Casey Anthony trial...

[sillyberry]

Italia and JF, I don't disagree with you on how it feels, but I'm going to put on my Professor's Public Defender hat (since I don't wear one myself) and do my best to explain. PLEASE NOTE: I am explaining, not defending or justifying or arguing that this is my position on what criminal defense ethics should be.

We've set up a system in this country where the Prosecution is there on behalf of justice and the Defense Counsel is there on behalf of the accused. Prosecutors represent a whole system (and thus care about truth above victory), defense attorneys a specific client (and thus care about victory over truth). In most cases, there is the notion of a "David versus Goliath" situation where the government has a lot more institutional power than the criminal defendant. In lieu of this, with the goal of forcing the prosecution to prove their case, defense counsel is given a wide berth. Yes, they can create scenarios out of whole cloth if it provides reasonable inference that the defendant was not the perpetrator of the crime. No, defense counsel cannot be sued for defamation, as anything said in open court is privileged.

A pertinent quotation arguing for the strong adversarial system comes from Lord Brougham in Queen Caroline’s Case in 1820

[A]n advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all the world, and that person is his client. To save that client by all means and expedients, and at all hazards and costs to other persons, and, amongst them, to himself, is his first and only duty; and in performing this duty he must not regard the alarm, the torments, the destruction which he may bring upon others.

(Cited from MICHAEL ASIMOW & RICHARD WEISBERG, WHEN THE LAWYER KNOWS THE CLIENT IS GUILTY: CLIENT CONFESSIONS IN LEGAL ETHICS, POPULAR CULTURE, AND LITERATURE) - which looks to be a good read if you want to delve further into this issue.

Again as a parallel, David Westerfield's attorneys, knowing their client killed Danielle Van Dam after they were going to take police to her body to avoid the death penalty, then accused her parents of permitting someone (not DW) to kill her because of their "swinging" lifestyle. There was A LOT of backlash, although somewhat subdued because he was actually convicted and sentenced to death. Since there are a lot of similarities, this snippet from a public defender discussing the obligations of the Westerfield attorneys is interesting: http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=2740.

Another thing is that most defendants are not like Casey Anthony. The structural inequalities that exist, generally due to race and poverty, might make us want to have someone strongly advocating for defendants against systematic discrimination. This is where the adage "hard cases make bad law" might come into play (as referenced in the link above) as perhaps what people want to see in this case is different from standards desired broadly.

One thing to remember is that, for better or worse, legal ethics =/= morals. I once read that the only limitations on defense counsel is what permits them to sleep at night. Taking off the Public Defender hat (finally!), let me say that I have enough trouble with insomnia as is and I certainly don't need to add more sleeping difficulties by defending someone I knew to be guilty.

I would like to say (again) that I have not really followed the Casey Anthony trial. I watched the news coverage after the verdict, and one TV show about it, and I've skimmed this thread, and that's it. My gut says "guilty as hell" but I have not followed the evidence to reach a legal conclusion.

 

[JewelFreak]

Thank you, Sillyberry, for taking time to write your thoughtful explanation. I do, of course, see the point, especially regarding people who can't afford a skilled lawyer or whose cases aren't so controversial as to attract one pro bono. When defense lawyers are asked how they can live with themselves defending XX, they always answer that everybody deserves a defense & it's their duty. I get that too & agree.

However, doing it by destroying another person whom said lawyer knows to be uninvolved in the crime is, to me, abhorrent. Even if he believes his client innocent, sacrificing one not-guilty person for another is indefensible imho. Even worse if he thinks his client did it. I don't believe attys should be allowed to make up wild theories from whole cloth, as Baez did re drowning & George's abusing Casey -- Judge Perry must agree because he prevented Baez from mentioning it in his closing argument after he had provided no testimentary proof. That is simply dishonesty to my mind, and pretty vile. Of course there are occasions when XY could have done it, or maybe YY, and creating reasonable doubt is the whole goal -- but ruining somebody's life & emotional health to the extent Baez did George Anthony, I hope earns him a special place in a very hot inferno. Giving a client a vigorous & committed defense must, imo, be done without purposely trashing the lives of innocent others. Winning is not really everything.

Thanks again for the benefit of your experience -- you're eloquent too!

--- Laurie

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Thanks again for the benefit of your experience -- you're eloquent too!

--- Laurie

My thoughts exactly! Thank you, Sillyberry, for imparting your knowledge.

This is an interesting world we live in.

So, tomorrow is the "big day"...what do we think will happen now?

LA has been bounced around and seemed plausible, until I factored in that the celebrity population--the "in" crowd--seems to hate her. Even if she managed to get and keep $1m, that wouldn't last her long out there.

