Poll
Question:
Will she be found guilty?
Option 1: Guilty!
votes: 9
Option 2: Not guilty!
votes: 5
Option 3: Hung jury!
votes: 4
The Casey Anthony trial is finally coming to an end. The damn thing has been going on for month and the news channels have been showing live coverage the whole time. So as it finally wraps up, what do you keen legal minds think will be the verdict?
I haven't watched a minute of coverage, but I can safely assume that she wouldn't be prosecuted if she wasn't guilty. -_-
Who; What; Should I care?
Quote from: Viking on July 04, 2011, 10:24:30 AM
Who; What; Should I care?
Some dumb bint; maybe murdered her kid; no.
Happy trials to you.
:yuk: Who cares?
First I heard of it.
Don't know who it is, don't care. I stopped watching US news channels around the same time they stopped showing news.
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2011, 02:23:01 PM
Don't know who it is, don't care. I stopped watching US news channels around the same time they stopped showing news.
My mom watches the news channels constantly. I can't stand them myself, but she always has them on.
Didn't know who she was until today. Wish I still didn't.
There was an article in Time about mothers who off their own kids. I didn't read it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 04, 2011, 04:13:22 PM
There was an article in Time about mothers who off their own kids. I didn't read it.
What year?
I'm not a lawyer, but given what I read about the case, I can see the four likeliest scenarios. She's guilty of all charges, she's guilty of some lesser charges, she's not guilty of all charges, or there is a mistrial. I personally cannot see the outcome not being one of those four.
Quote from: DGuller on July 04, 2011, 04:51:03 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but given what I read about the case, I can see the four likeliest scenarios. She's guilty of all charges, she's guilty of some lesser charges, she's not guilty of all charges, or there is a mistrial. I personally cannot see the outcome not being one of those four.
That's some brilliant analysis there chief.
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2011, 02:23:01 PM
Don't know who it is, don't care. I stopped watching US news channels around the same time they stopped showing news.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2011, 04:54:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 04, 2011, 04:51:03 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but given what I read about the case, I can see the four likeliest scenarios. She's guilty of all charges, she's guilty of some lesser charges, she's not guilty of all charges, or there is a mistrial. I personally cannot see the outcome not being one of those four.
That's some brilliant analysis there chief.
:unsure: Why the sarcasm, did I miss some other possible outcome?
Quote from: DGuller on July 04, 2011, 05:07:31 PM
:unsure: Why the sarcasm, did I miss some other possible outcome?
Plead out at the last moment. Defendant dies. Defendant kills some of the jury and escapes. Baby was alive all along, just hidden. Infanticide becomes a "post-natal abortion" and is retroactively made legal. Discovery of an evil twin. Apotheosis of the defendant. Giant ape rampages though Florida. Real lawyers have to watch out for these types of eventualities. Well except the ape one. I made that up, and it's just silly.
Not guilty on manslaughter, guilty of lying to police.
From possible death penalty to time served, isn't our jury system great.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2011, 10:45:55 AM
Ugly too.
If that were true the trial wouldn't have gotten so much coverage.
4! 4 counts of lying, ah ah ah!
My prediction panned out. :yeah:
This make me wonder if high profile criminal cases are sort of like WWI: the defender has a crushing advantage. It seems like much more often than not, obviously guilty people go free in such cases.
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that the best lawyers in the country are going up against whatever state employees happened to be unlucky enough to be in the jurisdiction of the crime scene. You can't be sure that the sky is blue beyond a reasonable doubt if you focus on the question or the definition of reasonable doubt intensely enough.
I sentence you to one full spread centerfold in Penthouse. Larry is waiting in the breezeway to escort you to his office.
If she was "obviously guilty" why wasnt it obvious to the jury?
The prosecution's ultimate problem, and it was identified from the beginning, was in the inability to prove cause of death. If you can't prove how someone died, how can you prove that someone else killed them? Prosecution did the best they could have done with a weak case. They focused on her constant lying and the sideshow that was the chloroform searches and the smell in the trunk. None of that proved a cause of death.
General consensus here was that jury would convict on a lesser included offense of the Child Abuse charge. For all the crap that Baez got during that trial, he hit it out of the park by playing the sideshow games and at the end hammering away at the "no causation" angle when it was too late for prosecuctors to do anything about it.
That man is going out right now and gold plating his business cards, as this case was his license to print money. His new name is Juan Cochrano.
A big HA! HA! to Nancy Grace.
Well, if Nancy Grace is unhappy, that's something at least.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 02:14:18 PM
I sentence you to one full spread centerfold in Penthouse. Larry is waiting in the breezeway to escort you to his office.
??
Penthouse went kaput years ago and Larry Flint publishes Hustler.
Are you an al Qaeda mole?
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 05, 2011, 04:48:19 PM
A big HA! HA! to Nancy Grace.
I still say WHO CARES, but I'm happy if that crazy bitch is unhappy. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2011, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 02:14:18 PM
I sentence you to one full spread centerfold in Penthouse. Larry is waiting in the breezeway to escort you to his office.
??
Penthouse went kaput years ago and Larry Flint publishes Hustler.
Are you an al Qaeda mole?
