Check Fraud case information

[ClockWatcher]

What I find the most irritating about this motion, is that SA Frank G. told the court at the last motion hearing that he was agreeable to a bench trial! No need to seat a jury, just present the facts to the judge and let him decide.

The state of Florida is experiencing an economic crisis. Why should tons of money be wasted by the tax-payers for all this unnecessary hoopla of seating an unbiased jury, when the state can present the case to a judge and be done in one day?

The defense and their sense of entitlement aggravates me too no end. As stated in their motion, if she has already served the time for her crime that most first offender's would have received, then PLEAD GUILTY or No Lo, or whatever. If Andrea L. and her mental gimp side-kick are so confident that the death penalty will be taken off the table, then they should have no fear of a prior felony conviction.

I'm sending out all my good vibes to Judge S. for tomorrow, hoping for him to knock the wind from the over inflated ego's of these two... um.....professionals.

 

[zoey]

What I find the most irritating about this motion, is that SA Frank G. told the court at the last motion hearing that he was agreeable to a bench trial! No need to seat a jury, just present the facts to the judge and let him decide.

The state of Florida is experiencing an economic crisis. Why should tons of money be wasted by the tax-payers for all this unnecessary hoopla of seating an unbiased jury, when the state can present the case to a judge and be done in one day?

The defense and their sense of entitlement aggravates me too no end. As stated in their motion, if she has already served the time for her crime that most first offender's would have received, then PLEAD GUILTY or No Lo, or whatever. If Andrea L. and her mental gimp side-kick are so confident that the death penalty will be taken off the table, then they should have no fear of a prior felony conviction.

I'm sending out all my good vibes to Judge S. for tomorrow, hoping for him to knock the wind from the over inflated ego's of these two... um.....professionals.

ITA and hope that the Judge yells at them for all the media interviews they have done and continue to do....

 

[BeanE]

I posted the poll here:

POLL: Have you posted in the Caylee forum & are you from Orlando?

POLL: Have you posted in the Caylee forum & are you from Orlando? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

There wasn't much room for my loooonnnggg question. Hope it's not too confusing.

Just wanted to note that my poll has been removed. I have no idea why.

 

[Tiki]

What I find the most irritating about this motion, is that SA Frank G. told the court at the last motion hearing that he was agreeable to a bench trial! No need to seat a jury, just present the facts to the judge and let him decide.

The state of Florida is experiencing an economic crisis. Why should tons of money be wasted by the tax-payers for all this unnecessary hoopla of seating an unbiased jury, when the state can present the case to a judge and be done in one day?

The defense and their sense of entitlement aggravates me too no end. As stated in their motion, if she has already served the time for her crime that most first offender's would have received, then PLEAD GUILTY or No Lo, or whatever. If Andrea L. and her mental gimp side-kick are so confident that the death penalty will be taken off the table, then they should have no fear of a prior felony conviction.

I'm sending out all my good vibes to Judge S. for tomorrow, hoping for him to knock the wind from the over inflated ego's of these two... um.....professionals.

I think the defense is trying everything they can think of b/c they know how bad it will be for KC to go into the murder trial as a convicted felon.

ITA - a COV is a complete waste of money.

.

 

[milliac]

OK...maybe the coffee hasn't gotten to all my "think" cells yet...but isn't this COV almost like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
By moving the check trial to somewhere else....where the defense believes there basically hasn't been as much media coverage....isn't that in effect BRINGING media coverage to a "smaller" case....so when the murder trial comes up for decision of COV, THOSE area's will now be supposedly "biased" against her due to the check trial....is this making any sense..?

GREAT point. I was also thinking the same thing when I was reading through that motion. It would surely increase the publicity if COV was granted. I wonder if the Judge rules in favor of this COV, it would set a precedent where defense would say "Well, Judge Strickland, you allowed the COV in the check fraud trial, so now you must grant the COV on the murder trial...but now, this town has so much publicity, you must move it to another city"...yada yada yada on a sesame seed bun.

Personally I do believe they are trying to get the COV to drag this case out until after the murder trial. Didn't everyone in court agree this case shouldn't take more than a day or so? Wasn't the prosecution willing to go with a bench trial? Why seat a jury and make such drama?

 

[ClockWatcher]

Does the judge have the discretion to choose any place he thinks would be good? Or does he have to choose from within the parameters of those offered by the defense?

Here is what I could find in the Florida statutes for criminal procedures:

910.03 Place of trial generally.--

(1) Except as provided in s. 910.035 or in subsection (2), criminal prosecutions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed; but if the county is not known, the accused may be charged in two or more counties conjunctively, and before trial the accused may elect the county in which he or she will be tried. By his or her election, the accused waives the right to trial in the county in which the crime was committed. Such election shall have the force and effect of the granting of an application of the accused for change of venue from the county in which the offense was committed to the county in which the case is tried.