She's got to go somewhere that will allow her to stretch whatever money she has and somewhere she'll have connections--people to watch out for her.

PR, which seems viable since Baez has family there, has started a position saying they don't want her...

Houston was discussed because Cindy has family there. But the Anthony family atty came out saying that there are no plans for a reunion, and that he's not even sure if the Anthony's want to see her...

Baez, it appears, has 99% of the control...

What do you all think?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thank you, Sillyberry, for taking time to write your thoughtful explanation. I do, of course, see the point, especially regarding people who can't afford a skilled lawyer or whose cases aren't so controversial as to attract one pro bono. When defense lawyers are asked how they can live with themselves defending XX, they always answer that everybody deserves a defense & it's their duty. I get that too & agree.

However, doing it by destroying another person whom said lawyer knows to be uninvolved in the crime is, to me, abhorrent. Even if he believes his client innocent, sacrificing one not-guilty person for another is indefensible imho. Even worse if he thinks his client did it. I don't believe attys should be allowed to make up wild theories from whole cloth, as Baez did re drowning & George's abusing Casey -- Judge Perry must agree because he prevented Baez from mentioning it in his closing argument after he had provided no testimentary proof. That is simply dishonesty to my mind, and pretty vile. Of course there are occasions when XY could have done it, or maybe YY, and creating reasonable doubt is the whole goal -- but ruining somebody's life & emotional health to the extent Baez did George Anthony, I hope earns him a special place in a very hot inferno. Giving a client a vigorous & committed defense must, imo, be done without purposely trashing the lives of innocent others. Winning is not really everything.

Thanks again for the benefit of your experience -- you're eloquent too!

--- Laurie

My thoughts exactly.

I honestly think she will have difficulty continuing her life with her current identity. It will be interesting to see what happens after the interviews are over and she has made some money.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

My thoughts exactly.

I honestly think she will have difficulty continuing her life with her current identity. It will be interesting to see what happens after the interviews are over and she has made some money.

I can't imagine her getting paid for more than 1 interview. And I can't imagine, in the light of what we know, her keeping the money that she makes from her interview(s).

Unless she gets the seriousness of her situation, and public hatred of her, I don't think she'd change her face via plastic surgery. She loved the attention before, after watching her in court with those big smiles and all that laughter, I think she is going to love it even more now. She talked about wanting to go on the Howard Stern show--mind you, this is when Caylee was missing--with Baez, but laughed it off saying Stern would only ask her about sleeping with Baez. She's very childlike in some respects, she doesn't have the ability or the wherewithal t get how serious and dangerous this life she's about to embark on could potentially be.

Baez was in NYC this week, shopping around the story.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

She's free...

Watching the SUV fly down the highway reminds me of OJ...

 

[JewelFreak]

And like OJ, she'll be in trouble again someday. I also can't see her stretching money. She'll spend it as if it grew on trees & be back in the same financial mess she was in before -- wonder if the IRS will garnishee whatever she makes, to pay her $70K debt to them.

George & Cindy's lawyer says there are no relatives in Houston, that the woman who claims to be one is "looking for her 15 minutes." Wherever she goes, she'll emerge shortly, doing something inappropriate; she can't resist the spotlight.

--- Laurie

 

[Italiahaircolor]

George & Cindy's lawyer says there are no relatives in Houston, that the woman who claims to be one is "looking for her 15 minutes." Wherever she goes, she'll emerge shortly, doing something inappropriate; she can't resist the spotlight.

--- Laurie

Go figure... . If you're going to infuse yourself in a situation such as this, why would you want to be the one offer CA safe harbor?

I'm watching some of the coverage this morning, and they are saying that the it appeared she either boarded an executive private plan (originating from Ohio) or possibly camped out at Cheney Mason's office. But they really have no idea.

But, that crowds outside of the jail last night were supposedly very peaceful. Lots of discussion about Caylee's law, boycotting the media outlets that interview her--calling it blood money.

I think you're right. I think Baez will keep her in hiding UNTIL she does the interview and then she'll emerge from wherever she's been hiding out. I wonder, though, how long CA and Baez will be glued to each other? I can't imagine a PROFESSIONAL atty/client relationship stretching on long, long past the trial...now, she does have the appeals, but those may be struck down in short in order.

 

[JewelFreak]

I think Baez will stick around as long as he feels he's getting publicity out of it -- the kind he wants. Notoriety is ok w/him; he's an "as long as they spell your name right" kind of guy. Here's a prediction: eventually he & Casey will part ways with name-calling on both sides. Don't know when, but I'll bet that's how.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

There was some coverage last night about Baez running around and texting different media personalities offering to sell them pictures Casey will take of her first days of freedom.

