Sidebar for Caylee Anthony's forum #15

[seattlechiquita]

Wise words my friend. I can tell you: had I been blessed with a child, I would have never harmed her.and,had I harmed her, LEwouldbethe least of my worries. My mother would have my azz on a stick faster than that.

 

[RR0004]

Tuesday Morning Trivia - The Orlando Sentinel Headlines

The Orlando Sentinel has a front page article of


Top 50 Most Notorious Florida Criminals

Listed as #2 - second only to Ted Bundy is Casey Anthony.....

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-notorious-florida-criminals-20130502,0,3599995.photogallery

Apparently Florida isn't waiting for the Judge of Judges.....

I hope her life is still a living h*ll!!!

 

[RR0004]

I think you may have misunderstood my question...I wasn't suggesting it was monday morning quarterbacking at all - and yes, I was here darned near 24/7 during those years and yes I remember much of the same comments then.

My question was meant to ask - while I understand these are our personal opinions - is there any legal legitimacy for them at all? Are we speaking from a point of understanding the laws or are we simply venting because of our continued agony about the verdict?

Because if we don't know if our complaints have a foundation of legal legitimacy or foundation in law - how can we suggest things be changed in future trials?

I don't think we know at all. There are just too many examples to list here. But are they facts or some kind of personal wish list that has no basis?

Well, the story line is way too long for me to go back and dredge up stuff...but do we know whatever became of the Judge holding Baez to task?

 

[logicalgirl]

Well, the story line is way too long for me to go back and dredge up stuff...but do we know whatever became of the Judge holding Baez to task?

First let me be clear that I am as angry as most about Baez's courtroom antics - my point was are we looking in the right direction to be laying this blame at the feet of HHJP.

Here's what Richard Hornsby has to say about Baez in the courtroom:



"Speaking of Baez’s Scandalous Allegations

The general rule is that a defense attorney [any attorney actually] enjoys “absolute immunity [from law suit] in any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding.” Delmonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)."


"In this case, Jose Baez’s scandalous allegations were made in arguing a defense of his client and would therefore be considered rationally related to the proceeding. As such, he is entitled to absolute immunity for the allegations he made against George, no matter how damaging they are.

With that said, if it could be proven that he actually fabricated the allegations, he would likely be disciplined by the Florida Bar.

Additionally, while George could not pursue Baez if Baez was just restating what a witness told him, he could nonetheless sue the person who made the statement to Baez.

In this case, it would likely be Casey Anthony who would be the person making the defamatory statements, so George would most likely not pursue the matter."

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/05/ - comments found here.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm still searching through Richard's blawgs during the trial period and have yet to find any comments he has made about Judge Perry's courtroom handling of Baez - whom we know he had zero respect for.

Interesting take here on why Baez may fear FCA speaking out now she is no longer "under his thumb".

http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/06/a-lesson-from-the-casey-anthony-trial.html

And another "odd" one Richard recommends reading - obviously written during the trial:
http://criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.ca/2011/06/no-one-would-like-my-commentary-on.html

 

[Hez]

Well, the story line is way too long for me to go back and dredge up stuff...but do we know whatever became of the Judge holding Baez to task?

That's a good question. Does anyone remember the Judge warning Baez (after Casey was declared indigent) that there are lawyers out there that will sue defense attorneys on behalf of the JAC for excessive costs during a trial? I remember at that time hoping that someone would take the Judge up on his offer and go through every bill with a fine-toothed comb. Baez and ethics are strangers, so I wouldn't be surprised if something was hinky about his billings, especially when he was supposed to be pro bono and now Casey has him listed as a creditor that she owes 500K.

 

[logicalgirl]

That's a good question. Does anyone remember the Judge warning Baez (after Casey was declared indigent) that there are lawyers out there that will sue defense attorneys on behalf of the JAC for excessive costs during a trial? I remember at that time hoping that someone would take the Judge up on his offer and go through every bill with a fine-toothed comb. Baez and ethics are strangers, so I wouldn't be surprised if something was hinky about his billings, especially when he was supposed to be pro bono and now Casey has him listed as a creditor that she owes 500K.