(2) After a court orders a change of venue and in order to protect the defendant's due process rights, the court, upon a motion of any party, shall give priority to any county which closely resembles the demographic composition of the county wherein the original venue would lie.

(3) If a court finds that a fair and impartial jury cannot be impaneled in the county where the offense was committed, and the court determines that once a jury is selected it shall be sequestered, the court on its own motion, or upon a motion of any party, may elect to select a jury from a county other than where the offense was committed. The selection of the alternative county will be governed by the requirements of subsection (2). Upon completion of jury selection, the jury shall be brought for trial to the county where the offense was committed.

http://law.justia.com/florida/codes/TitleXLVII/ch0910.html

Now I'm of to check City-Data to compare the demographics between Orlando and Jose's dream locations.

 

[milliac]

I have found a source that says (4) and (5) are Target employees. Can't guarantee it though. . . Am not sure I can post the link here.

Nice. Moved the trial so these minimum wage employees can incur out-of-town expenses. :banghead:

 

[milliac]

Big thanks for mentioning the gag order!

Amazing that they are still trying to compare KC with Sam Sheppard. :-(

Can the judge issue a gag order now at this point? Does the Prosecution or Defense have to request it? As much as I enjoy reading the evidence of this case, do you think it would be preemptive strategy for Prosecution to request a gag order to protect the integrity of the murder trial and cut off the A's and JB from all this national publicity and money making schemes? How does the lack of a gag order benefit the prosecution?

 

[Brini]

What I find the most irritating about this motion, is that SA Frank G. told the court at the last motion hearing that he was agreeable to a bench trial! No need to seat a jury, just present the facts to the judge and let him decide.

The state of Florida is experiencing an economic crisis. Why should tons of money be wasted by the tax-payers for all this unnecessary hoopla of seating an unbiased jury, when the state can present the case to a judge and be done in one day?

The defense and their sense of entitlement aggravates me too no end. As stated in their motion, if she has already served the time for her crime that most first offender's would have received, then PLEAD GUILTY or No Lo, or whatever. If Andrea L. and her mental gimp side-kick are so confident that the death penalty will be taken off the table, then they should have no fear of a prior felony conviction.

I'm sending out all my good vibes to Judge S. for tomorrow, hoping for him to knock the wind from the over inflated ego's of these two... um.....professionals.

How can JB et all get sound bites if there's a bench trial! Get your priorities straight! ;-)

 

[essies]

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/200...attention.html
Caylee Anthony case gets more TV attention
> Posted by Tom Jicha on October 15, 2009 11:42 AM
The heartless murder of Caylee Anthony, with all signs pointing to her mother Casey as the killer, has become an obsession for millions of Americans.

Nancy Grace has made the Orlando area tot's disappearance and homicide almost her life's work for the past year and a half. It has paid off with ratings that exceed the much celebrated Keith Olbermann on many nights.

48 Hours Mystery will try to mine some ratings of its own Saturday night with a recap of the case to this point and an interview by Maggie Rodriguez of Casey's team of attornies.

Rodriguez's first question should be, "Who is paying you?" The Anthonys are a blue collar family, who have no known source of income since Caylee disappeared in June 2008.

Casey's attornies have asked for a change of venue for her trial, which is expected to take place next summer. Lucky us, Broward is one of the jurisdictions under consideration
__________________
Jose needs to get the message-the defense isn't gonna play well no matter where they take their circus!!

 

[Brini]

Can the judge issue a gag order now at this point? Does the Prosecution or Defense have to request it? As much as I enjoy reading the evidence of this case, do you think it would be preemptive strategy for Prosecution to request a gag order to protect the integrity of the murder trial and cut off the A's and JB from all this national publicity and money making schemes? How does the lack of a gag order benefit the prosecution?

I think the horse is out of the barn.

 

[Brini]

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/200...attention.html
Caylee Anthony case gets more TV attention
> Posted by Tom Jicha on October 15, 2009 11:42 AM
The heartless murder of Caylee Anthony, with all signs pointing to her mother Casey as the killer, has become an obsession for millions of Americans.

Nancy Grace has made the Orlando area tot's disappearance and homicide almost her life's work for the past year and a half. It has paid off with ratings that exceed the much celebrated Keith Olbermann on many nights.

48 Hours Mystery will try to mine some ratings of its own Saturday night with a recap of the case to this point and an interview by Maggie Rodriguez of Casey's team of attornies.

Rodriguez's first question should be, "Who is paying you?" The Anthonys are a blue collar family, who have no known source of income since Caylee disappeared in June 2008.

Casey's attornies have asked for a change of venue for her trial, which is expected to take place next summer. Lucky us, Broward is one of the jurisdictions under consideration
__________________
Jose needs to get the message-the defense isn't gonna play well no matter where they take their circus!!

