Casey Anthony attorneys: Throw out murder indictment

[lizzysf]

I get the sense that the SA has the plea deal on the table (and always has), hoping she/the defense will see the light and grab it. I don't think the SA are gung-ho on the DP...they placed it there because they have the goods and can, and it will further pressure the defense to consider a plea in her best interest. The SA would be fine with LWOP, I actually think this is their aim. Bits and pieces of damaging evidence is being released to further raise the pressure on the defense to throw in the towel, they are holding back the strongest evidence for now...so she'll consider a plea before it's too late. Some say the SA is strategically releasing the info and it's not fair play. I say they are doing it in this manner to give her a chance to avoid the DP by taking a plea, which IS in her favor. More than fair, it's actually strategically generous. If she refuses it, they have no choice but to deliver the final evidentiary 'nails in her coffin' ...the jury will then get to decide her fate instead of her, and the DP is an option.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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.

I have a question. The SA will lay out a scenario as to what the circumstances were. I am going to assign letters to each part of his scenario.
For example G = 31 days of not reporting child missing
So G + U + I + L + T + Y = GUILTY
If the L part of the circumstantial evidence is found to be untrue does this ruin the prosecutions case?

 

[JSR]

I have a question. The SA will lay out a scenario as to what the circumstances were. I am going to assign letters to each part of his scenario.
For example G = 31 days of not reporting child missing
So G + U + I + L + T + Y = GUILTY
If the L part of the circumstantial evidence is found to be untrue does this ruin the prosecutions case?

That depends. On what the L stood for and how much weight the jury gave the "L".

 

[JSR]

Attorney Terence Lenamon says he stopped representing Casey because he did not agree with the legal strategy of her lead attorney Jose Baez.

"We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the approach that is mental health related," Lenamon told CNN's Nancy Grace during an interview.

Lenamon explained he would have had Casey plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

And that I think is the only way Casey could have been found not guilty. I think she had a better chance with that strategy than the one they're trying to pull now ....

 

[sleutherontheside]

I doubt that she would have been deemed "legally insane". She presents herself as narcissistic, highly manipulative, and possibly bipolar. But even all those traits combined do not render her incapable of telling right from wrong.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I have a question. The SA will lay out a scenario as to what the circumstances were. I am going to assign letters to each part of his scenario.
For example G = 31 days of not reporting child missing
So G + U + I + L + T + Y = GUILTY
If the L part of the circumstantial evidence is found to be untrue does this ruin the prosecutions case?

Not if she can be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if that includes excluding "L"

 

[BeanE]

And that I think is the only way Casey could have been found not guilty. I think she had a better chance with that strategy than the one they're trying to pull now ....

For some reason I can't find the post you quoted. In any case, I don't believe that Lenamon has ever said, or implied, he'd have used not guilty by reason of insanity.

Here are some things Lenamon has said in regards to Casey Anthony:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/08/ng.01.html

Lenamon = Terry Lenamon, Casey Anthony's former death penalty qualified attorney

Grace = Nancy Grace

GRACE: Are you trying to say she`s insane?

LENAMON: Absolutely not insane. Insanity is not an issue in this case.

and this:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/14/ijvm.01.html

Lenamon = Terry Lenamon, Casey Anthony's former death penalty qualified attorney

VELEZ-MITCHELL = Jane Velez-Mitchell

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You appeared on "NANCY GRACE" earlier and said that you had a disagreement with Jose Baez, Casey`s current defense attorney, over strategy that was mental health related. Some people took this to mean well, maybe you were thinking, oh, she should ask for -- she should plead not guilty by reason of insanity. But you`re saying that`s not the case.

What exactly did you mean? What kind of disagreement did you have that was mental health related with Jose Baez?

LENAMON: It was clearly not -- insanity was not the issue. Miss Anthony has never admitted to this. And she still maintains her innocence.

I was brought in initially to deal with the issue of the death penalty. When you`re dealing with the death penalty, one of the things you deal with is mitigation, a life history, things that happened to her in her past, things that happened during a period of time where, as you described and some of the panel has described, her behavior was quite questionable.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So what you`re saying -- just to translate, you`re saying that when you talked about mental health issues, you`re essentially saying, "Hey, if she`s convicted, we should try to point out that she had some mental health issues as a mitigating factor so they don`t give her the death penalty?"

LENAMON: Well, I think, that`s part of it. Part of it is that everyone jumps to the conclusion that just because she`s acting a certain way or a person acts a certain way that they believe that`s consistent with guilt.

It`s not necessarily always consistent with guilt. It may be consistent with some other form of behavior that can be explained. I`m not sitting here on national television saying one way or the other. I was involved in a very limited way in this case. Mr. Baez obtained me to get the death penalty waived. I got it waived.