Unfortunately for us, it looks like Baez took the warning - I remember what you are talking about - and it was the costs of the PI, getting motions and copying costs, traveling expenses - stuff that the JAC does allow - within their own billing boundaries - and they are known for fine toothing it - that is if they had found any errors - they would have had a lawyer go after Baez on their behalf.

He wasn't pro-bono because Casey paid him the $89,000(?) from the sales of Caylee's pictures - he simply was not allowed to bill her or the JAC a penny more since she was Indigent.

I think Casey padded her BK filings with the 500K because there are two levels of Bankruptcy from what I read. She wanted to reach the higher level which I sort of remember is 700K which says you don't have to pay any of it back and are discharged free and clear. But Casey also said - to get out of any false claims - that she didn't think she actually owed him that.

We're waiting for him to confirm that amount before the June deadline....waiting and hoping...because that would be a huge mistake on his part....

 

[zippitydoda]

OT - I love seeing all the names pop up and stopping into chat

 

[HMSHood]

Lot of evil coming out of the woodwork since Casey Anthony was acquitted.
Anders Breivik
Jerry Sandusky
James Holmes
Jimmy Savile
Adam Lanza
Christopher Dorner
Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev
Ariel Castro

They are all deviant and depraved.
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

 

[skbsoccermom]

I just saw the post in the current news thread. I knew there would be some whining about Judge Perry speaking out, but I thought it would come from baez.

 

[mac66]

I believe there was some uproar after Judge Perry spoke on Today this week. I suspect that is why the scheduled Nancy Grace appearance didn't happen. He was probably either re-thinking the wisdom of being honest about his feelings, or being pressured by his peers. Or more likely, FCA's peers. You can't unring that bell, and I'm glad!

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I believe there was some uproar after Judge Perry spoke on Today this week. I suspect that is why the scheduled Nancy Grace appearance didn't happen. He was probably either re-thinking the wisdom of being honest about his feelings, or being pressured by his peers. Or more likely, FCA's peers. You can't unring that bell, and I'm glad!

I'm having great difficulty pairing NG and HHJP on the same television screen. Although I can't quote any statements from HHJP, I am under the impression that he was far from approving of all of the media hoopla and resented the circus atmosphere it created. It required him to make the change of venue and IIRC he also constructed detailed plans to contain the media in certain areas during the trial.

And let's face it ~ NG is the face of sensationalizing criminal trials. So I am totally baffled as to why HHJP would even consider being a guest on her show in particular. It seems such a counter intuitive move to me.

Kinda like Billy Graham choosing to be interviewed by Howard Stern. I'm not implying good/bad ~ more oil/water. I just don't understand HHJP's motive. What prompts his message and why now? If one disapproves of what someone (NG) is doing ~ then why endorse that as a means to publicize one's own message?

And, yes, HHJP did let us down. He was not perfect and did not live up to his own publicized rules. For example: "12. Counsel shall admonish all persons at the counsel table who make gestures, facial expressions, audible comments, or the like, as manifestations of approval or disapproval during the testimony of a witness, or at any other time. This behavior is strictly prohibited." (http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2010/04/judge-belvin-perry-jr-to-preside-at.html)

For me, there is no question that some of his rulings made a difference in the outcome of the trial. I think appealable issues may have weighed heavier for him than they should have. I believe it is possible that may have tempered his heretofore strictness to court behavior in favor of presiding over a trial that had no holes for appeal. I felt he was strict with the prosecution but not so much with the defense and Casey.

Does he have regrets? Is that why he's going to the media? And NG ~ of all people? I just plain don't get it at all!!!!!

:dunno:​

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm having great difficulty pairing NG and HHJP on the same television screen. Although I can't quote any statements from HHJP, I am under the impression that he was far from approving of all of the media hoopla and resented the circus atmosphere it created. It required him to make the change of venue and IIRC he also constructed detailed plans to contain the media in certain areas during the trial.

