event in your mind, but doesn't apply to ICA since she kept driving by the house and near the remains site and driving the car (until abandoned because of the odor imo). 3 - Increased anxiety and emotional arousal doesn't apply to ICA because she was clubbing, body contact with other people dancing, sitting around in the living room calmly interacting with other people, appearing quite normal to others, no different than before. A person with PTSD is incapable of acting totally normal, they might appear normal to people that didn't know them before the traumatic event but to those that knew them before, there would be little things that would be off: because of the constant internal reliving of the event, they would be in their own head and miss some of the things happening around them, conversations etc. They would be very guarded physically, to be ready for anything, loud noises etc. A person with PTSD might not react to a loud noise with a scream but other people would be able to see the person tense up. Increased anxiety: a person with PTSD wouldn't be able to handle all of the noise from loud music, the close body contact that would be experienced at a crowded club. As far as GA being the source of ICA's PTSD - she would not want to be around him, she wouldn't ask for him to be the one to see her alone at the jail. PTSD does not apply to ICA
 
I don't think it's going to be easy to get this evidence in. First, if the doctors' opinions are based on a KC interview or review of a KC interview--the State's doctor should be able to interview KC as well-otherwise it would be an end run around kc testifying and the state having an opportunity to cross-examine. Second, although experts are allowed to rely upon the contents of another expert's report--the underlying "facts" in that report have to independently be admitted into evidence before the expert can rely on it and testify to it. Third, I don't think the DT can "allude" to facts which aren't in the record in order to get this defense theory in at trial. Fourth, how are they going to explain the delay sufficient to have Judge Perry let it in? I don't think the claim that the experts' opinions were a 'fluid' process is going to fly with JP at this late stage of the game.

MAYBE they will end up putting her on the stand. What have they got to lose?
All of her lies are already being admitted. And the need to have a defense to explain and justify those lies and all of that 'ugly coping' behavior. It is a desperate tactic but it might be a stunning one.
 
Well yes. That has always been what Andrea "The Angel of Death Row" Lyon's goals were. And honestly, nobody has rewritten or re-evaluated the playbook since she was there. Ms. Lyons has a very famous, internationally known career that few people realize is based on having pretty much every single one of her clients convicted and sitting in jail for the rest of their natural lives. And she scores them all as wins.

I think JB still thinks there will be some big Perry Mason moment where he will save the day and get his client acquitted. Which simply indicates that he lives as much inside his own head as his client. I think CM is more realistic in this regard and knows what directions are completely losing propositions, but is more about laying the groundwork for appeals challenges. I think AF plans on keeping KC off death row, nothing more and that will be a win for her. I have no idea what DCS's goals are, I don't think the full magnitude here has sunk in with her yet.

Thank you so much for your insightful post. If this was the "goal' since AL was on the D/T then why didn't the D/T just plea this case out to LWOP,and all of this money,drama antics etc would not be happening. I don't understand that if this is the bottom line,this could have been obtained months if not years ago.Am I missing something here? :waitasec:
 
I didn't get to watch the hearing Thursday and catching up today.
re: PTSD
Wasn't ICA examined by a State psychologist? And that info has not been released? Regardless it doesn't apply to the States case because it's a disorder. IMO ICA doesn't have/didn't have PTSD. One can read about the three main types of symptoms, as on this website,
http://helpguide.org/mental/post_traumatic_stress_disorder_symptoms_treatment.htm

1 - Re-experiencing the traumatic event
2 - Avoiding reminders of the trauma
3 - Increased anxiety and emotional arousal

But the symptoms are not as "cut and dry" nor as simplistically vague as those three examples imply. Number 1 -Re-experiencing the traumatic event is not a one time event, as in, one time crying while looking at a computer at your boyfriends. It is constantly reliving the event, so much so that you cannot function and just drag yourself through the day. 2 - Avoiding reminders of the trauma is difficult since one is constantly reliving the event in your mind, but doesn't apply to ICA since she kept driving by the house and near the remains site and driving the car (until abandoned because of the odor imo). 3 - Increased anxiety and emotional arousal doesn't apply to ICA because she was clubbing, body contact with other people dancing, sitting around in the living room calmly interacting with other people, appearing quite normal to others, no different than before. A person with PTSD is incapable of acting totally normal, they might appear normal to people that didn't know them before the traumatic event but to those that knew them before, there would be little things that would be off: because of the constant internal reliving of the event, they would be in their own head and miss some of the things happening around them, conversations etc. They would be very guarded physically, to be ready for anything, loud noises etc. A person with PTSD might not react to a loud noise with a scream but other people would be able to see the person tense up. Increased anxiety: a person with PTSD wouldn't be able to handle all of the noise from loud music, the close body contact that would be experienced at a crowded club. PTSD does not apply to ICA

But they are not going to say her PTSD came from the child's death. They will likely claim it came from a childhood of sexual/emotional abuse. In those cases the victims sometimes act out sexually, are addicted to drugs/alcohol and are promiscuous. Thus her going to clubs fits the dx. imo
 
Just to throw this out for discussion:

In Memphis a few years back there was the Mary Winkler trial, in which her attorneys Leslie Ballen and Steve Farese successfully argued that Mary shot her preacher husband in the back due to PTSD symptoms caused by abuse. Here is an article that describes the trial in a nutshell -

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-12/...ourth-street-church-matthew-winkler?_s=PM:LAW

She was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter and spent less than a year in jail. Is that really possible here?? In that case Mary herself took the stand and explained her actions and the nature of her marriage prior to the shooting. But of course, Mary did not have the lying issues that Casey does. AZ explained on a prior post here that Casey would not have to take the stand in order for them to float this defense. But I still have a hard time seeing how this could possibly be successful without her testifying.

Just seemed to me to be an interesting case to compare. But when you compare the defendants - a responsible parent & preacher's wife vs. a compulsively lying party girl whose parents were on the verge of having her declared unfit.......you can see where I'm going with this. I think the DT is grasping at straws with this one as well!! Just my :twocents:!!

Mary's ptsd was thought to be caused by her husband whom she killed - sort of a battered wife defense. If ICA were diagnosed with ptsd because of sexual abuse, it would not contribute to killing her child. The trauma causing the ptsd would have to be associated with some trigger that would lead to the killing in some way - some link. Ptsd is an anxiety disorder. If the defense claims it was caused by prior sexual abuse, it would be very difficult to link it to killing her child.
ICA has some behaviors and thought patterns that seem to be associated with personality disorders: Compulsive lying, lack of remorse, changing her behavior to fit in with whoever or wherever she is, demands of loyal at all costs (you are on her side or not), lack of healthy interpersonal relationships - these are some behaviors found with personality disorders. JMO
 
In rereading this thread it is amazing just how much of a reach it will be for the defense to use any defense to explain away ICA's actions.

GA and CA were grandparents that, despite being fruitcakes themselves, provided a home and some sort of love for Caylee. I don't think trying to place suspicion on them will work.

The ptsd option is the only chance they have in even trying to explain all of the lies, stealing, partying, etc. that occured before and after Caylee died. How they will spin this, I don't even think they know yet.

The history of lying and stealing is so great, it will be hard to blame all of it on ptsd. But they have to use it to diffuse all the Zanni stories and the made up people, places, events. It is a HUGE obstacle even with a good lawyer.

This case is really a simple one if you take away all the people who inserted themselves to create drama.

The SA wants to present a clean, precise, easy to understand account of the truth.

They have seen Jose in action and will need the world's biggest broom to sweep away all the defense's time wasting, mud slingling, mind boggling, bologna packaging courtroom antics.

My only hope is that the jurors will have the stamina to withstand this.

We've done it for 3 years, well almost, and we're still here. Two months should be a cake walk.
 
As an attorney myself, I am just surprised at the style of JB in this DEATH PENALTY case. He is way, way in over his head here. Okay, so the motions, the substance of them, that the defense has filed so far, I think those are fine. Tactically, the motions are logical for the most part. But the team in general seems a bit disorganized and JB seems to just not belong in this court room. he should be handling misdemeanors, IMO.

I have seen where he has done okay in some arguments, etc, but the questioning I have seen in these motions is painful to watch. He acts like a
child. He appears to think he is impeaching witnesses when he's not at all. I loved Forgey. He was very polite but stood his ground. I felt sorry for the guy because he seemed baffled by the idiocy of some of the questions and the overall snotty attitude of JB: "Let me see if I can break this down for you again. We'll start from the beginning and hopefully even a moron like you will understand." Arghhh!

JB is that deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance. We all know the type. They know just enough to feel they are authorities but not enough to recognize how ignorant they are. He will never realize he's in over his head. And that's why we are where we are. The strategy here seems to be to get as much money as possible from this case (although he surely did not anticipate how much work he'd actually have to do for the money he received, which really made it all not worth it), and to get famous by affiliation with this high profile case. The strategy had nothing to do with the best interest of casey.

If she were my client, very early on I would have challenged her and forced her to see what her statements, demeanor, etc, would seem like to a judge and jury. I would give her the choice but ultimately, my first goal would have been a reality check and hopefully a plea to negligent homicide, child endangerment, something less than murder one. It would be tough to convince a person like her of the reality but that would be my first priority. And that's what I do with my clients in my family law cases. I give them the truth.

Of course, I cannot guarantee that JB didn't do this but I'd bet he did not. The actions of his client, her family and of himself in the early stages show me he didn't care about anything but being involved in a high profile case. It's a mess.

Looking back to JB's meltdown,I can't help but wonder if he suddenly realized his challenge was not going the way he thought it would,and that's why he fell apart.Yes,he probably thought he could bring in anything he wanted to,since 'DEATH IS DIFFERENT' ,but I think the answers he was getting from Dr. Vass were so over his head (or so very simple) he felt....well.......thwarted !
 
Well yes. But I would also like to think that you (and ALL of our attorneys around here) would recognize the full gravity of the situation, and the range of their own personal experience. At the point where the client decided to take it to trial I am guessing you would politely but firmly tell them, "OK while I will be with you every single step of the way, we will be getting an experienced death penalty attorney in here and they will be taking the complete lead on this. We will both do what they say, when they say it. I do not have the DP experience to lead this case going into trial." You would put your clients life and interests ahead of your own ego or personal image of self. Even if the client begged for it to be otherwise.

-------------------
These posts are what I wanted to say and couldnt put together.I think JB's problem is he is only concerned with the outcome for his own benefit.He so wants witnesses to say what HE wants that he is angry and rude. Thats why he cant concentrate on the Frye hearings,he's too wrapped up in himself!
 
We've done it for 3 years, well almost, and we're still here. Two months should be a cake walk.

LOL LambChop! I wanted to guzzle a bottle of wine during the last hearing,and I rarely drink! I'm not sure I can get through the trial ,just watching it on TV !
Our choices are rambling Baez or mumbling Mason. I suppose Simms may jump in,but I will be distracted ,wondering why she does not use a flat iron,and I'll miss her point.
Ann Finnel with be a breath of fresh air during the penalty phase.
 
-------------------
These posts are what I wanted to say and couldnt put together.I think JB's problem is he is only concerned with the outcome for his own benefit.He so wants witnesses to say what HE wants that he is angry and rude. Thats why he cant concentrate on the Frye hearings,he's too wrapped up in himself!

ITA and we have known this since JB first started on the case. Even Lee tried to tell ICA that JB would do what was good for JB,not necessarily for ICA.
One thing about JB,he's consistant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
936
Total visitors
1,092

Forum statistics

Threads
589,935
Messages
17,927,879
Members
228,005
Latest member
vigilandy
Back
Top