Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I would bet that she could, it would probably be advised that she does. There will be a lot of pleading of the fifth in that depo. If she tells the truth and nothing but the truth, they won't even have to take that to court. What is she going say? "It wasn't me, I never mentioned Zanny to anyone blah blah."

Kelly

Her attorney already admitted she lied about ZG the nanny in court, on the record.

 

[CurlyGirl]

NGrace says Casey refused to see Cindy throughout her entire time in jail and still refuses because she doesn't want it videotaped and released.

Will Casey have to provide for her own protection once she's released? If so, she is going to need it! How will she ever afford it? She has no agreements, doesn't seem like anyone else is entertaining her with offers aside from Jerry Springer.

And, doesn't part of the stipulations of her release state she must be gainfully employed? How long does she have to get a job?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

All the time I watched the trial, I thought Judge Perry was quite unbiased. He was fair too both sides. Sometimes, the defense strayed too far and sometimes the prosecution strayed but on the whole, he held both sides accountable.



She got his name from an inmate. He was only practicing for 3 years and had 4 successful verdicts under his belt.

I miswrote--I meant biased against the defense and it was not my opinion, but of other people, that I was speaking of...

As for the inmate--I know how she got it, I was commented on the defense attorney who seemed to believe that it was George's choice. I was reiterating that it was not.

 

[kellyg403]

Innocent until proven guilty is reserved for the Criminal Courts if I am not mistaken. So is the "beyond reasonable doubt" constraint.


Double jeopardy is not in play...

She has already admitted she lied to law enforcement about the nanny--

It is just up to ZG to prove with the evidence that she was the inspiration for the nanny's name.

Casey--the PROVEN liar....will say that ZG wasn't the person she spoke of and said that a long time ago.

However, she NEVER provided a description of the nanny, only a name--a name that did not come up until AFTER she visited Sawgrass apartments where THIS ZG also visited a short time before.

Now--what I don't know is--Casey could not see an apartment that day as she had no id. I wonder if Tony did see the apartment and Casey stayed behind in the office giving her access to wear they might keep information cards, perhaps.

Anyway--as far as the 5th...It would be off limits and irrelevant to inquire about what was not proven in Casey's criminal case...that she killed Caley. HOWEVER--her attorney disclosed in that case that she knew Caley was dead on the 16th...and it will go from there.

Casey cannot lie her way out of it--her attorney made that opening statement. She can't plead the 5th on that. She will have to acknowledge with her own lips what Baez said on her behalf and she cannot stay mute about it.

Just means we will get to hear SOMETHING for free...but I'm sure she will save all the exciting explicit details for a book.

Thank you for clarifying those points. It will be interesting to see what exactly is asked and answered.

Kelly

 

[Brit17]

NGrace says Casey refused to see Cindy throughout her entire time in jail and still refuses because she doesn't want it videotaped and released.

Of course she doesn't because then she won't make as much money when she breaks her silence for the highest bidder ...

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I've been thinking about this, and I think Opening and Closing statements shouldn't be allowed.

If they aren't considered evidence, then what's the point? To ring the bell that can't be unrung? That's not a fair trial.

A court clerk or the judge could read the charges and introduce the defendant. What more is needed? And then the trial begins. When the trial ends, jury instructions and that's it.

No more grandstanding by either side.

I like that idea--

But then again, I am not familiar with the legal reason for an opening statement...Maybe it is the introduction..."here is what we will cover..."

A closing statement sums it all up though. "and this is what we showed..."


Someone more legal is going to have to weigh in on why they might be necessary or if they are possible to eliminate.

 

[joviroxx]

I am so glad we are going to end up with a Caylee's Law after this tragic situation. Now we need a law so jurors can't profit immediately after the trial ends. How ridiculous. That juror isn't helping the disgust I feel for all twelve of them.

Add to this that the Judge and many want to keep these jurors protected.I get that. They are fighting to protect their identities and I agree. But on the other hand, some are saying, the law protects my name but Im willing to sell it to the highest bidder. I find it offensive.

 

[kellyg403]

Her attorney already admitted she lied about ZG the nanny in court, on the record.

Yes, he did. So, because it is on record in the court, she can not lie or plead the fifth? So, in other words she will be forced to acknowledge those lies with her own mouth in this deposition? That alone may be worth watching.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Yes, he did. So, because it is on record in the court, she can not lie or plead the fifth? So, in other words she will be forced to acknowledge those lies with her own mouth in this deposition? That alone may be worth watching.

I would say so...

It will be interesting to see how it plays out...

She will lose the case if she remains silent. And that would be sweet, too.

 

[joviroxx]

If I understood him correctly, Dr Weitz did not find mood disorder or psychosis. And although she might have some things like lying & stealing and inappropriate reactions, she did not meet any standards for a diagnosis of personality disorders or sociopathic disorder.

Their biggest concerns were the separation she had to her situation. Things like calmness or happiness when it wasn't called for. But, overall, in his professional opinion, it wasn't enough for a diagnosis.

 

[mickeyboat]

Innocent until proven guilty is reserved for the Criminal Courts if I am not mistaken. So is the "beyond reasonable doubt" constraint.