I thought Baez was a CRIMINAL ATTORNEY, not an entertainment attorney or in PR. I find is odd/strange that he'd now trying to broker her deals. Even the commentators were saying that things of this nature--selling the effects of CA--are beyond his scope.

And Jewelfreak I suspect you're right. CA will keep Baez around for a while, until she doesn't need him anymore or his purpose has been served. And Baez, I'd guess, is stupid enough to think there may long lasting loyalty between the two of them. But, really, If CA wasn't loyal to her family, wasn't loyal to her child...he'll go by the way side real quick once she realizes Baez is going to feel entitled to some of the pot.

And the same goes for Baez. He wasn't, was never, will never be a pro bono lawyer in this case. He's charged her for every single thing, every inch of the way. Once her money tank dries up, he's GONE.

 

[centralsquare]

And like OJ, she'll be in trouble again someday. I also can't see her stretching money. She'll spend it as if it grew on trees & be back in the same financial mess she was in before -- wonder if the IRS will garnishee whatever she makes, to pay her $70K debt to them.

George & Cindy's lawyer says there are no relatives in Houston, that the woman who claims to be one is "looking for her 15 minutes." Wherever she goes, she'll emerge shortly, doing something inappropriate; she can't resist the spotlight.

--- Laurie

I agree with you. I think this is good insight. She may have won for now, but her behavior will catch up with her.

 

[chemgirl]

I've stayed out of this one but am growing curious on why it has such legs because IMHO all humans have equal value.
Children and adults.
Female and male.
Cute little girls and ugly old men.
White and black.
Daughters and strangers.

Murders happen all the time.
Every one is equally bad and upsetting, well at least in my book.

Apparently this one gets people here wound up because it was a cute little white girl, and a daughter of the defendant to boot and this forum has many white moms.
This one hits home, but it shouldn't.
Actually all murders should.

I just wonder why every black gang member murdered by some latino gang member doesn't also get 25 pages.

You know, I think the reason--for me, at least--that I latched onto this case was because the victim was so innocent and so young and so sweet, and there is a lot of video of Caylee out there--it's not just pictures of her...she's singing "You Are My Sunshine" and reading her favorite story the day before she died or was last seen. So to watch that and know what happened the very next day? It's heartbreaking, and it's so sad. It's a very emotional case because is so much out there on Caylee.

I don't, obviously, agree with murder--anyone's murder for any reason. And I do feel like every death is sad and unfortunate...but there is something about the loss of child that, I don't know, is a different level of sad.

A gang banger, he or she makes a choice--they run with a certain crowd and surround themselves with violence. But, children, they don't. They don't know enough of the world to make those choices, they're innocent. Their whole world is the people that love them and protect them. They're babies--they can't protect themselves...so when there's a good possibility that child's own mother smothered that child, it's really hard to wrap your mind around.

And sometimes there is the innocent bystander that lives in the wrong neighborhood that becomes the victim of violence. I could rant for days and days about what happened to Jamiel Shaw in Los Angeles a few years ago. Rising young high school Football Running Back, with a great future ahead of him - gunned down as he got off the bus 2 blocks from his home. The offender happened to be an illegal immigrant member of an illegal gang. He had done some jail time, and LAPD turned him loose to the streets of LA (instead of deporting him). He shot Jamiel the very day he was released. Jamiel's mother was serving in Iraq at the time. Could you imagine receiving that news?

Really not trying to be a pot stirrer here, but felt compelled to comment. What really gets me is how the media decides which murders matter and which don't. They should all matter! I find that you only hear about the victims that have the bright future ahead of them, or the deployed family member, or the young children at home. This really gets to me. I've found that this attitude extends beyond the media to the general public. Years ago, the old guy who owned the Chinese grocery store near my ex boyfriend's apartment was hit by a stray bullet during a drive-by shooting. Nobody cared. He didn't exactly have a bright future ahead of him (he was in his 70's at least), his kids were grown, there was no story to exploit. People talked about it, but the discussion revolved around how glad they were that they weren't in the store that day. I only know about the murder because I used to walk by the store at 6:00am to catch my bus home. He was outside cleaning his store every morning and always waved and said hi. So yeah...he was hard working and nice, but that's not enough to make people care.

 

[JewelFreak]

You're not going to stir the pot via me. I won't bite. Right, the media picks the dramatic ones to showcase. That's life. I understand that you feel the loss of a nice man; I would too. I'm sad enough at this world without internalizing each murder each day, and I expect to be sadder still as more occur. This one has issues, however, that deserve conversation without scolding for not discussing them ALL.