I bow to your superior knowledge of porno mags. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 05:55:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2011, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 02:14:18 PM
I sentence you to one full spread centerfold in Penthouse. Larry is waiting in the breezeway to escort you to his office.
??
Penthouse went kaput years ago and Larry Flint publishes Hustler.
Are you an al Qaeda mole?
I bow to your superior knowledge of porno mags. :P
You would have been shot trying to cross back to friendly lines back in the day.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2011, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 02:14:18 PM
I sentence you to one full spread centerfold in Penthouse. Larry is waiting in the breezeway to escort you to his office.
??
Penthouse went kaput years ago and Larry Flint publishes Hustler.
Are you an al Qaeda mole?
That will be news to the publishers of Penthouse.
Only poors buy porno mags.
Also, Nancy Grace is amusing so far.
That useless cunt killed that child. She'll get hers, one way or another.
Quote from: citizen k on July 05, 2011, 01:51:28 PM
Not guilty on manslaughter, guilty of lying to police.
From possible death penalty to time served, isn't our jury system great.
Probably did it isn't good enough, it has to be without reasonable doubt and there wasn't any physical evidence. That will always be a hard case to prove.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2011, 07:18:34 PM
That useless cunt killed that child. She'll get hers, one way or another.
Just like the Ramseys? :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 07:22:22 PM
Quote from: citizen k on July 05, 2011, 01:51:28 PM
Not guilty on manslaughter, guilty of lying to police.
From possible death penalty to time served, isn't our jury system great.
Probably did it isn't good enough, it has to be without reasonable doubt and there wasn't any physical evidence. That will always be a hard case to prove.
Here's some physical evidence: waiting one month before reporting her own child as missing, and only after being prodded by her mother; all the while partying and getting tattoos like a single chick.
That's your fucking physical evidence.
Relax, big guy. :console:
Nancy is outraged the defense attorneys had a victory party. Dr. Drew is also outraged. Whoever the fuck Dr. Drew is.
:hmm: But they successfully did their jobs... why shouldn't they celebrate? :huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.polls.newsvine.com%2Fservista%2Fimagesizer%3Ffile%3DhelenaspopkinD8B7AB08-E12E-4D00-05C6-7E656ECDB749.jpg%26amp%3Bwidth%3D600&hash=7caa4d1064bed899e59daaf1ce78d57c03acd724)
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
:hmm: But they successfully did their jobs... why shouldn't they celebrate? :huh:
I was trying to think of why they shouldn't, but this pic sums up my thoughts on the issue:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrollcats.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F03%2Fso_ah_thought_fuck_it_trollcat1.bmp&hash=08fbdbd4ec8884bba11ad0744efd4eadc6c4843d)
Does she have implants? Cool. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2011, 07:33:26 PM
Relax, big guy. :console:
She waited a month to report her own child missing, and only because the grandparents were pushed to the point of wanting to know what the fuck happened to the kid.
She said the kid was with a nanny--that never existed.
She told her family that she and the kid were living with a wealthy boyfriend--that never existed.
The defense lawyer ponied up every possible obtuse angle, from drowning, to sacrificing the grandfather as a molester to disposing of the body, to blaming the brother and even the ex-boyfriend and the girl's biological dad, for fuck's sake. That piece of shit lawyer ponied up everybody except Lee Fucking Harvey Oswald.
The grandmother, the second time around, was busted straight up for perjury on the stand about the "I wasn't googling chloroform, I was googling chlorophyll and it gave me chloroform" bullshit, covering for her daughter's hudreds of hits on her computer for searches on chloroform.
The kid was found with fucking duct tape over her mouth.
The mom's 911 call was damning enough. Even if you've never smelled decomposing human flesh, you immediately recognize it. Why? Because it's hard-coded into your genetics as a fucking human being, that's why. Cadaver dogs triggered on it. Forensics specialists identified it. But the jury bought the shit about you can't qualitate "air". Why? Because this jury made up their minds on this before they were even chosen. 10 hours. Now, if she were black....
And a little 2 year old is still fucking dead. Because Mommy hated being a Mommy and 2 year olds put a crimp in acting like an 18 year old again.
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
:hmm: But they successfully did their jobs... why shouldn't they celebrate? :huh:
Why not? They just hit the jackpot.
My thoughts exactly. :showoff:
Barrister would have gotten a conviction.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 08:09:44 PM
Barrister would have gotten a conviction.
BB would've gotten a better change of venue, and a better jury.
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2011, 07:59:06 PM
My thoughts exactly. :showoff:
Quite frankly, I wouldn't exactly chalk this up as a victory due to any real legal acumen on the part of the defense, but the fact that the jury was relocated from St Pete to ORLANDO, in the DEAD OF SUMMER, for SIX WEEKS, working SIX DAYS A WEEK (judge's fault, btw), missing their families over MEMORIAL DAY and JULY 4th holidays.
Honestly, the longer a sequestered jury goes sequestered, the more pissed they become. And they're pissed at the state for putting them there.
So what verdict are they going to go with? The one that gets them the fuck out of a stuffy Orlando hotel the fucking fastest.
Completely ignored this whole thing until today. But after reading about it I'm almost as hacked off about the verdict as Money. Bitch should've fried.
