Casey Anthony attorneys: Throw out murder indictment

[RR0004]

Many trial judges are but extensions of the D.A.'s office. I don't have insight as to whether a bench trial conducted by Judge Strickland might be perferable to a trial by jury. Still, even if the defense had requested a bench trial, I doubt prosecutors would have agreed. The People have a right to a trial by jury too.

And why would a prosecutor want to waste a well poisoned jury pool?

Is there no honorable person left in your mind to defend and protect the rights of the true victim here?

...and NO, it's not Casey. Even in anyone's wildest dreams...she is responsible for what happened to her daughter. To "what degree?" seems to be the question being bantered about. But, let's not forget...she is responsible in some way, shape, and/or form. So just perhaps, there is someone who wants justice to be served and has no ulterior motive other than making sure it's done. JMHO

 

[spqr]

No. A person who is indicted by a Grand Jury does not have a right to know what was presented or said to the Grand Jury. Nor does a person who might well be indicted for a crime have a right to present evidence to a Grand Jury.

BBM

But they do have a right to voluntarily testify under Florida rules.

From the Florida Grand Jury Handbook:

"An accused person cannot be compelled to testify before a grand jury although one under investigation by the grand jury may appear voluntarily to testify. In that event, however, the grand jury should proceed with great caution and should not permit one under investigation to testify until after first conferring with the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor). If an accused, or any person under investigation, is permitted to testify before the grand jury without waiving the constitutional right against self-incrimination, any indictment or presentment would be null and void."

 

[Wudge]

Is there no honorable person left in your mind to defend and protect the rights of the true victim here?

...and NO, it's not Casey. Even in anyone's wildest dreams...she is responsible for what happened to her daughter. To "what degree?" seems to be the question being bantered about. But, let's not forget...she is responsible in some way, shape, and/or form. So just perhaps, there is someone who wants justice to be served and has no ulterior motive other than making sure it's done. JMHO

I don't have a reading on Judge Strickland. He might be truly honorable. He might not be truly honorable. I'll have a better guage on him after he rules on these motions to dismiss.

Based on the evidence that we are aware of, my holding is that a truly Honorable Judge would, at a minimum, rule for the defense on the murder one charge. For, as I've often said, there's a stunning paucity of inculpatory evidence in this case and the reliability of the circumstantial evidence that is known to exist is simply too low to prove murder one beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, I know Judge Strickland has a scientific mind and background. Thus, he would not be unfamiliar with the fact that highly reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from premises and evidence that do not possess a level of reliability that is equal to or greater then the reliability of an inferred conclusion.

 

[lizzysf]

Many trial judges are but extensions of the D.A.'s office. I don't have insight as to whether a bench trial conducted by Judge Strickland might be perferable to a trial by jury. Still, even if the defense had requested a bench trial, I doubt prosecutors would have agreed. The People have a right to a trial by jury too.

And why would a prosecutor want to waste a well poisoned jury pool?

I guess the defense miscalculated the perceived benefit when they opposed the gag order. Can't pin that one on the SA. IF the jury pool has been poisoned, there's no one to blame but the Dream Team, a BACKFIRE on Baez's behalf. The state hasn't said squat...and the release of public info is unavoidable..also can't be pinned on the SA. As far as it turning into a perceived benefit to the SA..so be it.. Courtesy of Baez. The reason is clear that the opposition to the gag order was that they knew the only possible chance they had was to rage a public campaign.. The state delivered the beef without having to say a word... and Baez & Co. has logged endless hours of media time delivering rubber biscuits.

 

[Wudge]

BBM

But they do have a right to voluntarily testify under Florida rules.

From the Florida Grand Jury Handbook:

"An accused person cannot be compelled to testify before a grand jury although one under investigation by the grand jury may appear voluntarily to testify. In that event, however, the grand jury should proceed with great caution and should not permit one under investigation to testify until after first conferring with the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor). If an accused, or any person under investigation, is permitted to testify before the grand jury without waiving the constitutional right against self-incrimination, any indictment or presentment would be null and void."

(Tip of my hat)

Though that's not quite what I had in mind.

(Chuckle ... And I suspect you know that.)

 

[sleutherontheside]

I guess the defense miscalculated the perceived benefit when they opposed the gag order. Can't pin that one on the SA. IF the jury pool has been poisoned, there's no one to blame but the Dream Team, a BACKFIRE on Baez's behalf. The state hasn't said squat...and the release of public info is unavoidable..also can't be pinned on the SA. As far as it turning into a perceived benefit to the SA..so be it.. Courtesy of Baez. The reason is clear that the opposition to the gag order was that they knew the only possible chance they had was to rage a public campaign.. The state delivered the beef without having to say a word... and Baez & Co. has logged endless hours of media time delivering rubber biscuits.

Perhaps the defenses self inflicted "poisoned jury pool" (though I disagree that the entire State of Florida can be deemed "poisoned") is part of a larger strategy to create their own grounds for appeal. Ineffective counsel is out the window. Perhaps JB et al opened their own emergency exit.

 

[lizzysf]

Perhaps the defenses self inflicted "poisoned jury pool" (though I disagree that the entire State of Florida can be deemed "poisoned") is part of a larger strategy to create their own grounds for appeal. Ineffective counsel is out the window. Perhaps JB et al opened their own emergency exit.

You bring up a good point... attempted success in the public campaign (FAIL there).. with built-in grounds for appeal after THEY tried to poison the jury pool...you are probably right. I don't believe all of Florida is "poisoned" either.

On second thought...I don't think Baez is swift enough to have built-in the grounds for appeal... it was a secondary notion that came later. I think he set out with his public campaign thinking he could win.

 

[Just Jayla]

There have been more than one in camera session with JS, and it seems he would be very available to either party if they approached him regarding a discovery issue-Perhaps there is evidence that JS has sealed that was brought directly to him, viewed in-camera with the state and the defense present. JS seems very open to this type of arrangement, without holding a hearing to do so.
We may not know the nature of the decision to put the DP back on the table, but that doesn't mean there isn't something there. If it is only one piece of evidence, and it is sealed, the defense may still have filed these procedural motions to have the state expand on where they are taking the case.
If we see an argument at this hearing regarding information that has been sealed, we may have a better idea of whether or not there was something pivotal that gave the state their change of mind back in April.

 

[The World According]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnKnjtzwzr4"]YouTube- Casey Anthony: Her Attorneys Want the Case Dismissed![/ame]

 

[TotallyObsessed]

YouTube- Casey Anthony: Her Attorneys Want the Case Dismissed!

and following this line of "Hail Mary defense", I wonder if the state defender for the recent serial rapist/killer with the 11+ bodies found stashed in his house has requested to be present during all of the investigating/removal of the bodies? Seriously...just how ridiculous is this motion?

 

[lizzysf]

I am wondering if a plea deal will fall out of the sky here shortly.. The defense is pretty quiet, and making ridiculously desperate motions. Unrefutable evidence may be stacking on them. I wonder if Casey would still hold out and go for broke even if her attorneys advise against it to avoid the death penalty? Would the SA offer another deal up? Would the defense back down in her best interest? I just get a feeling this may never make it to trial.

 

[mydailyopinions]

I am wondering if a plea deal will fall out of the sky here shortly.. The defense is pretty quiet, and making ridiculously desperate motions. Unrefutable evidence may be stacking on them. I wonder if Casey would still hold out and go for broke even if her attorneys advise against it to avoid the death penalty? Would the SA offer another deal up? Would the defense back down in her best interest? I just get a feeling this may never make it to trial.

I sure hope there will be no plea deal! I am ready to see this case go to trial and ready to see Casey's reaction when the death penalty is imposed!
I will be very angry if she pleas now.

 

[Macushla]

I am wondering if a plea deal will fall out of the sky here shortly.. The defense is pretty quiet, and making ridiculously desperate motions. Unrefutable evidence may be stacking on them. I wonder if Casey would still hold out and go for broke even if her attorneys advise against it to avoid the death penalty? Would the SA offer another deal up? Would the defense back down in her best interest? I just get a feeling this may never make it to trial.

As a FL resident and tax payer, I too would love to see a plea bargain come into play. Save everyone time and money, right? However, I don't think KC will plead to anything. IF a plea bargain happens, I think it will be AFTER the jury renders a guilty verdict but before sentencing.

I think the defense, right now, is too busy reading the syringe thread here on WS and frantically taking notes to make any statements.:innocent:

 

[ZsaZsa]

and following this line of "Hail Mary defense", I wonder if the state defender for the recent serial rapist/killer with the 11+ bodies found stashed in his house has requested to be present during all of the investigating/removal of the bodies? Seriously...just how ridiculous is this motion?

Oh, nice one! Frame that comment :dance:

 

[ZsaZsa]

You bring up a good point... attempted success in the public campaign (FAIL there).. with built-in grounds for appeal after THEY tried to poison the jury pool...you are probably right. I don't believe all of Florida is "poisoned" either.

On second thought...I don't think Baez is swift enough to have built-in the grounds for appeal... it was a secondary notion that came later. I think he set out with his public campaign thinking he could win.

I think anyone who listens to Geraldo's take on this case is being poisoned- how does Baez prove what is poison and what is factual reporting... does it depend on which paper you read, which TV program you watch?