And let's face it ~ NG is the face of sensationalizing criminal trials. So I am totally baffled as to why HHJP would even consider being a guest on her show in particular. It seems such a counter intuitive move to me.

Kinda like Billy Graham choosing to be interviewed by Howard Stern. I'm not implying good/bad ~ more oil/water. I just don't understand HHJP's motive. What prompts his message and why now? If one disapproves of what someone (NG) is doing ~ then why endorse that as a means to publicize one's own message?

And, yes, HHJP did let us down. He was not perfect and did not live up to his own publicized rules. For example: "12. Counsel shall admonish all persons at the counsel table who make gestures, facial expressions, audible comments, or the like, as manifestations of approval or disapproval during the testimony of a witness, or at any other time. This behavior is strictly prohibited." (http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2010/04/judge-belvin-perry-jr-to-preside-at.html)

For me, there is no question that some of his rulings made a difference in the outcome of the trial. I think appealable issues may have weighed heavier for him than they should have. I believe it is possible that may have tempered his heretofore strictness to court behavior in favor of presiding over a trial that had no holes for appeal. I felt he was strict with the prosecution but not so much with the defense and Casey.

Does he have regrets? Is that why he's going to the media? And NG ~ of all people? I just plain don't get it at all!!!!!

:dunno:​

BBM - not trying to picky but the word Counsel implies lawyers doesn't it, not Judges? My understanding is the "Counsel has to ask the Judge to reprimand opposing Counsel who are allowing this behavior at their table.

PS - I didn't actually believe that he'd agreed to be on the NG show - maybe her publicity people jumped the gun. He may have understood the interview was with someone on CNN, not HLN. Just my take.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

BBM - not trying to picky but the word Counsel implies lawyers doesn't it, not Judges? My understanding is the "Counsel has to ask the Judge to reprimand opposing Counsel who are allowing this behavior at their table.

PS - I didn't actually believe that he'd agreed to be on the NG show - maybe her publicity people jumped the gun. He may have understood the interview was with someone on CNN, not HLN. Just my take.

Hi, LG. :wave:

I don't particularly care who HHJP said should make the admonishments because in the end the judge is the one who has the responsibility to prohibit the behavior that he, himself had deemed prohibited. He was, after all, the one who wrote the rule.

Besides, IIRC, Ashton did ask HHJP to stop the personal, emotional demonstrations by the defense team. Can't find the link. Does anyone else remember this?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Hi, LG. :wave:

I don't particularly care who HHJP said should make the admonishments because in the end the judge is the one who has the responsibility to prohibit the behavior that he, himself had deemed prohibited. He was, after all, the one who wrote the rule.

Besides, IIRC, Ashton did ask HHJP to stop the personal, emotional demonstrations by the defense team. Can't find the link. Does anyone else remember this?

Sorry, LG, I have searched everywhere and have come to the conclusion that this is just something I wish JA and the prosecution had made a formal objection about. I can't find it anywhere.

But I still stand by the conviction that if HHJP had thought it was important enough to write a court behavior "rule" about then he should have ensured that it was enforced, too. (Also the gum chewing, lol!)

Bark ~ not enough bite for this case?

 

[ZsaZsa]

I just saw the post in the current news thread. I knew there would be some whining about Judge Perry speaking out, but I thought it would come from baez.

I just wish he'd kept his trap shut until after the BK is settled. These comments he made just give her current attorneys more to complain about re the bias in the system against her.... :banghead:

 

[logicalgirl]

NOT directed at anyone in particular - but we like to swing both ways don't we? We've been complaining since the verdict that HHJP hasn't said anything - and now he has? :waitasec:

Maybe Casey's lawyers need to remember that every citizen has amendments rights as private citizens AND that their client was ACQUITTED. You don't always get what you want. I don't think this one is going to fly in a court. All IMO.:moo:

 

[Intermezzo]

Hi, LG. :wave:

I don't particularly care who HHJP said should make the admonishments because in the end the judge is the one who has the responsibility to prohibit the behavior that he, himself had deemed prohibited. He was, after all, the one who wrote the rule.