You know what? Without physical evidence, it could just as easily have been the perjured grandmother. Mom a scumbag? Sure. Was she the scumbag? No way to know. Fuck you all. And that's all I'm saying on the matter.
Go ahead a bitch about physical evidence. Fuck you, DSB. People get convicted without a fucking body. People get convicted without a fucking murder weapon. Enough circumstantial evidence can surpass any reasonable doubt, and provide enough to convict.
Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond any doubt, fuckstick.
I think the most likely scenario is she's fucking insane and killed her kid. If it was outright murder there is no way to know, or if it was some form of negligence. Did the Dad help? No way to know.
All I know is after the whole trial we still don't know fuck all about what happened, and that's probably why she was acquitted. I think we're all agreed on what we "feel" happened, based on her weird behavior and etc, but when it came down to it the prosecution couldn't really prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I would have acquitted if I was on that jury as well.
Even though friend has been working for network (Truetv? one of those other ones) i haven't been paying attention to this trial as was busy, so i don't have the certainty of guilt that derspicy and Seedy have, but sounds like clusterfuck from DA's office from all the reactions i've seen today.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2011, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 02:14:18 PM
I sentence you to one full spread centerfold in Penthouse. Larry is waiting in the breezeway to escort you to his office.
??
Penthouse went kaput years ago
It did? :( God, has it been that long since I looked at the porn rack in the corner stores? It's still around on the web, though, and I think there's a TV channel too.
Quote from: katmai on July 05, 2011, 10:37:05 PM
Even though friend has been working for network (Truetv? one of those other ones) i haven't been paying attention to this trial as was busy, so i don't have the certainty of guilt that derspicy and Seedy have, but sounds like clusterfuck from DA's office from all the reactions i've seen today.
The analysis I've seen pretty much agrees that the state didn't have much of a case, and that the defense's greatest problem was going to be that they could not plausibly account for the defendant's behavior bar conceding guilt. By focusing the defense case on attacking the relatives rather than trying to explain the defendant's actions, and harping on the lack of any physical evidence, the defense was able to make the jury look past the fact that the defendant had acted in a way that could only really be explained by the fact that she did it.
The prosecution's summation was not, apparently, the most coherent and convincing one ever given, either.
State fucked the case up from the beginning by filing it as a death case. While you are more likely to get a conservative/pro-law and order jury by seeking death (people opposed to the death penalty are disqualified from sitting on death penalty cases) you also raise the bar on what such a prospective jury wants to hear. When the stakes are execution, people want to be convinced of guilt more than they ordinarily would be.
This case was severely lacking in evidence of foul play. There was none. Zero. Zilch. Dead kid. No idea how she died. When the prosecution's own witnesses admit on cross examination that they don't know how someone died, how do you honestly expect a jury make that decision? The State's argument boiled down, in its simplest form, to "tot mom was crazy and didn't act normally and killed her kid because she wanted to party." What a joke. There are half a dozen ways that she could have gotten rid of her kid and still partied. Left her with the loving grandparents. Baby sitter. Adoption. Simply turned her over to the state. Murder is a massive stretch. And if you're going that route, you better have something more than "mom got a tatoo."
It didn't help that the entire family came across as creepy as shit. All of them. Mom, dad, brother, daughter. All of them acted oddly. This case had coverup tattooed all over it. But coverup for what? No causation = no conviction.
This was a negligence case at best. And if it had been charged as such and pursued as such, I'll bet you that a jury would have been much more receptive to the evidence than they were when State is trying to kill the defendant.
If you don't seek the death penalty when people murder little kids, then when do you seek the death penalty?
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:19:18 AM
If you don't seek the death penalty when people murder little kids, then when do you seek the death penalty?
In the South they have a little chart with color swatches as an indicator for these types of things.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:19:18 AM
If you don't seek the death penalty when people murder little kids, then when do you seek the death penalty?
Who the victim is, is but one of many "aggravators" that exist to justify a death sentence. Others include but are not limited to whether the killing was cold, calculated and premeditated, the native of the killing, i.e was it heinous, atrocious or cruel, or depraved. My point with this case is and will continue to be, before you can get to execution you have to actually have a murder. When the case is virtually non-existant on causation, there is simply no way to prove the CCP and HAC aggravators, which are, historically, almost always required in order to justify a death sentence in Florida.
This was a manslaughter/negligence case from the beginning. The prosecutors were bullied into the courtroom by a media frenzy and people like Nancy de Money and tried to substitute raw emotion and hatred towards the defendant in place of evidence of criminal activity and it bit them squarely in the ass.
Realistically, this case should have been pled out to Neglect of a Child for an 8-10 year prison sentence. Because that disposition was politically impossible, a woman with what appears to be serious mental health issues, and who undoubtedly participated in either the death of her child or its subsequent coverup is now free. The all or nothing mentality of prosecutors never ceases to amaze me.
That this was ever brought to trial is a travesty. She should simply have been executed during her arrest.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 12:34:57 PM
That this was ever brought to trial is a travesty. She should simply have been executed during her arrest.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv66%2FEricDerKonig%2Froflbot.jpg&hash=5f6aa7fb9d1c839d2dadd6a0681917913fb84186)
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 11:02:10 AM
Realistically, this case should have been pled out to Neglect of a Child for an 8-10 year prison sentence. Because that disposition was politically impossible, a woman with what appears to be serious mental health issues, and who undoubtedly participated in either the death of her child or its subsequent coverup is now free. The all or nothing mentality of prosecutors never ceases to amaze me.
