"Second Motion To Preclude Death Procedures for Impermissable Prosecutorial Motives"

[Anais]

As of 10:37 AM these new motions had NOT been filed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is evident that the defense is feeding them to the news before filing. Not just unprofessional IMO but unconscionable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's time for the defense team to comment on this.

ITA! I am wondering how or what the new Judge's Judge B. Perry will think of this? Can he reprimand the defense for this?

BTW Thanks Magic for answering my jac q!

 

[tlcya]

On page 7 of this motion it is stated by the defense:

"By seeking the death penalty the prosecution sought to financially break the defense and deprive Miss Anthony of her counsel of choice."
BBM

Uh yeah, they want her dead because they don't want her to be able to afford a defense, not because she killed her own flesh and blood and deserves it.

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures a criminal defendant the right to counsel...an element of that right is a right to choice of counsel for defendants who are able to afford counsel."

BandUBM

Uh, didn't ya'll just go through weeks of hearings, motions etc in order to PROVE your client is indigent and therefore unable to afford counsel???

 

[tlcya]

Yep, alot of leaks going on here. A lot. ITA w sleutherontheside, this is proof positive that the defense is feeding media their motions and even their possible/potential motions in order to grab press, facetime, etc. for poor little Casey. And in practically the same breath they claim she can never get a fair trial boo hoo hoo.

Here's a thought "Dream Team", hows about ya'll shut up, quit courting the media and chasing your 15 minutes and try to draft a motion or two that makes sense. Better yet, start actually defending your client.

Oh.

Wait a minute.

She's guilty and her actions are indefensible.

Nevermind, carry on with the 15 minutes.

 

[magic-cat]

On page 7 of this motion it is stated by the defense:

"By seeking the death penalty the prosecution sought to financially break the defense and deprive Miss Anthony of her counsel of choice."
BBM

Uh yeah, they want her dead because they don't want her to be able to afford a defense, not because she killed her own flesh and blood and deserves it.

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures a criminal defendant the right to counsel...an element of that right is a right to choice of counsel for defendants who are able to afford counsel."

BandUBM

Uh, didn't ya'll just go through weeks of hearings, motions etc in order to PROVE your client is indigent and therefore unable to afford counsel???

Thank you.
"who are able to afford"...THAT alone would leave Miss Anthony out, since she is INDIGENT! She is NOT indigent BECAUSE of the death penalty being sought. She is indigent because she has not worked since 2005! and has been living the rich party girl life and had no money when she committed her crimes and let her defense team waste what she was able to come up with by SELLING PICTURES OF HER VICTIM TO ABC, and now has come back to her original position of, uh, INDIGENT! She is not being deprived of anything. She is indigent and is being given ALL the same considerations as every other indigent defendant. She is not so special after all...and maybe nobody else wants to buy pictures of her victim from her...she will therefore remain indigent. Nothing to do for it is there?

 

[zoey]

I am confused I thought that ALL attorney's, investigator's and experts etc. fees are being paid by the state because she was declared indigent???

it was just expenses

 

[Dear Prudence]

I am confused I thought that ALL attorney's, investigator's and experts etc. fees are being paid by the state because she was declared indigent???

The attorney's did not request the state to pay their fees, only their costs. Their costs would include things such as travel, investigators, copies, stenographers, transcriptions, etc.

 

[sleutherontheside]

After reading the new "leaked" motions....I do have to say that from an objective point of view....they are excellent and do make compelling arguments. It is clear that JB never touched them...well except for when they were passed to CH13 but even then....he probably didn't touch them.

AL's sole purpose is to get the DP removed. I wonder if these motions were leaked in order to give the SA a "heads up" to stimulate either removal of the DP OR to stimulate new discussion about a plea. AL attempts to resolve the DP issue BEFORE having to go to trial.

I think I see exactly where they are going with this.