Besides, IIRC, Ashton did ask HHJP to stop the personal, emotional demonstrations by the defense team. Can't find the link. Does anyone else remember this?

BBM
Yes, I remember.
Jeff Ashton brought it up in a SideBar conference.
He said they couldn't do anything about Casey's behaviour but they did ask that the Defense Team Lawyers stop with the cuddling, hugging etc....behaviour

I think I may have posted that sidebar conference earlier on in this thread...Off to look.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...idebar-transc20110615_1_bones-jose-baez-kronk

Ashton also raised the issue of defense attorney Dorothy Clay Sims consoling Casey Anthony.

"Ms. Anthony gets upset. And that's fine. We can't do anything about that," Ashton said. "But I do think that counsel's constant arm around the back, patting, needs to not be done in front of the jury."

He was concerned the display "has the potential of influencing the jury and getting sympathy. So we would ask that counsel stay out of it and leave the consolation for the breaks."

Perry said he was watching this and observed "it hasn't reached to the point where it appears to be staged, no more than the natural facial expressions that human beings have; that you even have sometimes, Mr. Ashton."

Perry then advised the defense not to "overdo it."

 

[logicalgirl]

Sorry, LG, I have searched everywhere and have come to the conclusion that this is just something I wish JA and the prosecution had made a formal objection about. I can't find it anywhere.

But I still stand by the conviction that if HHJP had thought it was important enough to write a court behavior "rule" about then he should have ensured that it was enforced, too. (Also the gum chewing, lol!)

Bark ~ not enough bite for this case?

I know - you are probably right. But when I consider all the hundreds of pieces of evidence, the intricate hearings and motions pre-trial and all that went on - this behavior to me seems a small thing.

I believe the fault lies directly in the laps of the jury members, who appeared to switch off any existing gray cells they may have had the moment they walked into the courtroom.

What if he had admonished her? This jury believed she was an innocent mother grieving. For all we know - they would have leaned even more towards the defendant.

We don't like the verdict. We believe a murderer has gone free. Trying to lay blame for me isn't going to make me feel any better. That verdict was bad and always will be.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I know - you are probably right. But when I consider all the hundreds of pieces of evidence, the intricate hearings and motions pre-trial and all that went on - this behavior to me seems a small thing.

I believe the fault lies directly in the laps of the jury members, who appeared to switch off any existing gray cells they may have had the moment they walked into the courtroom.

What if he had admonished her? This jury believed she was an innocent mother grieving. For all we know - they would have leaned even more towards the defendant.

We don't like the verdict. We believe a murderer has gone free. Trying to lay blame for me isn't going to make me feel any better. That verdict was bad and always will be.

I agree with you, LG, on many points. The jury is, ultimately, responsible for this rape of justice.

But I believe there were many actions within the court that fed the jury's unreasonableness. And this one we were able to document, while you deemed a small thing, helped them to add up to their unjust decision.

You had asked if there was anything HHJP had done that was specifically wrong ~ that we could document. This is one thing. Small, as you say, but exemplary, IMO, as to how he ran his court during this trial. (Thank you Intermezzo for the back up link!!!) There are many more incidents where HHJP did or didn't take action to run the tight court that I expected, from his reputation, to run.

I do not believe HHJP is entirely responsible for the horrendous outcome of this trial but I feel sure his attitude and many decisions certainly had a huge impact on how the jury voted and the ultimate outcome of the trial.

And as far as "laying blame" goes ~ I think we all try to figure that out. Even you have, apparently, decided to lay it at the jury's door. We should analyze who made the mistake so that it might not be repeated in the future, not so much to make us "feel better." (Although I like that, too.)

I believe the blame should be shared by many, including HHJP.