Okay, so I haven't followed this case one bit, but I did read the relevant wikipedia page. :smarty:
Sometimes an aquittal is better than a bad plea, and 'neglect of a child' would be a bad plea. Either mom is responsible for the girl's death, or she is not. There's no half way stop. I think it sounds more like a manslaughter than a murder, but beyond that I wouldn't fault the prosecutors. It's a tough case that the public rightly demands be taken to trial. But there's no shame in not winning a tough case.
the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.
on a big, complex, high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?
these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...
Quote from: Rasputin on July 06, 2011, 01:50:06 PM
the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.
on a big, complex, high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?
these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...
:huh:
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 01:57:04 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 06, 2011, 01:50:06 PM
the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.
on a big, complex, high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?
these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...
:huh:
Too many big words?
Taking a matter to a jury is no better than throwing darts at a board. Who the hell knows what the outcome is going to be.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 02:03:25 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 01:57:04 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 06, 2011, 01:50:06 PM
the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.
on a big, complex, high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?
these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...
:huh:
Too many big words?
Taking a matter to a jury is no better than throwing darts at a board. Who the hell knows what the outcome is going to be.
I think the point here is that for lengthy jury trials, the people you would want to be jurors all find excuses to avoid the duty. ;)
How easy is it to get off a jury? I was summoned once but was a student at the time, and that's an exemption. But otherwise? I know my sister in law, who has a pretty good job (head of accounting for a City department) and kids, was not exempt from a fairly lengthy, high-profile case in Toronto some years ago. Or did she not try hard enough?
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 02:03:25 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 01:57:04 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 06, 2011, 01:50:06 PM
the problem here is the flaw in the jury system.
on a big, complex, high profile case, who can be away from work and family for 33 days with no accesss to the outside world?
these people do not reflect a cross section of america but instead are our least productive members of society and people who have no responsibilities familial or professional...they represent a least common denominator with which comes much unpredictability...
:huh:
Too many big words?
Taking a matter to a jury is no better than throwing darts at a board. Who the hell knows what the outcome is going to be.
I think the point here is that for lengthy jury trials, the people you would want to be jurors all find excuses to avoid the duty. ;)
correct; legitimate excuses
it creates a paradox whereby the more complex the case, the less qualified become the jurors
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 01:16:24 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 11:02:10 AM
Realistically, this case should have been pled out to Neglect of a Child for an 8-10 year prison sentence. Because that disposition was politically impossible, a woman with what appears to be serious mental health issues, and who undoubtedly participated in either the death of her child or its subsequent coverup is now free. The all or nothing mentality of prosecutors never ceases to amaze me.
Sometimes an aquittal is better than a bad plea, and 'neglect of a child' would be a bad plea. Either mom is responsible for the girl's death, or she is not. There's no half way stop. I think it sounds more like a manslaughter than a murder, but beyond that I wouldn't fault the prosecutors. It's a tough case that the public rightly demands be taken to trial. But there's no shame in not winning a tough case.
The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law. I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death. Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup. Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?
I've never understood the prosecutor mentality of choosing to take your shot at trial on a weak case and take the substantial risk of an acquittal as opposed to compromising and have the perp serve a lesser prison on a conviction to a lesser charge. The attitude reminds me very much of what Woody Harrelson says to Wesley Snipes in the movie, White Men Can't Jump. "You'd rather look good and lose than look bad and win." I guess I just don't understand that mindset.
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 02:20:57 PM
How easy is it to get off a jury? I was summoned once but was a student at the time, and that's an exemption. But otherwise? I know my sister in law, who has a pretty good job (head of accounting for a City department) and kids, was not exempt from a fairly lengthy, high-profile case in Toronto some years ago. Or did she not try hard enough?
You have to truly understand the system enough to game it like that. People who take the obvious approach and make ridiculous statements or antics often find themselves serving time or paying fines for contempt of court. Or, you might find a lawyer like me who knows that he has a drop dead loser of a case, is using the trial as a "long plea" and selects you specifically because you're trying so hard to get out of it just to spite you. If I have to be there trying loser cases, so do you. :)
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 03:05:19 PM
The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law. I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death. Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup. Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?
I've never understood the prosecutor mentality of choosing to take your shot at trial on a weak case and take the substantial risk of an acquittal as opposed to compromising and have the perp serve a lesser prison on a conviction to a lesser charge. The attitude reminds me very much of what Woody Harrelson says to Wesley Snipes in the movie, White Men Can't Jump. "You'd rather look good and lose than look bad and win." I guess I just don't understand that mindset.
Because a bad plea stinks. It's a perversion of justice. I've seen it happen - take a "simple assault" on facts that are obviuosly a sexual assault. There was a huge outcry in Whitehorse over a plea to careless driving (a ticketable matter) instead of dangerous driving causing death.
It's because the public will never truly understand why you took a bad deal - only that you took it. You can talk till you are blue in the face about the weaknesses in your case, but it won't matter.
