CM:We don't have any obligation to put on a defense -JP:"Y'all lied to me

[MADJGNLAW]

I really don't understand why everyone is freaking out that this could cause a mistrial. BFD - They lied. CJBP called them on it. It's a fact. What am I missing?

:waitasec:Couldn't Casey keep up the lie and claim her defense team did not tell her that they were doing all this lying and shenanigans and file to fire her attorneys right before the jury comes with a verdict and then it could end up being a mistrial? She can say she had ineffective counsel..heck, even some of the analyst have said this. :waitasec:

 

[txsvicki]

I don't get what the big deal is over Baez wanting the jury to know that he doesn't have to put on a defense. If the Judge decides to tell them then surely he knows his job.

 

[kaRN]

Or...it could be taken as a statement by the defense that the prosecution's case was so weak that they don't need to present a defense. That's not the way I feel, mind you, but it is a defense strategy that's been used before. Basically, it's a bluff.

I'm confused about this entire issue. It sounds as if Baez is saying they DO intend to present a case but they want the judge to inform the jury that they don't have to, as if they are doing the jury a favor by presenting a defense. I think the judge was a little quick to call them liars....schemers, yes, but not liars.... unless the judge has reason to believe that the defense will immediately rest after he makes that statement to the jury.

Respectfully Chilly Willy, but we have no idea what the DT has been doing and saying to BP on the sidelines. I read it as this time, they had gone too far and they were being called out on this final lie.

 

[coloradoteacher]

Question for those more qualified than me to answer: Why would these attorneys want to get KC a mistrial? Do they like her so much they want her to have a mistrial? Surely a judgment of a mistrial cannot look good upon themselves as attorneys, so I'd imagine they'd want to represent her in the best way possible..

DT always try for a mistrial. They want to show misconduct from the SA and have a better shot when evidence that is not favorable to them or statements that are not favorable to them would not be introduced.

IMHO, the DT in this case was not very prepared in their arguments for admission of evidence and even analyzing the evidence that the SA was introducing. The jailhouse videos are the first ones that come to mind. I think that they would LOVE a mistrial b/c then they could retool their outrageous DT strategies in their OS because the SA has already shown many pieces of evidence to disprove this theory. I think they would keep it simple with Caylee drowned and ICA panicked.

I think the reason they added all the RK and GA stuff was the ICA wanted complete innocence, which, after hearing the SA argument, is not possible.

MOO

 

[azwriter]

Let's assume the DT didn't put on a case. Wouldn't that kind of signal they don't really have one?

Not really. It can be turned the other way - the defense rests and doesn't put forth a case because they tell the court and the jury they believe the State did not prove its case; so what's to defend? It happens.

jmo

 

[tapu]

I've thought about this now.... (uh-oh)

If I were her defense team, I would not put on a defense now, and I would make sure the jury knew that we had a right not to.

None of the evidence against Casey is conclusive in and of itself. And as it stands, the George thing could raise reasonable doubt.

BUT if they put witnesses up there and question them, they have to be talking about SOMETHING. And once they do, there's cross.

That is more likely to nail her than shutting it down right here?

To say "no defense" now, is in my opinion, the best job her attorney could ever do. And they couldln't have decided that before now.

It is also perfectly legal to "rest" and to decide now.

not saying i'm pleased--just that i think i get it.


THE QUESTION HAS BEEN STRIPPED TO ITS BAREST: did the prosecution successfully show it HAD to be her?

 

[Nali87]

What will the jury think about JB's ridiculous opening statement then!? At the end of that, he said everything would be clear! WHY did he say all those things if he wasn't going to try to build a case around his statements? Are they all nuts?

 

[Joanner]

I haven't been able to keep up with the trial for the past week but trying to get brief updates.

Was Roy Kronk ever put on the stand? Seems to me that, since Baez threw his name out there in the opening statements (and pretty damning statements), the jury is probably saying who is the Kronk person? Jury is probably expecting more information on him.

 

[Kateyes]

:loser:

What I take from the sidebar is that the Judge has been very much trying not to inconvenience the jury as far as planning goes, and in doing so he has mentioned "The Defense Case" when in fact the burden of proof is on the State and the Defense doesnt have to put on anything. Of course, there is that little matter of promising things in the opening statement, but I digress. The defense is simply wanting a curative instruction so that the jury doesn't begin thinking that the Defense has to put anything on ... and much as I dislike the DT I agree that these comments could be viewed on appeal as "burden shifting" on to the defense. No one on the State side (at least) wants to try this thing more than one time!

Thanks, I took it exactly the same way. IMO, the defense wants the judge to instruct the jury that the defense is not obligated to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the state. Even IF the DT chose not to put on any witnesses, etc, it is still only the burden of the state to prove the State's case. The defense is under no such obligation.

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

What will the jury think about JB's ridiculous opening statement then!? At the end of that, he said everything would be clear! WHY did he say all those things if he wasn't going to try to build a case around his statements? Are they all nuts?

imo: JB is hoping the jury will be confused by the "we don't have to put on a single witness" stuff, and hopes the jury will apply it to his absurd theory: that he doesn't have to prove anything.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I haven't been able to keep up with the trial for the past week but trying to get brief updates.

Was Roy Kronk ever put on the stand? Seems to me that, since Baez threw his name out there in the opening statements (and pretty damning statements), the jury is probably saying who is the Kronk person? Jury is probably expecting more information on him.

Geragos made the same mistakes as Scott Peterson's defense attorney. He made promises in his opening statement and then didn't deliver. We all know where Scott ended up.

 

[Chilly Willy]

:maddening:

Respectfully Chilly Willy, but we have no idea what the DT has been doing and saying to BP on the sidelines. I read it as this time, they had gone too far and they were being called out on this final lie.

There was a transcript posted. I can't recall where, but we know exactly what was said.

 

[Sabrina2011]

:maddening:

There was a transcript posted. I can't recall where, but we know exactly what was said.

http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0614/28230782.pdf

here it is!:seeya:

 

[Themis]

Whoa Nellie! That sidebar transcript makes me wonder if the DT is still undecided or divided as to whether or not they are going to put on a defense case in chief. If their best position according to CM is to have HHJP give an instruction from the bench that defense is not required to put on a defense, that really bodes poorly for the probability that they have a smooth and detailed defense case in chief ready. I suspect any possible defense case in chief is ..... just Casey testifying. That would not be a good idea.

 

[Eidetic]

"Yes the hell you did."

I love Honorable Judge Belvin Perry :rocker:

 

[Chilly Willy]

I didn't put that little angry bouncy guy in my post above - or at least I didn't mean too. Please don't anyone think I'm being pizzy.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

:maddening::maddening:

Whoa Nellie! That sidebar transcript makes me wonder if the DT is still undecided or divided as to whether or not they are going to put on a defense case in chief. If their best position according to CM is to have HHJP give an instruction from the bench that defense is not required to put on a defense, that really bodes poorly for the probability that they have a smooth and detailed defense case in chief ready. I suspect any possible defense case in chief is ..... just Casey testifying. That would not be a good idea.

Thank you..I was not sure what words I was searching for in this mess..fear of a mistrial..fear that the defense is still undecided if they have anything worth presenting and will Casey fire them if they don't? That is my fear..she can play the victim here..she is good for playing the victim..:maddening:

 

[RR473]

I asked this in another thread so I'm sorry for the repost but I'm dying for an answer....
Probably a dumb question and it may have been asked in another thread but I'm throwing it out anyway...

What did HHJBP mean when he said (not once, but twice during the side bar); "if you don't do that, then I will fall on the sword and do it"??

What is exactly would he do? "Falling on a sword" typically means sacrificing yourself for another - I cannot imagine he'd sacrifice himself for either side (especially not the defense).

Maybe he wanted to say "He will take the sword and do it".

 

[suzihawk]

GA said this very, very early on; No body no case, No evidence no case.
(I am not quoting him verbatim).

Everything I have seen or read it seems like a very weak case and it looks like a miss-trial to me. AT THIS POINT.

IMHO - GA did mastery clean up and I have said this from the start.
KC should call him father of the year - instead she crucified him.

You sure you don't have this case mixed up with the Joran Van der Sloot case? J/K :floorlaugh:

Seriously, I don't recall GA ever saying that. But I may have missed it.

 

[Sleuth5]

Well, I get it (after reading the transcript) that CM doesn't want anything prejudicial implied by HHJBP's announcement regarding scheduling -- but obviously, he made a similar statement every week so far at some point in terms of telegraphing potential length of trial.

CM may not have meant it this way (giving the benefit of the doubt here), but it appears as though they attempted to lure HHJBP in by giving him every reason to believe that they would put up a case, then expecting him to make a special point of doing what amounts to an advance jury instruction by making a statement in open court about their lack of burden in a criminal trial.

What I get is this -- CM wants a preemptive disclaimer for the thoroughly weak defense they are planning to foist on the jury. He would like nothing better than to have HHJBP, a clearly deliberate and respectful presence in the courtroom, intone to the jury in his confident, clearly articulated way, that they do not have a burden to put on any defense or make any statement of any kind. Then they will go ahead and put on the weak-as-water defense they have in mind.

Perhaps the SAO should petition HHJBP to issue a similar statement in open court to the effect that the SAO does not have a burden to prove that GA is innocent, or that the slurs perpetrated by the DT do not constitute evidence in se. Of course, he will address some of these issues in his Jury Charge, just as he will address the DT's "grievance".

As for HHJBP's statement regarding trust issues, I can't see that as grounds for a mistrial. As the presiding judge, he has no obligation to "trust" either of the parties in the room. It is his job to adjudicate all matters of law and to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial by supervising the presentation of the cases on both sides.

:cow: