"Second Motion To Preclude Death Procedures for Impermissable Prosecutorial Motives"

[LambChop]

All righty then, let's continue:

Page 18: (I might add right here, borrowing some words that a GREAT man once said, "The irony is RICH!")

"Miss Anthonys counsel of choice in this case was Mr. Baez and she did not have the funds to pay for additional counsel. By seeking the death penalty the state sought to deprive Miss Anthony of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel...by requiring Mr. Baez to leave the case or Miss Anthony to acquire additional counsel."
What?

So in essence the State of Florida should take into consideration a defendants ability to PAY for additional counsel that is required by law when the death penalty is sought? I thought once Mr. Mason got on the case it was supposed to be MORE professional, not less...

This is not even a consideration that ANY state would give any thought to whatsoever in their decision to or not to seek the death penalty. If she cannot PAY then they have funds for her from the state. It is THAT simple.

But, but, but her additional counsel did not cost her one cent, not one penny. AL admits her expenses came out of the $70,000 she raised. Was the $200,000 to go to JB for a "finder's fee" to get a DP attorney to work pro bono? And where is the rest of the money ABC paid KC. Bet it went for fees in the fraud trial because now JB does not have to disclose what she paid him. Pretty bad if what you paid for a fraud trial, that could have been resolved quickly, is costing you more than the defense allowed for your DP case. When you do the math it just does not add up. JMO

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I will be honest and say that I am not going to read this article and I am not even going to read the thread. Since when has KC been deprived of her counsel of choice. She has had more high profile attorneys than any defendant I have ever seen! This just gets more ridiculous every day.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

"Miss Anthonys counsel of choice in this case was Mr. Baez and she did not have the funds to pay for additional counsel. By seeking the death penalty the state sought to deprive Miss Anthony of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel...by requiring Mr. Baez to leave the case or Miss Anthony to acquire additional counsel."

Baez should have stated. Since I am not DP qualified, the State did this purposely to get me off the case...LMAO..Baez is so transparent. He's in over his head and knows it!

She has assembled a team with high profile attornies, all working pro bono, with the exception of Baez. He chose to line his pockets first, then go for indigent status. He has no defense but to attack the state and all it's officers...he's done it with the prosecution, the detectives and now his Honor JS. I think he's the one who needs to be removed, oh wait...he will seal her fate for a conviction so keep him on board, Inmate Anthony...you've got him in your pocket, especially since he's lined his pockets with blood money of Caylee..you both deserve each other...:furious:

 

[strawberry]

Since when is "counsel of choice" a "star"-studded multi-person defense team? I always thought you hired or were appointed A lawyer. Do public defenders work in teams?

 

[Openmyeyes]

The defense never ceases to amaze me. Where do they come up with this stuff?

I am trying to think of high profile cases in Florida where the defendant was not declared indigent in a death penalty case.

The claim that the prosecution was trying to break CA is not well thought out. Her rights were not violated, she has counsel and she has always had choice of counsel. That is the bottom line. No one has denied her that right, ever for any reason.

 

[strawberry]

The Irony is Rich. Motion Denied.

 

[magic-cat]

I think I figured it out. There is a footnote on one of the pages of the motion, page 14, where the defense discloses all their figures about how much death penalty cases cost. The lowest figure quoted there is $620,000.00. The highest is 1.2 million.

So is the difference in the COST that Mr. Hornsby talks about and the COST in these motions ATTORNEY FEES? Is THAT the dragon that flies these costs up to the sky???

 

[elementary]

I think according to them, that all of it since the state had the nerve to arrest their little client....I mean we have all heard jb say that she is innocent and defense has also stated they have proof...and then of course we won't see any of this because they want it tried in a court of law.....yepper.....all the states fault....:waitasec:

This motion is all about how the prosecution is victimising their client and how she can't get a fair trial. Seems to be the emerging theme. It's about going on the offensive (rather than defending their client), blaming others, and twisting the facts to suit their theory. Basically they're saying it's the state's fault that she's broke. Twisted logic. Cry me a river.

Its becoming clearer and clearer that every argument is going to be a variation of how the perp can't get a fair trial and is being victimised by a plethora of shady characters. Because the defence has no defence. I find their tactics morally repugnant and an abuse and misuse of the law. I think it's all aimed at the jury pool, to breed paranoia.

 

[belle3]

heres my question. mr. baez, being ms. anthony's attorney of preference, agreed to take this case with the money that miss anthony said she had. what was it $1200. how is it now that its the courts fault that the evidence now points to a more heinous crime deserving of the death penalty and that $1200 is no longer a sufficient amount of money to defend her. seems to me she ran out of that money on th esecond day of incarceration. so in essence hasnt everyone been working probono for her. the 200,000 dollar deal happened after he was retained as counsel by the then, indigent, casey anthony. what in the world does he think he is doing wit this?

 

[magic-cat]

This defendant has been declared indigent BEFORE this motion was EVER conceived of or filed. Why is it again, that the state sought the death penalty in April of 2009 and here we are in April of 2010 and they are JUST NOW getting around to this accusation? Seems like they are guilty of the same procrastination of which they accuse the state...I mean, if they thought the state was trying to bankrupt poor Miss Anthony, then why, immediately upong the state filing their intent to seek death did Baez and company NOT file THIS motion? Why indeed.

