Casey Anthony Legal Defense Strategies #2

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by NJ Lawyer, May 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NJ Lawyer

    NJ Lawyer Member

    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    WFTV published a report today regarding a "death penalty attorney" named Lenamon that left Casey Anthony's legal defense team. The publication quotes Lenamon as follows:

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

    See http://www.wftv.com/news/19448158/detail.html

    If Lenamon really said that he believes Casey should plead NG by reason of insanity, then I think this is very irresponsible and may even be an attorney ethical violation. Most people would interpret "not guilty by reason of insanity" as meaning that "Casey killed Caylee, but was insane when she did it." This would mean that Casey's former attorney, who has presumably "seen all the evidence" and discussed attorney-client protected information with his client and fellow defense team members, is announcing to the world that Casey "did it." He's doing it at a time when Baez has apparently chosen to pursue a defense strategy of "she didn't do it." If Lenamon is really her former attorney, then this former member of the defense team is hurting his former client's defense and possibly her chances of being put to death by the State of Florida. I don't know what thread to put this in, so I started a new one.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. bailee

    bailee New Member

    Messages:
    3,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have to say that this is bordeline ethical misconduct. One has to ask did Mr.L. do this deliberately?
    All I can say with one cup of coffee WOW!
     
  4. chefmom

    chefmom Seriously! Ancient Aliens!

    Messages:
    4,524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ITA! By making this announcement, IMO, he is essentially saying that KC is guilty, but he feels that she wasn't in her right mind. Speaks volumes to me. I have wondered already how ethical his blogging about the case was, and this is also something I question. I can't imagine JB won't try to use this if she is foung guilty to say that the jury pool was tainted. Makes me wonder if there may not have ever been a signed contract for TL to work for them, or if perhaps he was never paid by JB.
     
  5. spqr

    spqr New Member

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He didn't say or imply she did it. He said,

    "We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the approach that is mental health related".

    That simply could mean she is incapable of doing a crime of this nature, concealing, covering up, lying, etc...

    I'm not defending anyone just for the record. I think she did it. I believe he was simply referring to a defense strategy.
     
  6. angeleleven

    angeleleven New Member

    Messages:
    9,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    bailee......I'll second your WOW!!!
     
  7. angeleleven

    angeleleven New Member

    Messages:
    9,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is a good possibility since TL said JB called him back after the dp was put back on the table.
     
  8. bailee

    bailee New Member

    Messages:
    3,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anyone want to bet TL retracts this statement? He will say it was taken out of context, blah blah. Wait and see.
     
  9. DAWN TREADER

    DAWN TREADER New Member

    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But Casey admitted/agreed that lying to police wasn't helping them find Caylee.

    This is just one example that suggests to me Casey clearly understands right from wrong.
     
  10. Searchfortruth

    Searchfortruth New Member

    Messages:
    5,971
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought that JB would have had a problem w/ TL's theory about it being an "accidental overdose". JB is going to have a REAL hard time finding a DP lawyer that will go along with his "she's innocent and that's that" strategy. Seems to me any experienced atty will demand a different approach.
     
  11. Bittiness39

    Bittiness39 New Member

    Messages:
    2,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I still can't believe TL said what he said...if I believe I understood correctly that he was saying he disagrees with JB's approach to NOT have KC plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Obviously, there is a lot more to it than we know. But as far as I remember my ethics course and the ethics exam I had to pass before taking the Bar Exam...that is a breach of attorney client privilege. Already, KC's team is setting up ample grounds for appeal based on an inadequate defense. To which legally, she may have an ability to do. To her, to her defense: KC is guilty. This is not a case in which there is any reasonable doubt as far as her involvement in the disappearance and death of Caylee...plead out. Stop this mess. KC will not ever get out of jail and if she does...she will be less popular than OJ Simpson ever thought about being. This is not a winnable case. Lying to the public about how KC is waiting for her day in court to tell what really happened is bs. All the defense wants to do is whine and complain and play the blame game and try to tear down evidence that a grand jury found her guilty with very little deliberation.
     