Last night Janine Pirro had a guy on the phone who claimed to have an agreement w/Baez for a million dollars for Casey's 1st interview. He said they made an agreement via email; he was taking a down payment today & putting the rest in escrow till the interview is done. Several "anonymous partners" and he, himself, put up the money, he said. Can't remember his name, never heard of him anyway.

"Jerry Springer's people offered a million but then ran away like little girls," was his comment. Sounds like just the kind of lowlife who'll be Casey's only buddies from now on. This fellow's plans are to sell the interview in Europe -- "We'll make 3 million, double our money." Then provide it free to tv here because networks won't pay for it in the U.S. Time alone will tell if he's genuine or yet another wacko. (Wacko even if genuine!)

Question for European PSers: Is this that big a story there? My impression is not & that it's a big dream to sell a Casey Anthony interview for that much money there.

--- Laurie

 

[risingsun]

Really not trying to be a pot stirrer here, but felt compelled to comment. What really gets me is how the media decides which murders matter and which don't. They should all matter! I find that you only hear about the victims that have the bright future ahead of them, or the deployed family member, or the young children at home. This really gets to me. I've found that this attitude extends beyond the media to the general public. Years ago, the old guy who owned the Chinese grocery store near my ex boyfriend's apartment was hit by a stray bullet during a drive-by shooting. Nobody cared. He didn't exactly have a bright future ahead of him (he was in his 70's at least), his kids were grown, there was no story to exploit. People talked about it, but the discussion revolved around how glad they were that they weren't in the store that day. I only know about the murder because I used to walk by the store at 6:00am to catch my bus home. He was outside cleaning his store every morning and always waved and said hi. So yeah...he was hard working and nice, but that's not enough to make people care.

The media decides which stories matter, including murders. We hear about bright futures cut short because people are interested in this type of material. Two gang bangers kiling each other...not so much. When you say that no one cared about the grocery store owner, do you mean he had no family or friends to mourn him. You cared. The press did not. This is not the same thing as no one caring. This has to be looked at in a cultural context. The media gives people what they want and often decide what they want. Tabloid press is not news. It turns out that News of the World is not news either.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Really not trying to be a pot stirrer here, but felt compelled to comment. What really gets me is how the media decides which murders matter and which don't. They should all matter! I find that you only hear about the victims that have the bright future ahead of them, or the deployed family member, or the young children at home. This really gets to me. I've found that this attitude extends beyond the media to the general public. Years ago, the old guy who owned the Chinese grocery store near my ex boyfriend's apartment was hit by a stray bullet during a drive-by shooting. Nobody cared. He didn't exactly have a bright future ahead of him (he was in his 70's at least), his kids were grown, there was no story to exploit. People talked about it, but the discussion revolved around how glad they were that they weren't in the store that day. I only know about the murder because I used to walk by the store at 6:00am to catch my bus home. He was outside cleaning his store every morning and always waved and said hi. So yeah...he was hard working and nice, but that's not enough to make people care.

I believe the only reason the Caylee Anthony case was as well known and highly publicized as it was, was simply because of how it got it's start.

Caylee wasn't "dead" when we first got introduced to her story. Missing children gets lots of air time and she was just missing--nothing more, her mother was suspicious, but we didn't know 1/10th of what we do know now back then. It was only after weeks and months of searching, investing ourselves in the hunt for Caylee, did we learn she had died--probably several months prior.

If Caylee had always just been the beautiful yet dead little girl...the story would have flared and faded. And I think that's why so many "murders" get a snip on the evening news and then fade off. It's unfortunate for sure.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

The guy offering the $1m interview is saying the whole thing is dependent on her taking a lie detector test....

very, very interesting. Not 100%, of course...but still

 

[lbbaber]

The guy offering the $1m interview is saying the whole thing is dependent on her taking a lie detector test....

very, very interesting. Not 100%, of course...but still

I heard Jose is turning it down bc its not a 'dignified' interview .

 

[Italiahaircolor]

The guy offering the $1m interview is saying the whole thing is dependent on her taking a lie detector test....

very, very interesting. Not 100%, of course...but still

I heard Jose is turning it down bc its not a 'dignified' interview .

Of course it's "not dignified"...OF COURSE. Anything that doesn't paint Casey in the light of innocence and purity will be "undignified"...but the truth isn't dignified, so what is it Baez is expecting?

Does Baez really believe that any journalist would sit across from Casey nodding politely and passing tissues? If a journalist is going to go out on the "Casey Anthony limb" and license whatever crap she's pandering, they are obviously going to want something that looks like the truth..and we're not Casey Anthony's truth, but the real truth. But, that's the crux, because the truth and Casey are strangers.

So, maybe the interview will never happen....::fingers crossed::

 

[JewelFreak]

I will never watch an interview with her, buy anything she writes -- it will be pure bull. Waste of time.