 

[lizzysf]

I don't have a reading on Judge Strickland. He might be truly honorable. He might not be truly honorable. I'll have a better guage on him after he rules on these motions to dismiss.

Based on the evidence that we are aware of, my holding is that a truly Honorable Judge would, at a minimum, rule for the defense on the murder one charge. For, as I've often said, there's a stunning paucity of inculpatory evidence in this case and the reliability of the circumstantial evidence that is known to exist is simply too low to prove murder one beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, I know Judge Strickland has a scientific mind and background. Thus, he would not be unfamiliar with the fact that highly reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from premises and evidence that do not possess a level of reliability that is equal to or greater then the reliability of an inferred conclusion.

..A quote from WFTV's legal analyst Bill Scheaffer's new blog.
http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthonyblog/index.html

"Fundamentally then, direct evidence, or eyewitness testimony, that Casey committed the crime for which she is charged, is one type of evidence. A second type of evidence is circumstantial evidence, which is a well-connected series of circumstances, which, taken in their totality, would establish Casey’s guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt."

Are you actually doubting that a well-connected series of circumstances exists? :waitasec:

They are in over-abundance, imo.

 

[JSR]

I have no idea where you came up with the notion that "jurors rely on the totality of the evidence". That is not true. Jurors are required to follow jury instructions, and you will not find such an instruction.

To prove first degree murder in this case, highly reliable circumstantial evidence is needed -- there is no direct evidence in this case -- that, at a minimum, proves beyond a reasonable doubt the key elements necessary to convict on a murder one charge; i.e., intent (willful), premeditation and reflection (consideration). A jury can't say that 60% of the evidence or 80% of the evidence or even a 100% of the evidence favors the State, so we'll convict Casey.

HTH

I guess I'm not the only person who believes juries rely on the totality of circumstance evidence .....

..A quote from WFTV's legal analyst Bill Scheaffer's new blog.
http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthonyblog/index.html

"Fundamentally then, direct evidence, or eyewitness testimony, that Casey committed the crime for which she is charged, is one type of evidence. A second type of evidence is circumstantial evidence, which is a well-connected series of circumstances, which, taken in their totality, would establish Casey’s guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt."

And as a side note I think grouping evidence as "percentages" isn't the way a juror evaluates evidence. Jurors look at each piece of evidence and evaluate if it's reliable or believable. They don't say 40% of that evidence is favorable to the prosecution or 20% to the defense. And even if one piece of evidence can be 100% favorable to the defense does NOT mean they have to automatically vote in favor of acquittal.

 

[JSR]

I agree.

At what point in these procedures do they pick the jury?
After the defense gets done filing all the motions they are surely going to file?

They won't pick the jury until the first day of trial. IMO it might take longer to select the jury than to try the case. They're going to need a lot of potential jurors to get a proper jury seated. I'm thinking at least a pool of a few hundred AT LEAST.

 

[JSR]

I don't have a reading on Judge Strickland. He might be truly honorable. He might not be truly honorable. I'll have a better guage on him after he rules on these motions to dismiss.

Based on the evidence that we are aware of, my holding is that a truly Honorable Judge would, at a minimum, rule for the defense on the murder one charge. For, as I've often said, there's a stunning paucity of inculpatory evidence in this case and the reliability of the circumstantial evidence that is known to exist is simply too low to prove murder one beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, I know Judge Strickland has a scientific mind and background. Thus, he would not be unfamiliar with the fact that highly reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from premises and evidence that do not possess a level of reliability that is equal to or greater then the reliability of an inferred conclusion.

I highly disagree with the bolded line above although I think you meant EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE not inculpatory evidence (which is evidence that can establish guilt). Reliability of evidence is a matter for a JURY to decide, not a judge. A judge can only dismiss a case if there isn't ENOUGH evidence or probable cause to present against a defendant.

 

[MAMABEAR]

Well, I don't understand all them big words---but i git the jest of what is being said. More than likely the peeps on the jury wont be from W/S. They will be reg. peeps from the street (so to speak). They won't know all them big words either. But they wil have a hard time gittin around that 31 days to start with. Then the tattoo. Then her life after she killed her baby. And the list goes on. Way to much crap rubs up against Casey. She will git her just dues and I will be glad for it. She better hope she dont git off cuz she wouldn't make it past the court house steps---and her dear sweet mother wont be able to protect her. CA best not walk out of the court house beside her. Some (very few) here will be shakin they heads when the verdict comes down on her "c-u-t-e" lil head. But for me------I might have a drink---hey---I may smoke a dubie. (is that what they are called?)
I will party down---off wid ur head gurl.