It's not that I'm opposed to deals, or taking pleas to lower charges. You only have to see me do my thing in docket to learn that. But rather what you take a plea to has to bear some relationship to actually what happened.
And remember - as prosecutors we neither win or lose. So we're not supposed to be afraid of an acquittal if that is the right result.
so a case like this - I'd absolutely be trying to take a plea - but on manslaughter.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 03:05:19 PM
The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law. I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death. Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup. Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?
maybe there were negotiations and they were rejefected by the defendant. Are we always informed of any plea bargain offered by the D.A. (or Crown prosecutors in Canada)? I didn't think this was generally public matter.
Quote from: viper37 on July 06, 2011, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 03:05:19 PM
The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law. I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death. Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup. Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?
maybe there were negotiations and they were rejefected by the defendant. Are we always informed of any plea bargain offered by the D.A. (or Crown prosecutors in Canada)? I didn't think this was generally public matter.
Plea negotiations are privileged and not disclosed.
I just got to sit in on a criminal trial from start to finish, and had the rare privilege of hearing the two most beautiful words in the English language pronounced by the jury: "Not Guilty." :showoff: :cry:
On both counts and both lesser included offenses. :yeah:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 06, 2011, 04:34:49 PM
I just got to sit in on a criminal trial from start to finish, and had the rare privilege of hearing the two most beautiful words in the English language pronounced by the jury: "Not Guilty." :showoff: :cry:
On both counts and both lesser included offenses. :yeah:
:cheers:
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2011, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 06, 2011, 04:34:49 PM
I just got to sit in on a criminal trial from start to finish, and had the rare privilege of hearing the two most beautiful words in the English language pronounced by the jury: "Not Guilty." :showoff: :cry:
On both counts and both lesser included offenses. :yeah:
:cheers:
To be clear I didn't do all that much work on this case and certainly didn't try it without a law license, but an acquittal is still an amazing experience when you've been sitting on that side of the aisle. :w00t:
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 03:44:00 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 03:05:19 PM
The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law. I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death. Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup. Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?
I've never understood the prosecutor mentality of choosing to take your shot at trial on a weak case and take the substantial risk of an acquittal as opposed to compromising and have the perp serve a lesser prison on a conviction to a lesser charge. The attitude reminds me very much of what Woody Harrelson says to Wesley Snipes in the movie, White Men Can't Jump. "You'd rather look good and lose than look bad and win." I guess I just don't understand that mindset.
Because a bad plea stinks. It's a perversion of justice. I've seen it happen - take a "simple assault" on facts that are obviuosly a sexual assault. There was a huge outcry in Whitehorse over a plea to careless driving (a ticketable matter) instead of dangerous driving causing death.
It's because the public will never truly understand why you took a bad deal - only that you took it. You can talk till you are blue in the face about the weaknesses in your case, but it won't matter.
It's not that I'm opposed to deals, or taking pleas to lower charges. You only have to see me do my thing in docket to learn that. But rather what you take a plea to has to bear some relationship to actually what happened.
And remember - as prosecutors we neither win or lose. So we're not supposed to be afraid of an acquittal if that is the right result.
so a case like this - I'd absolutely be trying to take a plea - but on manslaughter.
In other words, you don't do deals like that because they are politically difficult. If the deal is the right result, why should you be afraid of the public's reaction to it? I mean, if you're not afraid of the acquittal, which in many cases would be the unjust result, why would you be afraid of the conviction on a lesser when such a result would be just? Your argument is a cop out to making difficult decisions.
Similarly, if you think that an acquittal is the right result, you have zero business prosecuting the case in the first place. Putting someone's future in the hands of a jury and then arguing to them for a conviction when you think an acquittal is warranted is a perversion of justice. As a prosecutor, you only prosecute the cases that you have a good faith belief that the defendant is guilty and you have a high likelihood of conviction.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 03:18:34 PMIf I have to be there trying loser cases, so do you. :)
You're getting paid good money. I have to take the bus. ;)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 06, 2011, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2011, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 06, 2011, 04:34:49 PM
I just got to sit in on a criminal trial from start to finish, and had the rare privilege of hearing the two most beautiful words in the English language pronounced by the jury: "Not Guilty." :showoff: :cry:
On both counts and both lesser included offenses. :yeah:
:cheers:
To be clear I didn't do all that much work on this case and certainly didn't try it without a law license, but an acquittal is still an amazing experience when you've been sitting on that side of the aisle. :w00t:
I assumed you were the one being acquitted. :blush:
Quote from: viper37 on July 06, 2011, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 03:05:19 PM
The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law. I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death. Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup. Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?
maybe there were negotiations and they were rejefected by the defendant. Are we always informed of any plea bargain offered by the D.A. (or Crown prosecutors in Canada)? I didn't think this was generally public matter.