KC DID say she wants to leave the courtroom for the beach, when she is found not guilty.

 

[Brini]

Okay, maybe it's because IANAL, but I'm just not getting this.

In the defense motion for COV it says "Members of the Orlando community also have a greater degree of personal involvement in this case...". In direct relation to that it mentions volunteers who say they are "consumed" by the case. This is Exhibit I.

So off I go to look at exhibit I, and that news article is about volunteers who came from outside of Orlando. Two volunteers are quoted and use the word "consumed". The inference, since the article is about volunteers from outside Orlando, is that the 2 volunteers quoted are not from Orlando.

I just don't understand. If the defense is arguing that the people of Orlando from whence the jury pool will come are biased etc, then shouldn't they be giving evidence that it is, specifically, the people of Orlando who are biased etc.?

Or does that not matter? I sure would appreciate hearing from one of our posters with a legal background on this.

Another example is that the defense motion says thousands of people from Orlando volunteered and attended Caylee's memorial. Well 2,500 people total volunteered, and there is nothing in the exhibits saying how many came from Orlando.

And it's well known that fewer than *one* thousand people attended Caylee's memorial, and it's also well known that they weren't all from Orlando.

I'm just confused.

Don't be. It's all about:

1) Delaying the fraud trial until after the murder trial, and,

2) JB and co looking good giving Geraldo sound bites on the beach.


Me? I agree with previous posters that the Panhandle sounds perfect!

 

[milliac]

I think the horse is out of the barn.

Ohhhh so true; however, I think the defense and A's media blitz is just beginning to intensify with bringing their side of the story to the public.

 

[BeanE]

Don't be. It's all about:

1) Delaying the fraud trial until after the murder trial, and,

2) JB and co looking good giving Geraldo sound bites on the beach.


Me? I agree with previous posters that the Panhandle sounds perfect!

Oh I'm not saying I don't think the trial should be moved. I don't care if it or not - but I'm not a taxpayer in Florida either.

It just seems to me that if an attorney is trying to make a point and provide evidence, well, they should do just that. And I don't see any attempt in this motion to do that. It's... sloppy.

IANAL but I am anal.

 

[sleutherontheside]

This really pertains to the murder trial COV. IF...and that's a BIG IF, JB is successful in getting a change of venue, will that have any impact on the liklihood of a sequestered jury? OR...if the trial remains in Orlando, does that increase the liklihood a requiring that the jury be sequestered?

 

[LambChop]

Not sure why it would be necessary to have a change of venue for the fraud trial. It is pretty cut and dry. SA said they only need a day. Once the jury sees the video it's over. And after they see KC's signature on Amy's checks, the jury will probably be out 5 minutes. It's such a no brainer. Don't understand why she does not just plead guilty and ask for time served. JB paid Bank of America back so how can they argue she is innocent. I mean, really, was this in the script, too.

 

[Nosey Parker]

They know they have zero chance of winning this one. All that's left in the grab bag is deny, deny, deny, delay, delay, delay. Anything to keep it out of the murder trial.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I know Baez and Co. are hoping for a move to the Miami area, but it is my understanding that often trials moved end up in rural counties because of a more open court schedule there. Often this can back fire on the defense because they end up in a more conservative county than the one they started with. Let the backfiring begin !

Also, I have never heard of having a trial moved in a simple check fraud case. Maybe this has been done but I am not aware of it happening.

 

[The World According]

Okay, maybe it's because IANAL, but I'm just not getting this.

In the defense motion for COV it says "Members of the Orlando community also have a greater degree of personal involvement in this case...". In direct relation to that it mentions volunteers who say they are "consumed" by the case. This is Exhibit I.

So off I go to look at exhibit I, and that news article is about volunteers who came from outside of Orlando. Two volunteers are quoted and use the word "consumed". The inference, since the article is about volunteers from outside Orlando, is that the 2 volunteers quoted are not from Orlando.

I just don't understand. If the defense is arguing that the people of Orlando from whence the jury pool will come are biased etc, then shouldn't they be giving evidence that it is, specifically, the people of Orlando who are biased etc.?

Or does that not matter? I sure would appreciate hearing from one of our posters with a legal background on this.

Another example is that the defense motion says thousands of people from Orlando volunteered and attended Caylee's memorial. Well 2,500 people total volunteered, and there is nothing in the exhibits saying how many came from Orlando.

And it's well known that fewer than *one* thousand people attended Caylee's memorial, and it's also well known that they weren't all from Orlando.

I'm just confused.

I agree with RHornsby, it is simply cost prohibitive to move all the trial to location B, but more likely the murder trial will have jurors from another county brought in and sequestered. I am sure hoping there is a plea in the check case.