The title is a mouthful isn't it? On page 7 of this motion it is stated by the defense: "By seeking the death penalty the prosecution sought to financially break the defense and deprive Miss Anthony of her counsel of choice." "The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures a criminal defendant the right to counsel...an element of that right is a right to choice of counsel for defendants who are able to afford counsel." http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...s for Impermissible Prosecutorial Motives.pdf Excuse me, but isn't KC Anthony indigent? Penniless? How is it, by definition, that she is then one of those "defendants who are able to afford counsel"? If she is indigent, and has approached the court for costs, doesn't this alone make it clear that she is NOT that defendant who is ABLE to afford counsel of her choice? :waitasec: She obviously was NEVER that individual, but through her DIRTY DEAL with ABC was able to secure enough funds to keep this dragged out for almost 2 years and counting. Miss Anthony was ALWAYS indigent. Did she not lie and bounce a check to Jose when she first retained him? Haven't we heard that one? I am completely confused by the stance the defense is taking here. Is she indigent or not? And are they actually saying it is the State of Florida's FAULT that she is indigent?