In high profile cases, however, plea negotiations often become public. In fact, often times a prosecutor will charge a strong homicide as a death penalty case in order to facilitate and force a defendant to plea to life imprisonment, but guarantee that death is taken off the table. If there were any plea negotiations in the Casey Anthony case, I'm sure we'll be hearing about them. Since they were looking to fry her from day 1, I doubt any serious negotiations took place in this case.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 03:18:34 PM
You have to truly understand the system enough to game it like that. People who take the obvious approach and make ridiculous statements or antics often find themselves serving time or paying fines for contempt of court. Or, you might find a lawyer like me who knows that he has a drop dead loser of a case, is using the trial as a "long plea" and selects you specifically because you're trying so hard to get out of it just to spite you. If I have to be there trying loser cases, so do you. :)
Is being insane enough of a reason to be taken off a jury? I've never been called up. :(
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 04:51:31 PM
In other words, you don't do deals like that because they are politically difficult. If the deal is the right result, why should you be afraid of the public's reaction to it? I mean, if you're not afraid of the acquittal, which in many cases would be the unjust result, why would you be afraid of the conviction on a lesser when such a result would be just? Your argument is a cop out to making difficult decisions.
Similarly, if you think that an acquittal is the right result, you have zero business prosecuting the case in the first place. Putting someone's future in the hands of a jury and then arguing to them for a conviction when you think an acquittal is warranted is a perversion of justice. As a prosecutor, you only prosecute the cases that you have a good faith belief that the defendant is guilty and you have a high likelihood of conviction.
That's not what I said at all.
I'm against making a deal just to make a deal, because that would lead to the wrong result. Take this case - you said there should've been a plea to neglect of a child. That doesn't fit the facts. Either mom was involved in the death or she was not. That's quite a bit different than taking a plea to a charge that does fit the facts. You can't plead a murder down to an assault with a weapon.
In a case like this the recidivism rate is virtually zero. It's not something where we're trying to get into treatment no matter what just so it doesn't happen again. This case is pure, 100% public denunciation.
And you are of course correct - if the case simply is not there, then you have no business running it. And if the case truely is crap I would rather stand up and withdraw it than take a bad deal just so I can get "something". And I have done that plenty of times as well.
But when the case is up in the air? Where it could go either way? Then I think the public interest is best served by a public trial, rather than taking a bad deal so I can get 'something'.
But not my critique is solely on 'bad deals', where the charge pled to has only passing familiarity to the underlying facts. A plea to a lesser included is fine. A plea to only the elements that you can prove is fine. A plea with a lower than average sentence to account for the uncertainties of trial is fine. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, don't call it a chicken because you're trying to close a file.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 04:55:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 06, 2011, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 03:05:19 PM
The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law. I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death. Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup. Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?
maybe there were negotiations and they were rejefected by the defendant. Are we always informed of any plea bargain offered by the D.A. (or Crown prosecutors in Canada)? I didn't think this was generally public matter.
In high profile cases, however, plea negotiations often become public. In fact, often times a prosecutor will charge a strong homicide as a death penalty case in order to facilitate and force a defendant to plea to life imprisonment, but guarantee that death is taken off the table. If there were any plea negotiations in the Casey Anthony case, I'm sure we'll be hearing about them. Since they were looking to fry her from day 1, I doubt any serious negotiations took place in this case.
Elements might be made in public. I have now twice been in murder trials where, in front of the jury, the defendant offers to plead guilty to manslaughter
But as a general rule - plea offers should never be disclosed.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2011, 04:52:48 PM
I assumed you were the one being acquitted. :blush:
:lol: Not yet, inshallah. I also wanted to troll Beeb a bit but he's too busy with his serious lawyer discussions to react to a scrub like me. :(
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 06, 2011, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2011, 04:52:48 PM
I assumed you were the one being acquitted. :blush:
:lol: Not yet, inshallah. I also wanted to troll Beeb a bit but he's too busy with his serious lawyer discussions to react to a scrub like me. :(
That's not much of a troll. I'm sure the words "Not Guilty" are wonderful to hear when you're on that side of the courtroom. Congrats! :yeah:
Quote from: Stonewall on July 06, 2011, 10:11:17 AM
State fucked the case up from the beginning by filing it as a death case. While you are more likely to get a conservative/pro-law and order jury by seeking death (people opposed to the death penalty are disqualified from sitting on death penalty cases) you also raise the bar on what such a prospective jury wants to hear. When the stakes are execution, people want to be convinced of guilt more than they ordinarily would be.
Thing is, unlike some states where the state will roll for capital and nothing else, and be locked in on only one possibility, all the possible options were available; the jury had virtually the entire sliding-scale spectrum to choose from: felony murder, first degree murder, second degree murder, and aggravated manslaughter. This wasn't a case of either/or.
We've seen murder convictions without a fucking body, so I don't give a fuck about that ZOMG WE DOAN NO HOW TEH KID DYED bullshit. You
can convict on enough circumstantial evidence.
This case was made solid enough to point in any number of directions the jury wanted to take it; they simply chose not to.
It looks like the broad will have to live under police protection the rest of her life.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2011, 05:47:35 PM
It looks like the broad will have to live under police protection the rest of her life.
nah, soon we'll be onto the next killer chick.
Quote from: HVC on July 06, 2011, 05:52:24 PM
nah, soon we'll be onto the next killer chick.
Betcha someone takes a crack at her in the next five years.
If I win, you have to give Raz a foot massage.
I you win, you don't have to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2011, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 06, 2011, 05:52:24 PM
nah, soon we'll be onto the next killer chick.
Betcha someone takes a crack at her in the next five years.
If I win, you have to give Raz a foot massage.
