CM:We don't have any obligation to put on a defense -JP:"Y'all lied to me

[wonders]

I personally think that Mason was trying to see what Judge Perry would let them get away with. You know how they are. Will try any dirty trick in the book.
Also I would bet that it would send their client straight to death row.

 

[Serjen]

They are putting on a defense, they have a VERY extensive witness list...CM was just being an *advertiser censored* since JP told the jury when they should expect to deliberate. CM "You should tell them we don't HAVE to put on a defense" wah wah wah...they had no intention of not putting on a defense and just pissed off JP in the meantime.

 

[tiredblondy]

If I were on the jury, after observing the defense and the stellar performance of the Judge ,I can honestly say if Judge Perry were to say that I'd know it was the defense and I'd vote to convict for sure.

 

[SeaNymph]

The Court: Then ya'll lied to me.

CM: No.

The Court: Yes, the hell you did.

:floorlaugh::great::floorlaugh:

 

[carla79]

Presumably he took on this case to make his name as a defense attorney. If he wins, he's brilliant. If he loses, well, it was perhaps unwinnable, anyway.
BUT- if he loses and it becomes a case of improper or inadequate defense, then he will have a horrible reputation and his career will be ruined.

Why would he sacrifice his career for ICA? If he can't win her freedom with a brilliant defense, why would he care if she spends the rest of her life in prison?

I'm not sure to be honest but the prosecutor in the OJ trial is still famous and she lost that case. JB has always had an alternative motive in my opinion for taking this case. Even if he loses he will still make money off this. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't worked out deals with ICA for book and movie deals that we all know is coming. Again this is just my opinion.

 

[tiredblondy]

Are there not some kind of penalties for a defense team to lie to the judge? Oops so sorry for sounding like JB! let me rephrase. Aren't there penalties for the defense team for lying to the judge?

 

[technicalconfusion]

Let's assume the DT didn't put on a case. Wouldn't that kind of signal they don't really have one?

 

[Anais]

The defense has demonstrated repeatedly that they have no intention of either following trial procedures or acting in good faith. Were this a lesser judge they would have waked all over him/her.

BBM

This is exactly why there will be no mistrial of any sort. I also doubt that she'll ever win any appeal, if convicted with this judge at the helm! He has never been overturned and has worked his fanny off to be certain each and every step of the way.

 

[diablo]

much ado about nothing

 

[crucibelle]

Bill Sheaffer said today that if the DT rests without putting on a defense, that the jury will "crucify" the DT.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Let's assume the DT didn't put on a case. Wouldn't that kind of signal they don't really have one?

Or...it could be taken as a statement by the defense that the prosecution's case was so weak that they don't need to present a defense. That's not the way I feel, mind you, but it is a defense strategy that's been used before. Basically, it's a bluff.

I'm confused about this entire issue. It sounds as if Baez is saying they DO intend to present a case but they want the judge to inform the jury that they don't have to, as if they are doing the jury a favor by presenting a defense. I think the judge was a little quick to call them liars....schemers, yes, but not liars.... unless the judge has reason to believe that the defense will immediately rest after he makes that statement to the jury.

 

[crucibelle]

I don't see how anyone can say this is a "weak case". The evidence is strong and points to one person -- ICA. She will be convicted, IMO. No mistrial.

 

[SindyBill]

Question for those more qualified than me to answer: Why would these attorneys want to get KC a mistrial? Do they like her so much they want her to have a mistrial? Surely a judgment of a mistrial cannot look good upon themselves as attorneys, so I'd imagine they'd want to represent her in the best way possible..

 

[Chilly Willy]

I don't see how anyone can say this is a "weak case". The evidence is strong and points to one person -- ICA. She will be convicted, IMO. No mistrial.

I totally agree. I think the state has proven beyond all doubt that Casey killed Caylee and hid their body, and that Casey acted alone. But if the defense bluffs by saying the prosecution's case was a joke, which is what they'd be doing if they don't put on a defense, it could make the jury question their own judgement. It's pretty much the only chance the defense has, IMO. If they do attempt to present a case, I think it's only going to backfire on them.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I'm going to add to my post above. IMO, the defense has backed themselves into a corner with their outrageous claims of sexual abuse by George and body snatching by Kronk. They can't prove the abuse without calling Casey to the stand, which would be a HUGE mistake, and there is absolutely no evidence to show that Kronk moved the body. Better off to rest with the statement that they do not have to present a case and let the jury wonder than to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

OK, I went back to read the transcript of what was said and listen to the video report. So, Mason says that they will have a defense, they will make their presentation . Then today he said he will let the court know if they will provide a defense once the State rest....Then Baez said today they have witness coming in from out of town, so that means that yes the defense will provide a defense..Then Linda ask if the defense is sure they will make their presentation on Thursday but then Linda asked about the acquittal motion...I am so confused :crazy: But yet he wants the Judge to tell the jury they don't have to provide a defesense..:crazy: I am so lost..I just pray that
Thursday the defense will have their presentation and judge just asked that after the state is finished with their deliberations he expects the defenses motion for an acquittal? Oh boy...this is just ridiculous..Poor Perry..:crazy:

 

[Ssejors]

I'm still trying to figure out what it is the defense would even PRESENT. RK, GA insinuations? Experts that will testify differently thatn the ones we have seen? Like who? Im confuzzled

 

[Softail]

I really don't understand why everyone is freaking out that this could cause a mistrial. BFD - They lied. CJBP called them on it. It's a fact. What am I missing?

 

[Z-sleuth]

I really don't understand why everyone is freaking out that this could cause a mistrial. BFD - They lied. CJBP called them on it. It's a fact. What am I missing?

You're not missing anything. Typical DT theatrics and a waste of time.

 

[strawberry]

I think the judge was saying if you are NOW telling me you are not putting on a case, you lied to me, and later I think he was saying if it turns out they lied, then he no longer believes anything they say. That was my take anyway.