Double jeopardy is not in play...

She has already admitted she lied to law enforcement about the nanny--

It is just up to ZG to prove with the evidence that she was the inspiration for the nanny's name.

Casey--the PROVEN liar....will say that ZG wasn't the person she spoke of and said that a long time ago.

However, she NEVER provided a description of the nanny, only a name--a name that did not come up until AFTER she visited Sawgrass apartments where THIS ZG also visited a short time before.

Now--what I don't know is--Casey could not see an apartment that day as she had no id. I wonder if Tony did see the apartment and Casey stayed behind in the office giving her access to wear they might keep information cards, perhaps.

Anyway--as far as the 5th...It would be off limits and irrelevant to inquire about what was not proven in Casey's criminal case...that she killed Caley. HOWEVER--her attorney disclosed in that case that she knew Caley was dead on the 16th...and it will go from there.

Casey cannot lie her way out of it--her attorney made that opening statement. She can't plead the 5th on that. She will have to acknowledge with her own lips what Baez said on her behalf and she cannot stay mute about it.

Just means we will get to hear SOMETHING for free...but I'm sure she will save all the exciting explicit details for a book.

I am not sure I am convinced by your analysis of pleading the fifth. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[joviroxx]

I am not sure I am convinced with your analysis of pleading the fifth. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Got a reasonable doubt?

 

[kellyg403]

I would say so...

It will be interesting to see how it plays out...

She will lose the case if she remains silent. And that would be sweet, too.

I agree, it will be interesting indeed. It may be the only chance for a semblance of the truth. I don't think the book will do truth much justice.

 

[mickeyboat]

Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Good one!

 

[CurlyGirl]

I would say so...

It will be interesting to see how it plays out...

She will lose the case if she remains silent. And that would be sweet, too.

ZG's attorney said it's much better for their case if Casey remains tight lipped or chooses to plead the 5th.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I am not sure I am convinced by your analysis of pleading the fifth. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I stand corrected...the Supreme Court agrees with you....5th can be plead in Civil Court...

HOWEVER....

This is from North Carolina...but I would presume Florida MAY have the same legal thought:

Pleading the Fifth Amendment in a civil domestic, however, can have a dramatic effect on the client’s civil domestic case. Asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege protects the person from self-incrimination in the criminal process. However, North Carolina courts have held that the Fifth Amendment “is intended to be shield and not a sword.” Thus, if a person pleads the Fifth Amendment in a civil domestic action, the trier of fact (judge or jury, depending on the issues involved), is allowed to infer that the answer to the question would have been negative to the person’s interest. If the privileged information sought from the client is material and essential to the defense of the client’s claim, the client must decide whether to come forward with the privileged information or whether to assert the privilege and forego the claim in which such information is necessary. Therefore, a lawyer should consider carefully when a client should plead the Fifth Amendment, weighing the likelihood that the client will actually face criminal prosecution versus the potential impact on the client’s civil domestic action.

I take that to mean--if she pleads the fifth, that could be to her disadvantage.

Aaahh--seems Florida agrees:

**found this in an article with content against disboard rules...so will not post link, but here is what I pulled from it:


In Florida if you plead the 5th Amendment in a civil trial those pleas can be used as evidence of guilt in the civil trial.

The 5th Amendment prohibits the pleas from being used in a criminal proceeding, not civilly.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

ZG's attorney said it's much better for their case if Casey remains tight lipped or chooses to plead the 5th.

Seems so--

I just googled it. Guilt can be inferred by remaining tight lipped in a Florida civil suit.

 

[mickeyboat]

I stand corrected...the Supreme Court agrees with you....5th can be plead in Civil Court...

HOWEVER....

This is from North Carolina...but I would presume Florida MAY have the same legal thought:



I take that to mean--if she pleads the fifth, that could be to her disadvantage.

Aaahh--seems Florida agrees:

**found this in an article with content against disboard rules...so will not post link, but here is what I pulled from it:


In Florida if you plead the 5th Amendment in a civil trial those pleas can be used as evidence of guilt in the civil trial.

The 5th Amendment prohibits the pleas from being used in a criminal proceeding, not civilly.

I do agree with that analysis. Except it can't be used as evidence of guilt - because there is no guilt in a civil trial. But the trier of fact can use it to make an adverse inference about the answer that is avoided.

My question, though is whether the 5th is even applicable since she can't incriminate herself since she is protected now by double jeopardy.

eta - for joviroxx - the burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence and the burden sometimes switches from the plaintiff to the defendant

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-jury-pr-firm-offer-20110708,0,1460144.story

Interesting--

Free PR help to CA trial jurors if they are NOT wanting to be paid for their story so that they can have help in telling their story if they want to tell it.

So the 5 figure guy is out of luck.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I do agree with that analysis. Except it can't be used as evidence of guilt - because there is no guilt in a civil trial. But the trier of fact can use it to make an adverse inference about the answer that is avoided.

My question, though is whether the 5th is even applicable since she can't incriminate herself since she is protected now by double jeopardy.

I was just copying and pasting. I did not find the actual law as I did for North Carolina when I did a general search.