I you win, you don't have to.
:Lol:
Have the ramsies or that lady who drowned her kids in her car ever been attacked?
The lady that drowned her kids in her car is in prison, and AFAIK has never been attacked. I assume you are referring to Susan Smith of South Carolina.
Quote from: Caliga on July 06, 2011, 06:04:23 PM
The lady that drowned her kids in her car is in prison, and AFAIK has never been attacked. I assume you are referring to Susan Smith of South Carolina.
i thought she got off? was there more then one?
in Canadian news a doctor got sent to the psych ward instead of jail for stabbing his two kids.
Quote from: HVC on July 06, 2011, 06:08:40 PM
in Canadian news a doctor got sent to the psych ward instead of jail for stabbing his two kids.
Yeah, but that's Quebec. They do Eurojustice there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2011, 05:40:11 PM
Thing is, unlike some states where the state will roll for capital and nothing else, and be locked in on only one possibility, all the possible options were available; the jury had virtually the entire sliding-scale spectrum to choose from: felony murder, first degree murder, second degree murder, and aggravated manslaughter. This wasn't a case of either/or.
We've seen murder convictions without a fucking body, so I don't give a fuck about that ZOMG WE DOAN NO HOW TEH KID DYED bullshit. You can convict on enough circumstantial evidence.
This case was made solid enough to point in any number of directions the jury wanted to take it; they simply chose not to.
The jury cannot take the case in any direction they want. They had to take it in the direction the prosecution to them to take it, or not at all. The prosecution told the jury to find that she killed her kid, or else acquit. And then they conceded that there was no evidence she had anything to do with the death of the kid, except covering it up after the fact (which the jury convicted her of).
The jury wasn't allowed to find the kid's grandfather, grandmother, uncle, or aunt of murder, even though there was as much evidence against each of them as against the defendant. You can, indeed, convict on circumstantial evidence, under some circumstances. Had there been real circumstantial evidence in this case, that observation might even have a bearing on it.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 06:24:02 PM
Had there been real circumstantial evidence in this case, that observation might even have a bearing on it.
Well, there was more than enough for me. Harumph.
Quote from: HVC on July 06, 2011, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 06, 2011, 06:04:23 PM
The lady that drowned her kids in her car is in prison, and AFAIK has never been attacked. I assume you are referring to Susan Smith of South Carolina.
i thought she got off? was there more then one?
Maybe you are thinking of Andrea Yates. She was found insane (which isn't exactly like getting off).
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 05:01:08 PM
Is being insane enough of a reason to be taken off a jury? I've never been called up. :(
Usually, yeah. Requires a doctor's note of mental or physical disability.
http://www.fultoncourt.org/sca200807/documents-and-forms/cat_view/70-jury-service.html
Quote from: ulmont on July 07, 2011, 10:35:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 05:01:08 PM
Is being insane enough of a reason to be taken off a jury? I've never been called up. :(
Usually, yeah. Requires a doctor's note of mental or physical disability.
http://www.fultoncourt.org/sca200807/documents-and-forms/cat_view/70-jury-service.html
Oooh! I have that. Maybe that's why I never get called up. :(
Members of the Maryland state Senate are considering introducing legislation to make it a felony not to report the death of a child.
Quote"You wouldn't think that you would actually have to require a parent or guardian to report a child missing or dead, but we're in an age where there is a need here."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2011, 05:40:11 PMThis case was made solid enough to point in any number of directions the jury wanted to take it; they simply chose not to.
By the prosecution, or by the media?
Quote from: sbr on July 07, 2011, 06:42:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2011, 05:40:11 PMThis case was made solid enough to point in any number of directions the jury wanted to take it; they simply chose not to.
By the prosecution, or by the media?
Go fuck an unreported dead toddler.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 07, 2011, 06:02:08 PM
Members of the Maryland state Senate are considering introducing legislation to make it a felony not to report the death of a child.
Quote"You wouldn't think that you would actually have to require a parent or guardian to report a child missing or dead, but we're in an age where there is a need here."
That's because normally parents, you know, give a flying fuck about their childrens' welfare. :bleeding:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 07, 2011, 06:02:08 PM
Members of the Maryland state Senate are considering introducing legislation to make it a felony not to report the death of a child.
Posturing. Enacting one "bystander law" would set a really crappy precedent- Florida didn't even try after a crowd watched a 13-year-old girl getting gang-raped.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 07, 2011, 07:01:44 PM
Posturing.
True, and it's how most laws end up on the books initially. :)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 07, 2011, 07:01:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 07, 2011, 06:02:08 PM
Members of the Maryland state Senate are considering introducing legislation to make it a felony not to report the death of a child.
Posturing. Enacting one "bystander law" would set a really crappy precedent- Florida didn't even try after a crowd watched a 13-year-old girl getting gang-raped.
Shame on Florida then.
When was this? :huh:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 07, 2011, 07:01:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 07, 2011, 06:02:08 PM
Members of the Maryland state Senate are considering introducing legislation to make it a felony not to report the death of a child.
Posturing. Enacting one "bystander law" would set a really crappy precedent- Florida didn't even try after a crowd watched a 13-year-old girl getting gang-raped.