 

[zoey]

Yep, alot of leaks going on here. A lot. ITA w sleutherontheside, this is proof positive that the defense is feeding media their motions and even their possible/potential motions in order to grab press, facetime, etc. for poor little Casey. And in practically the same breath they claim she can never get a fair trial boo hoo hoo.

Here's a thought "Dream Team", hows about ya'll shut up, quit courting the media and chasing your 15 minutes and try to draft a motion or two that makes sense. Better yet, start actually defending your client.

Oh.

Wait a minute.

She's guilty and her actions are indefensible.

Nevermind, carry on with the 15 minutes.

continues to blow that "only try in a court of law" theory of jb's..... is this legal? to file with media?????????

 

[Dear Prudence]

As of 10:37 AM these new motions had NOT been filed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is evident that the defense is feeding them to the news before filing. Not just unprofessional IMO but unconscionable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's time for the defense team to comment on this.

Maybe CF News 13 messed up and forgot to wait for Baez to say "OK, Release them, uhhh no, wait for it, wait for it, OK, NOW!"

 

[Gypsy Road]

Me thinks JB has the court house and media outlet buildings confused. "No, JB...you were suppose to sign these motions and take them down to the big white building downtown that is marked COURT HOUSE, not to the Orlando Sentinel building!":banghead::crazy:

Yeah....what Judge Strickland said - it's rich alright!

 

[Anais]

After reading the new "leaked" motions....I do have to say that from an objective point of view....they are excellent and do make compelling arguments. It is clear that JB never touched them...well except for when they were passed to CH13 but even then....he probably didn't touch them.

AL's sole purpose is to get the DP removed. I wonder if these motions were leaked in order to give the SA a "heads up" to stimulate either removal of the DP OR to stimulate new discussion about a plea. AL attempts to resolve the DP issue BEFORE having to go to trial.

I think I see exactly where they are going with this.

But will it actually work? I am not sure that the SA is quite so willing to remove the DP for one, and for two I just do not see Casey going for a plea! She is set and bound that she is innocent! So now where does it leave them?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Andrea Lyon's only concern is making sure the death penalty not imposed. She is not concerned with KC's guilt or innocence. I don't know if it would work but if the SA has a heads up that there is an imminent full court press to get the DP off the table it may open dialog again for some plea of some sort.

KC can hold her ground...that is her choice...but her attorney has to give her options to consider.

I also think that this is another part of the defense teams push to find out EVERYTHING the SA has against their client. They need it all in order to plan their next move. It's a game of chicken IMO.

 

[Mominva]

All we have heard since day 31 is poor Casey she is a victim. Poor Casey her rights are being violated. What about Caylee. Has everyone forgot about her. I haven't. Justice for Caylee. Sorry maybe i need a break.

 

[angelmom]

Here's a thought: if you are broke and don't want to deal with a public defender DON'T KILL YOUR BABY!!!

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

ETA: not that anyone should consider killing their baby, even if they are okay with a PD or really rich. But honestly, Casey could have avoided this entire situation, and so can anyone else! It's very simple.

 

[Paintr]

Mr Mason's next target is the death penalty. He wants that gone. Next he will aim at even more reduced charges. He wants time served. He wants KC to walk as a misunderstood victim. And he wants to walk beside her as the man who did the inpossible. A lot more people and their reps are gonna get trashed as he accomplishes this (ie LE, witnesses, lab techs).

Mr Mason reminds me of the late Micky Mantle who used to stride to the plate and point to where he was gonna send the ball. There were many writings stating that Mr Mantle was not a nice man, not very likeable. Some have said the same about Mr Mason. I don't know enough information to comment on either. They may both be saints. What scares me is the fact that Mantle often used to put that dam# ball right where he pointed.

This was Mr Mason's 1st home run. Don't be surprised if KC does walk out of jail a free woman before too long. MR Mason doesn't have time to waste. He wants to retire in a blaze of glory. MOO!


ETA...Obviously NOT the result I am hoping for!

