Check-fraud trial doesn't need ANY attention from defense counsel

aafromaa · Sep 3, 2009

Mods, I apologize if this should be in another thread instead of in a new one. I tried to find one I thought appropriate but decided to go with a new one instead. If you think it would be better elsewhere, please move it accordingly. (thanks)

In today's news link

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88493"]2009.09.03 Today's Current News - ***NO DISCUSSIONS HERE PLEASE *** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

I see that Judge Strickland has said the new trial date will be set soon - not that it will happen soon but be set soon - and that the defense is disappointed in this ruling.

I think the perfect solution for the defense's concern that this will take their time and attention away from the murder case would be for KC to plead guilty or at least "no contest" to those charges and there would be no need for a trial. She already admitted to taking and writing AH's checks and there's store and bank video to verify her guilt so I can't imagine trying to put up any type of not guilty defense here. So the defense would only need to make a plea for leniency in sentencing and since this would be KC's 1st offence or conviction isn't it likely that her sentence would be rather light on these charges PRIOR to a conviction for murder? And wouldn't the time she's in jail awaiting the murder trial be counted toward whatever sentence she might get for the check fraud?

I realize that once she is convicted of murder, the defense would prefer that she not have a felony conviction on her record that could be considered during sentencing, but come on, does anyone (including JB & AL) really think that a record for check fraud is going to be the deciding factor for the jury when deciding whether she should get life or death?

So what is the real reason that the defense doesn't want to see this trial date set?

Am I missing something? Is there really any NEED for this to consume much time at all from the defense?

Brini · Sep 3, 2009

aafromaa said:
Mods, I apologize if this should be in another thread instead of in a new one. I tried to find one I thought appropriate but decided to go with a new one instead. If you think it would be better elsewhere, please move it accordingly. (thanks)

In today's news link

2009.09.03 Today's Current News - ***NO DISCUSSIONS HERE PLEASE *** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I see that Judge Strickland has said the new trial date will be set soon - not that it will happen soon but be set soon - and that the defense is disappointed in this ruling.

I think the perfect solution for the defense's concern that this will take their time and attention away from the murder case would be for KC to plead guilty or at least "no contest" to those charges and there would be no need for a trial. She already admitted to taking and writing AH's checks and there's store and bank video to verify her guilt so I can't imagine trying to put up any type of not guilty defense here. So the defense would only need to make a plea for leniency in sentencing and since this would be KC's 1st offence or conviction isn't it likely that her sentence would be rather light on these charges PRIOR to a conviction for murder? And wouldn't the time she's in jail awaiting the murder trial be counted toward whatever sentence she might get for the check fraud?

I realize that once she is convicted of murder, the defense would prefer that she not have a felony conviction on her record that could be considered during sentencing, but come on, does anyone (including JB & AL) really think that a record for check fraud is going to be the deciding factor for the jury when deciding whether she should get life or death?

So what is the real reason that the defense doesn't want to see this trial date set?

Am I missing something? Is there really any NEED for this to consume much time at all from the defense?

The state wants is because it somehow impacts some of the legalities.

I don't remember the details. We discussed it months ago. But, it IS a coup for the state, and the state DOES want that felony on record.

ThinkTank · Sep 3, 2009

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/9/3/delay_for_anthony39s_check_fraud_trial_denied.html

Delay For Casey's Check Fraud Trial Denied
Thursday, September 03, 2009

(clip)
To win a death penalty case, prosecutors need aggravating circumstances, one of which is a previous felony.

"They want to do it so they can have an aggravating circumstances,” said Cheney Mason, a defense attorney. “If they get a conviction, they can pursue the death penalty, the statute requires the state proving aggravating circumstances."

The State needs a conviction in the check fraud case to use in the death penalty murder trial.
I believe that the Defense really thought the death penalty law professor from Illinois was going to file Motions to get the check fraud case delayed until after the murder trial, and the Defense would worry about it later. I believe they took a gamble and lost, when they should have let KC plead guilty to the check fraud case and be done with it. Maybe they will now?
And you are right about the check fraud case not taking up too much of the Defense' time - even Judge S. said they "could" (if they wanted to) go with a NON-jury trial and save a lot of time on jury selection, and the actual check case would take no more than 2 days.

chefmom · Sep 3, 2009

ThinkTank said:
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/9/3/delay_for_anthony39s_check_fraud_trial_denied.html

Delay For Casey's Check Fraud Trial Denied
Thursday, September 03, 2009

(clip)
To win a death penalty case, prosecutors need aggravating circumstances, one of which is a previous felony.

"They want to do it so they can have an aggravating circumstances, said Cheney Mason, a defense attorney. If they get a conviction, they can pursue the death penalty, the statute requires the state proving aggravating circumstances."

The State needs a conviction in the check fraud case to use in the death penalty murder trial.
I believe that the Defense really thought the death penalty law professor from Illinois was going to file Motions to get the check fraud case delayed until after the murder trial, and the Defense would worry about it later. I believe they took a gamble and lost, when they should have let KC plead guilty to the check fraud case and be done with it. Maybe they will now?
And you are right about the check fraud case not taking up too much of the Defense' time - even Judge S. said they "could" (if they wanted to) go with a NON-jury trial and save a lot of time on jury selection, and the actual check case would take no more than 2 days.[/COLOR]

BBM

Honestly! It shouldn't take 2 minutes! She's ON VIDEO for crying out loud! Plead guilty, JB, and get this one done!

skygirl · Sep 12, 2009

AT 2:17:25 --AL brings up/points out that the bank was "made good by Ms. Anthony" is a crock of shirt. I mean really, where did she get the funds to do that?