They are running into the cold hard facts of the JAC is what is most likely and realizing that all their splendid spending spree is done and now they must account for every single dime. AND they are doing it for NO fees. And why is that again? Because that is what they AGREED to DO even when this defendant was NOT indigent. All but Baez agreed to defend PRO BONO even when there WERE funds. So where is THIS coming from?

Hmmm...let's see...I remember Cheney Mason saying something in an interview recently about how HE had not defended an indigent defendant since something like 1976? So it would appear Mr. Cheney is not having as much FUN as he has presumed that he would, huh?

 

[Anais]

On page 12:

"The prosecution initially declined to seek the death penalty, but months later, after finding out exactly how much money Miss Anthony had available to pay for her defense, the prosecution abruptly changed course and filed its notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty."

Hmmm...they filed their notice of intent NOT to seek on DECEMBER 5th, 2009...Now, what ELSE happened, "boys", after that time? Oh yes, they found Caylee Anthonys BONES on Suburban Drive, having been deposited there in June of 2008, wrapped in a blanket that was missing from her home, and thrown away like so much garbage on the side of the road. And oh yes, she had duct tape over her face holding her mandible in place.

I think this is just purely ridiculous! And I HOPE that the Honorable Judge Blevins makes short work of their game.

Magic ITA ! I am hoping that the honorable Judge Perry comes out of the gates head on and long and proceeds to slap Jose and his idiocy promptly! Jose has continually made a mockery of the justice system and abused it from day one! :banghead:

 

[denjet]

On page 13 the defense uses a case where an attorney was not allowed into the case of the defendant who had chosen HIM, pro hac vice. This defendant was later convicted and the conviction was overturned after it was decided her right to counsel had been denied, in essence. How is THAT the same as THIS again? None of Miss Anthonys attorneys have been denied admission into the case pro hac vice, have they? Apples and oranges "boys".

Not even the crook from California was denied!

 

[denjet]

If you check out the motion, not even carefully, please note the following:

Judge Strickland's name is on it.
Page 3 - It is not dated and only contains Andrea Lyon's signature.

There is no stamp of the Clerk of the Court!

These motions haven't even been filed yet!

I'm going through the others now and I'm betting they are in the same condition.

I'm waiting for them to be posted to another site WHEN THEY ARE FILED!

Until then, I'm looking for a good discussion of what Ms. Lyon has to say.

Same thing with the others, they were "filed" with the media first and as of this morning, STILL HAVEN'T BEEN FILED! I never realized it was OK for the defense to do this ...
I hope Judge Perry addresses this!

 

[Anais]

I am a dunce can someone please tell me what JAC is?!

 

[denjet]

During the last hearing JB said, under oath, that KC hired him on June 17th 2008. Has anyone ever heard that this was corrected in the court record to reflect the actual date, or is this the actual date. If it is, JB knew at the time KC was arrested that she had no money and he was not listed as her attorney. KC claimed she was indigent. Then JB comes onto the scene and she has an attorney that UNDERSTANDS she has no money, no job, no property but she has "pictures". He fights the gag order to the advantage of the media outlets and disadvantage of his client. She becomes notorious. Then according to ABC JB brokers a deal for $200,000, most of which goes into his pocket. So in conclusion KC had no money in the beginning, she has no money now but her attorney managed to line his pockets and has done more to hurt her case unlike a public defender who would have tried to keep her from the public eye and defending her to the best of their ability.

So if you are a millionaire accused of a crime you should be eligible for the death penalty because you can afford it? I'm confused. JMO

I think that about sums it up! Only rich people should be charged with capital murder, poor to middle class people should not ... that sure is twisted !!
So far, what attorneys or experts has KC not been able to afford? They, along with experts are working pro bono ... Jose of course hasn't been and he's the only one losing money here ... the state is now picking up costs, so again he is the only one who's losing dollars ... Are they saying that KC can no longer choose Jose as her attorney because she can no longer pay him?

I sure hope Judge Perry puts an end to this nonsense ...

 

[wonders]

From reading here I think the defense wants the state tax payers to pay all attorney's fees? Can that happen?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Of course she could have opted for a Public Defender then she wouldn't have had to worry at all.. she would even have gotten a competent Attorney.

 

[Anais]

From reading here I think the defense wants the state tax payers to pay all attorney's fees? Can that happen?

I am confused I thought that ALL attorney's, investigator's and experts etc. fees are being paid by the state because she was declared indigent???

 

[magic-cat]

I am a dunce can someone please tell me what JAC is?!

They are the gals and guys who administer the MONEY in Florida. All COST goes through them before it is paid.

From reading here I think the defense wants the state tax payers to pay all attorney's fees? Can that happen?

I think that Jose could likely collect a fee, AFTER the ENTIRE thing is over-in Florida I read somewhere today, (will try to find) where the attorne fee is paid according to THEIR limits, the JAC, and it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000.00 not payable until COMPLETION of the case. We should ask that on the legal question and answer thread.:waitasec:

 

[sleutherontheside]

As of 10:37 AM these new motions had NOT been filed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is evident that the defense is feeding them to the news before filing. Not just unprofessional IMO but unconscionable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's time for the defense team to comment on this.