 

[BeanE]

I'm wondering if this motion and the one to remove Strickland are both to distract from the release of KC's letters.

 

[magic-cat]

I will be VERY suprised if KC ever walks out of jail, except to be transported to court, and then later, to prison. Karma will keep her there is nothing else. Mr. Mason has no authority over the forces of karma, and there sure is a crap-storm of karma out there swirling in the universe and headed back in KC's direction. When the storm hits? God have mercy on her for what she has done.

 

[Novice Seeker]

The title is a mouthful isn't it?
On page 7 of this motion it is stated by the defense:

"By seeking the death penalty the prosecution sought to financially break the defense and deprive Miss Anthony of her counsel of choice."

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures a criminal defendant the right to counsel...an element of that right is a right to choice of counsel for defendants who are able to afford counsel."

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...s for Impermissible Prosecutorial Motives.pdf

Excuse me, but isn't KC Anthony indigent? Penniless? How is it, by definition, that she is then one of those "defendants who are able to afford counsel"? If she is indigent, and has approached the court for costs, doesn't this alone make it clear that she is NOT that defendant who is ABLE to afford counsel of her choice? :waitasec: She obviously was NEVER that individual, but through her DIRTY DEAL with ABC was able to secure enough funds to keep this dragged out for almost 2 years and counting. Miss Anthony was ALWAYS indigent. Did she not lie and bounce a check to Jose when she first retained him? Haven't we heard that one? I am completely confused by the stance the defense is taking here.

Is she indigent or not? And are they actually saying it is the State of Florida's FAULT that she is indigent?

I'll be the first to confess that law is like Latin, so pardon my comical thoughts and giggles as to how Baez is handling this case.

According to Baez "
"By seeking the death penalty the prosecution sought to financially break the defense and deprive Miss Anthony of her counsel of choice." Couldn't anyone facing a death sentence now use this very excuse( er excuse me)justification of why they shouldn't have to face the death penalty.

Baez seems to have use the sixth amendment very freely to attempt to save his client. According to the sixth amendment;
"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures a criminal defendant the right to counsel...an element of that right is a right to choice of counsel for defendants who are able to afford counsel."

Well, my understanding of this amendment simply states that the accused has the right to counsel along with the right to choose counsel who can be afforded. Well, first of all KC received over $200,000.00 dollars in addition to funds IMO and suspect we are not aware of. And, now Baez claims the defense has run out of money and has been approved to receive financial support for his work in defending KC thanks to all of you from the great state of Florida.

So as I stated before I'm confused how Baez can make these claims.:banghead:

Novice Seeker

 

[LinasK]

After reading the new "leaked" motions....I do have to say that from an objective point of view....they are excellent and do make compelling arguments. It is clear that JB never touched them...well except for when they were passed to CH13 but even then....he probably didn't touch them.

AL's sole purpose is to get the DP removed. I wonder if these motions were leaked in order to give the SA a "heads up" to stimulate either removal of the DP OR to stimulate new discussion about a plea. AL attempts to resolve the DP issue BEFORE having to go to trial.

I think I see exactly where they are going with this.

Oh puleassee! :hand:From what I'm gathering, this is another of Casey's histrionics,"they're not allowing me the lawyer of my choice, and giving me the death penalty on an *advertiser censored**ing whim", type laments!:doh: I laughed out loud when I first read this thread!

 

[believe09]

Legal Eagles, at any point does any of this rise to the level of frivilous? That is number one...and number two, can the defense be capped at a certain amount of restitution? Because this smacks of the kind of account churning I used to see in brokerage accounts in the '80's....

ON TOP of these two questions, it is clear these were leaked prior to being filed. Should we revisit the publicity seeking that Strickland was tarred with by the defense? Oh and is it possible these get leaked so the like of us (blogs) can do the dirty work by poking holes in the filings before they are submitted to the court.

I will take you comments off the air...JK.