Four months after they found the body, they decided to seek the death penalty again. And I have concerns now that whoever comes in on this is going to look at it with fresh eyes and not be predisposed to any other theories that the defense may have because when we`re talking about death, we`re talking about the real thing, where this woman may ultimately be executed. And we need someone who is really familiar with this to come in and do the job that needs to be done.

=======================

Sorry if I'm O/T, but I think there is sometimes misunderstanding of Lenamon's stance on this case, and I wanted to record here what he's actually said.

 

[JSR]

For some reason I can't find the post you quoted. In any case, I don't believe that Lenamon has ever said, or implied, he'd have used not guilty by reason of insanity.

Here are some things Lenamon has said in regards to Casey Anthony:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/08/ng.01.html

Lenamon = Terry Lenamon, Casey Anthony's former death penalty qualified attorney

Grace = Nancy Grace

GRACE: Are you trying to say she`s insane?

LENAMON: Absolutely not insane. Insanity is not an issue in this case.

and this:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/14/ijvm.01.html

Lenamon = Terry Lenamon, Casey Anthony's former death penalty qualified attorney

VELEZ-MITCHELL = Jane Velez-Mitchell

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You appeared on "NANCY GRACE" earlier and said that you had a disagreement with Jose Baez, Casey`s current defense attorney, over strategy that was mental health related. Some people took this to mean well, maybe you were thinking, oh, she should ask for -- she should plead not guilty by reason of insanity. But you`re saying that`s not the case.

What exactly did you mean? What kind of disagreement did you have that was mental health related with Jose Baez?

LENAMON: It was clearly not -- insanity was not the issue. Miss Anthony has never admitted to this. And she still maintains her innocence.

I was brought in initially to deal with the issue of the death penalty. When you`re dealing with the death penalty, one of the things you deal with is mitigation, a life history, things that happened to her in her past, things that happened during a period of time where, as you described and some of the panel has described, her behavior was quite questionable.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So what you`re saying -- just to translate, you`re saying that when you talked about mental health issues, you`re essentially saying, "Hey, if she`s convicted, we should try to point out that she had some mental health issues as a mitigating factor so they don`t give her the death penalty?"

LENAMON: Well, I think, that`s part of it. Part of it is that everyone jumps to the conclusion that just because she`s acting a certain way or a person acts a certain way that they believe that`s consistent with guilt.

It`s not necessarily always consistent with guilt. It may be consistent with some other form of behavior that can be explained. I`m not sitting here on national television saying one way or the other. I was involved in a very limited way in this case. Mr. Baez obtained me to get the death penalty waived. I got it waived.

Four months after they found the body, they decided to seek the death penalty again. And I have concerns now that whoever comes in on this is going to look at it with fresh eyes and not be predisposed to any other theories that the defense may have because when we`re talking about death, we`re talking about the real thing, where this woman may ultimately be executed. And we need someone who is really familiar with this to come in and do the job that needs to be done.

=======================

Sorry if I'm O/T, but I think there is sometimes misunderstanding of Lenamon's stance on this case, and I wanted to record here what he's actually said.

This is what I quoted.

Originally Posted by The World According
Attorney Terence Lenamon says he stopped representing Casey because he did not agree with the legal strategy of her lead attorney Jose Baez.

"We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the approach that is mental health related," Lenamon told CNN's Nancy Grace during an interview.

Lenamon explained he would have had Casey plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

I can't find the post either.

I don't think he wanted to enter a plea of not guilty of insanity as well. But i do think he wanted to raise the issues of mental health in regards to her defense. I believe IMO that's the only way Casey has a chance of not getting the death penalty. IMO Lenamon was on the right track for his then client.

With that being said, I do think Casey knew right from wrong, but I also think she DOES have various if not several mental health issues. However, IMO none of the mental health issues she might possibly be dealing with negate her culpability in the murder of her daughter.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I doubt that she would have been deemed "legally insane". She presents herself as narcissistic, highly manipulative, and possibly bipolar. But even all those traits combined do not render her incapable of telling right from wrong.

Absolutely- and if everyone who indulges in aberrant behavior was let out of jail on Psychiatric grounds they'd be emptied in no time..... There is such a thing as just plain cruel, evil and amoral.

 

[cecybeans]

I doubt that she would have been deemed "legally insane". She presents herself as narcissistic, highly manipulative, and possibly bipolar. But even all those traits combined do not render her incapable of telling right from wrong.

You are so right - just the elaborate cover-up would preclude that. Not to mention the entire squad of psychiatric types on this forum who have discussed this in great detail and would be on a chartered bus to Orlando in a nanosecond if somebody tried.