Apparently, they learned their lesson. Just this morning "Caylee's Law" was being introduced to make if a felony not to report your child missing or dead with one hour of knowing or should have knowing that they are missing or dead.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 08, 2011, 01:56:48 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 07, 2011, 07:01:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 07, 2011, 06:02:08 PM
Members of the Maryland state Senate are considering introducing legislation to make it a felony not to report the death of a child.
Posturing. Enacting one "bystander law" would set a really crappy precedent- Florida didn't even try after a crowd watched a 13-year-old girl getting gang-raped.
Apparently, they learned their lesson. Just this morning "Caylee's Law" was being introduced to make if a felony not to report your child missing or dead with one hour of knowing or should have knowing that they are missing or dead.
That'll be a bit hard to prove in a lot of cases won't it? And what about the age of the child? If you don't know where your 17 year old son is for an hour you're supposed to call the cops? That's a bit crazy.
Most laws originating in moral panic are, in fact, stupid.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2011, 04:45:10 AM
Most laws originating in moral panic are, in fact, stupid.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Quote from: Jimmy OrtizThat'll be a bit hard to prove in a lot of cases won't it? And what about the age of the child? If you don't know where your 17 year old son is for an hour you're supposed to call the cops? That's a bit crazy.
It might be far too easy to prove. See my reply to Stonewall below.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 08, 2011, 01:56:48 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 07, 2011, 07:01:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 07, 2011, 06:02:08 PM
Members of the Maryland state Senate are considering introducing legislation to make it a felony not to report the death of a child.
Posturing. Enacting one "bystander law" would set a really crappy precedent- Florida didn't even try after a crowd watched a 13-year-old girl getting gang-raped.
Apparently, they learned their lesson. Just this morning "Caylee's Law" was being introduced to make if a felony not to report your child missing or dead with one hour of knowing or should have knowing that they are missing or dead.
Should have known? A reasonable person standard, then? I'm not very comfortable with that in a criminal statute that dictates an affirmative duty.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 08, 2011, 01:56:48 AM
Apparently, they learned their lesson. Just this morning "Caylee's Law" was being introduced to make if a felony not to report your child missing or dead with one hour of knowing or should have knowing that they are missing or dead.
One after after going missing? That's a shitload of calls for the coppers to handle.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 06:17:43 AMShould have known? A reasonable person standard, then? I'm not very comfortable with that in a criminal statute that dictates an affirmative duty.
I'm incredibly uncomfortable with it. Here is the blurb from the Orlando Sentinel about the upcoming legislation. It's not in its final form and I suspect some changes will come to it. But, it is even broader and vaguer than I remembered.
QuoteIn light of the not guilty verdict handed down by jurors yesterday in the Casey Anthony trial, Rep. Bill Hager, R-Boca Raton, announced he is drafting legislation to create "Caylee's Law."
The bill would make it a felony for a parent or legal guardian to fail to timely report a missing child, in cases where the parent knew or should have known that the child was possibly in danger.
"What we witnessed in the case of two year old Caylee Anthony was truly tragic," Hager said in a press release. "Placing a law on the books requiring parents and guardians to report missing children who are in significant danger in a timely manner will ensure that parents are held accountable for their actions. It will also assure that we put justice on the side of those among us who are most vulnerable. And finally, it will put an end to the kind of irresponsible and outrageous behavior we observed with Caylee's mother."
I don't see the problem with such a law, however I don't entirely see the point of it.
So you ding the mother for failing to report her missing child. Big deal - it sure isn't going to carry the same sentence as a murder conviction.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 09:35:49 AM
I don't see the problem with such a law, however I don't entirely see the point of it.
So you ding the mother for failing to report her missing child. Big deal - it sure isn't going to carry the same sentence as a murder conviction.
It would carry a 5 year prison sentence. So, while not the same as a murder conviction, 5 years is still a long time.
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2011, 06:06:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2011, 04:45:10 AM
Most laws originating in moral panic are, in fact, stupid.
Truer words have never been spoken.
:yes:
Quote from: Stonewall on July 08, 2011, 09:36:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 09:35:49 AM
I don't see the problem with such a law, however I don't entirely see the point of it.
So you ding the mother for failing to report her missing child. Big deal - it sure isn't going to carry the same sentence as a murder conviction.
It would carry a 5 year prison sentence. So, while not the same as a murder conviction, 5 years is still a long time.
In the US. In Canada, it'd be 4 weekends.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 08, 2011, 01:56:48 AM
Apparently, they learned their lesson. Just this morning "Caylee's Law" was being introduced to make if a felony not to report your child missing or dead with one hour of knowing or should have knowing that they are missing or dead.
That's a ridiculous and ignorant law. Within one hour of "knowing or should have knowing they are missing"? My son walks out the door to go to a friend's house two doors down while I'm downstairs doing laundry. I come upstairs, no idea where he is, and if he doesn't answer his cell within one hour, I have to call 911 and report a missing person? Just to have him saunter into the house a couple of hours later wondering what the hell is going on?
What a fucking waste of time, money, and energy for everyone.
I still say it's posturing. The parents automatically have an affirmative duty to care for children as legal guardians- given that the safety of the child is their responsibility, aren't there already criminal negligence statutes that could be invoked without creating a bystander law?