(This has probably been talked about before, but I took a little va-ca from WS over the summer, and didn't see the discussion on this particular thread.)

Won't this be an issue? She had no legal gainful employment since leaving Universal. I don't think she had it tucked away in a money market or savings account for a rainy day. It will have to come out where the funds came from, right? Does it matter where the funds came from, or just the fact that it was paid? AL made it sound like KC was the good little samaritan, and "made good" on it. Why would she do that, when the TRUTH is she(KC)didn't have two legitimate nickels to rub together?

Makes me start wondering how many hours of legal time that she would be responsible for if this wasn't a fame name game. :rant:

[ame="http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2021052"]The Case Against Casey Anthony, Casey Anthonyâs defense team hopes to get evidence proving she did not dump her daughterâs body in the woods. CFNews13 ...[/ame]

Valhall · Sep 12, 2009

chefmom said:
BBM

Honestly! It shouldn't take 2 minutes! She's ON VIDEO for crying out loud! Plead guilty, JB, and get this one done!

Well, the question is...WHY THE HELL DOESN'T HE DO IT??? There is absolutely nothing good going to come out of that trial for his client.

what a maroon.

nephers · Sep 12, 2009

Valhall said:
Well, the question is...WHY THE HELL DOESN'T HE DO IT??? There is absolutely nothing good going to come out of that trial for his client.

what a maroon.

I think the best option for the defense would be to plead "no contest" or plead guilty to a lesser charge. The biggest thing with this is if she is convicted of felony charges then that will be used at the murder trial, she would then be a convicted felon. There is no way any defense attorney would advise KC to plead guily to these charges.

Valhall · Sep 12, 2009

nephers said:
I think the best option for the defense would be to plead "no contest" or plead guilty to a lesser charge. The biggest thing with this is if she is convicted of felony charges then that will be used at the murder trial, she would then be a convicted felon. There is no way any defense attorney would advise KC to plead guily to these charges.

Thanks for this info. Not being edu-ma-cated in defense and all I guess my confusion lies in - if there is the ability to plead "no contest", why are they not doing it? Isn't that better than going to a trial you know darned well you're client is going to be convicted in? That's a guilty!

tasylshari · Sep 12, 2009

Allowing KC to plead not guilty befuddles me. The ONLY reason(s) I can think of are:

Jose and KC love the limelight.

Jose and KC will get some good "practice" before the murder trial.

What a waste. Huge waste. Of your tax dollars and time spent, that is.:Banane36::Banane10::Banane21:

Macushla · Sep 12, 2009

While I am sure a conviction would help the state with their DP case, I think the state needs the fraud trial to come first for a number of other reasons too. The antics of KC after Caylee went missing are going to play a huge part in the state's case. Her state of mind (such as it was) her actions, etc. all show a complete and callous disregard for the 'alleged' kidnapping of Caylee. IF the judge had ruled for the defense on this, it would have made it very hard for the state to present a coherent case on the murder charge. they would not be able to mention the fraud charges and the circumstances surrounding them at all. It would have left huge gaps in their timeline and the continuity of their murder case. I was VERY relieved to hear that Judge Strickland sided with the state on this one. I was really worried about this, it would have had a huge negative impact on the state's case if it could not be mentioned at trial. Just think about all the small things surrounding these charges and how broken up and disjointed part of the state's case would have been if they were not allowed to mention it. Also, I would not put it past someone on the defense witness list to 'accidentally on purpose' blurt out something about these charges at the trial which would allow JB to call for a mistrial. I think this was one of the 'biggest wins' for the state so far!

MD MOMMY · Sep 13, 2009

Macushla said:
While I am sure a conviction would help the state with their DP case, I think the state needs the fraud trial to come first for a number of other reasons too. The antics of KC after Caylee went missing are going to play a huge part in the state's case. Her state of mind (such as it was) her actions, etc. all show a complete and callous disregard for the 'alleged' kidnapping of Caylee. IF the judge had ruled for the defense on this, it would have made it very hard for the state to present a coherent case on the murder charge. they would not be able to mention the fraud charges and the circumstances surrounding them at all. It would have left huge gaps in their timeline and the continuity of their murder case. I was VERY relieved to hear that Judge Strickland sided with the state on this one. I was really worried about this, it would have had a huge negative impact on the state's case if it could not be mentioned at trial. Just think about all the small things surrounding these charges and how broken up and disjointed part of the state's case would have been if they were not allowed to mention it. Also, I would not put it past someone on the defense witness list to 'accidentally on purpose' blurt out something about these charges at the trial which would allow JB to call for a mistrial. I think this was one of the 'biggest wins' for the state so far!

Yeah I think it's pretty important that KC was out buying Budlight, California Pizza Kitchen frozen pizza's and a blue hoodie while her daughter was "missing".

magic-cat · Sep 13, 2009

MD MOMMY said:
Yeah I think it's pretty important that KC was out buying Budlight, California Pizza Kitchen frozen pizza's and a blue hoodie while her daughter was "missing".

And so will the jury! That's why this is a huge win for the State and for Caylee!

:behindbar

Check-fraud trial doesn't need ANY attention from defense counsel

New Posts

aafromaa

Well-Known Member

Brini

Future Irene Adler

ThinkTank

Active Member

chefmom

Seriously! Ancient Aliens!

skygirl

New Member

Valhall

Well-Known Member

nephers

New Member

Valhall

Well-Known Member

tasylshari

New Member

Macushla

Our Royal Himalayan Gopher Hounds

MD MOMMY

Active Member

magic-cat

Mother to Many

DNASolves

Members online

Online statistics

Forum statistics