  12. faefrost

    faefrost New Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I took it to mean that JB and KC simply refused to put any mental health issues on the table. It is not an admission of guilt, but if they were to claim that KC has some diagnosed, or currently undiagnosed but legitimate mental illness it would very cleanly take the death penalty off the table permanently, and return the case to a standard homicide prosecution. It would have also given weight to an inapriate response to an accidental death and sought to explain KC's aberrant behavior paterns.

    It really is the better defense plan for her. A jury is not going to sentance a hot young mentally ill girl to death.

    His statements make no pressumptions of guilt or innocense. They meerly reflect the approach he would have preferred to save or spare his clients life.

    I think he is dancing ethically close to the line. I suspect that he is doing it in order to burn JB and get help force the client to get responsible skilled councel.
     
  13. Thinking_Out_Loud

    Thinking_Out_Loud New Member

    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I saw this too and thought... "wow, he basically said she was guilty". Why would he have done that? I can't help but think that the defense's strategy is to let her go to prison. Then get her out on an appeal. Then maybe she'll win the appeal because some people will have forgotten about everything, and they can see that she had an unfit lead attorney.
     
  14. NJ Lawyer

    NJ Lawyer Member

    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Perhaps, with respect that one quote. However, the article goes on to paraphrase him as saying "Lenamon explained he would have had Casey plead not guilty by reason of insanity." If he indeed said as much, than that is more than just vaguely saying "mental health" is "on the table" or some such. We don't have the exact quote, so we don't know. But I think the paraphrase is damaging.
     
  15. Marina2

    Marina2 New Member

    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Although KC doesn't have to prove her innocence, I assume there will have to be some sort of damage control put out in her defense. I'm thinking of the circumstantial evidence that the prosecution will introduce and how the defense will provide a reasonable explanation for it.

    For instance:
    Prosecution calls detective to the stand who states that KC told him that she spoke to Caylee on the phone on July 15th. KC goes into detail about what was said, etc.

    Another state's witness claims that phone records prove no such phone call was received.

    State's witnesses are called that offer evidence that Caylee was dead on July 15th so could not have called KC that day.

    Now comes the defense. What do they ask on cross? Who do they call to the stand? How do they offer a reasonable explanation to this lie KC told?

    There's so much that will be brought out and I realize that some will be refuted with expert testimony. But, I wonder what the defense will do to offer their reasonable explanation to many other things without calling KC to the stand.
     
  16. YellowSubmarine

    YellowSubmarine If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane!

    Messages:
    2,369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no possible defense, IMO. The only thing they can do is attempt to pick apart LE and everyone involved in this case. They will spin everything that comes out of the SA and their witnesses mouths in hopes of confusing the jury enough to leave them without a clue of what just happened.
     
  17. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think TL should have just kept his mouth shut just like the Anthony's former attorney did, whose name escapes me for the moment.
     
  18. mitzi

    mitzi Watch us lie to cover for 'Princess'

    Messages:
    4,339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mark NJ, Kimster. :)
     
  19. kpalma715

    kpalma715 New Member

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't sure where to post this or if this has been posted all ready. I was thinking of this and was wondering the possibility of this question.

    It seems as if the defense, is going to make it look like JG was responsible for Caylee's death. What if, KC omits that she was responsible for Caylee's death but JG was the mastermind and he committed the murder. All the evidence is pointing at KC. I am thinking her only possibility of confusing a jury, is to make up another crazy story, but involving JG in it. Putting herself as a victim in the whole thing. I hope this doesn't happen, but what if???
     
  20. tweety933

    tweety933 New Member

    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The defense will not throw JG under the bus, IMO, because then they would have to put KC on the stand, and they would never do that.

    The only reason any of JG's info was released was to show that LE explored alot of different avenues to eliminate or include people as potential suspects.

    IMO, they haven't investigated CA or GA enough to prove it wasn't them that set her up. If anyone is going to get thrown under the bus, it will be the other people living in that household.
     
  21. Brini

    Brini Future Irene Adler

    Messages:
    7,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Won't happen. KC can't testify. JG has been thoroughly investigated and cleared. Most of all, KC can't come up with times or places.

    Plus there is no evidence against JG. And, no motive, method, or opportunity.

    Then, KC would have to admit the killing, and tell the world why. That won't happen, either.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice