U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-22-2011, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Home!
8,710 posts, read 10,408,406 times
Reputation: 8512

Advertisements

Here's hoping it is herself.

 
Old 07-22-2011, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
I don't expect a retrial.
Then by proxy you must agree that the jurors did not violate the judge's orders, because had they done so you would have grounds for pushing for a retrial.

Oh and just FYI, the fact that no one qualified as a "legal expert" has, to my knowledge, discussed this topic. That's a pretty big hint that it's a non issue.

Quote:
I discuss trials and law, the same as politics, sports, religion, real estate, and other things.

Though you claim to understand the jury instructions, I'll quote a few sections, with added emphasis to make it easier for you---

RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter

2. This case must be decided ONLY upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.

Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in these instructions.

SUBMITTING CASE TO JURY

In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them.
----------------
Ford's interviews make absolutely clear to any Fair and Reasonable observor that jurors considered the potential punishment in reaching the verdict, in violation of the instructions quoted above.
Once again, you've locked onto a very narrow scope of a large document and put on blinders to the rest of it. Scroll back up to the part regarding the charges that the jury could have found her guilty on. The death penalty would be linked to the first degree murder charge, NOT evidence. When Jennifer Ford says they couldn't justify putting her to death it is just another way of saying that the prosecution couldn't meet the burden of proof for the charge.
 
Old 07-22-2011, 07:13 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
41 posts, read 24,916 times
Reputation: 29
Taxpayers foot bill for Casey Anthony defense | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Quote:
Taxpayers foot bill for Casey Anthony defense


No one knows where Casey Anthony is, but America's most notorious recent murder defendant doesn't have to fret about her legal bills reaching her.
That's because $119,000 in defense fees racked up during her trial—which produced a shocking not-guilty verdict in her home jurisdiction of Orlando, Fla., earlier this month—have been picked up by Florida taxpayers. The same is true for another pending $5,800 in fees that Anthony's attorney Jose Baez has billed to his client's case, putting the overall taxpayer tab at just shy of $125,000.
Public coffers have been covering the costs of Anthony's defense since March 2010, when she declared herself indigent. Anthony was standing trial for the murder of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, whose remains had been found on land near their home after Casey had misled police investigators with a false account of Caylee's purported kidnapping by a nanny. Casey Anthony had been sentenced to four years for providing false statements to the police. But after the three years she had served in custody while awaiting trial, her post-verdict sentence was just two weeks, and she was released on July 17. Then she went promptly into hiding; all her attorney Baez indicated to Orlando station WKMG is that "She's not here in Orlando."
Wherever Anthony may be, it's a safe bet that either Baez or some other deal-making surrogate is forwarding her a fair number of media offers. The moment the Orlando jury handed down its controversial July 5 acquittal, legal and media insiders began speculating that Anthony could command seven-figure fees for high-profile interviews with media figures such as Oprah Winfrey or Katie Couric. Though the same cautioned that an such agreement would come with a high risk of backlash for both contracting parties. "She could probably get $1 million from an outlet—it could be a network or a tabloid magazine," Hollywood communications expert Michael Levine told Fox News. "But I wouldn't recommend she do that, because she's such an unsympathetic figure and a known liar."
And sure enough, even "The Jerry Springer Show"—long viewed as the hands-down winner in the tawdry race to the bottom in the daytime TV talk market—leapt in promptly to squelch a rumor that it had offered $1 million for an Anthony appearance. Baez, too, lost his own contract with a talent agency following the public furor that arose from that reported deal. There's also a central social-media destination for people keen to block the prospect of Anthony profiting from her renown: a Facebook page titled "Boycott Casey Anthony Media Deals."
What's more, even if Anthony should land a lucrative book or TV contract, there's no guarantee that she'd ever see the actual profits. Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales, a woman who actually possesses the name that Anthony used to identify the fictitious nanny she claimed had kidnapped her daughter, has sued Anthony for defamation. And Fernandez-Gonzales' attorneys are demanding that they be permitted to review any prospective media deals Anthony may sign in order to assess prospective damages in the suit.
There is, however, at least one feel-good moment in this particular chapter of the sordid Anthony saga: Since Fernandez-Gonzales has filed a civil suit, there's no way the state of Florida would be stuck footing the bill for Anthony's legal fees this time.
 
Old 07-22-2011, 10:22 PM
 
9,916 posts, read 9,311,269 times
Reputation: 8058
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton View Post
I hope so...

At least FL doesn't have to pay the defense lawyer's fees and expenses.

I don't know about that. Casey Anthony was declared indigent in 2010. The $200,000 that ABC TV paid for the videos of Caylee was sent to Casey in care of Baez's office. Thus the IRS Federal tax notice in June 2011 was sent to Casey in care of Baez in the amount of $68,000.

Jose Baez, at the indigency hearing, told the judge that in addition to the money from ABC, Anthony's defense fund had received $70,000 from another attorney on the defense team and a $5,000 anonymous donation. But that money is gone, he said.

The judge ruled Casey Anthony was indigent and public money (taxpayers) would pay for her defense. So Baez blew $275,000 and in July 2010 Anthony and Baez was in the taxpayers wallets.

Baez and all of the Anthonys have been successful in pulling off a con job on the State of Florida and they are still wheeling and dealing.

Casey Anthony cant afford to pay defense
 
Old 07-23-2011, 08:24 AM
 
9,536 posts, read 4,877,247 times
Reputation: 3878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Then by proxy you must agree that the jurors did not violate the judge's orders, because had they done so you would have grounds for pushing for a retrial.

Oh and just FYI, the fact that no one qualified as a "legal expert" has, to my knowledge, discussed this topic. That's a pretty big hint that it's a non issue.



Once again, you've locked onto a very narrow scope of a large document and put on blinders to the rest of it. Scroll back up to the part regarding the charges that the jury could have found her guilty on. The death penalty would be linked to the first degree murder charge, NOT evidence. When Jennifer Ford says they couldn't justify putting her to death it is just another way of saying that the prosecution couldn't meet the burden of proof for the charge.
Jury nullification and compromise verdicts, among other things, technically violate jury instructions; we know they happen and aren't grounds for a retrial.

You've spent lots of time discussing a non issue. For me, it's an interesting subject, though not with implications for a retrial.

You have some sort of window into Ford's mind ? I'll go by her words.

For someone who claims the jury instructions are easy to understand, you're having a terrible problem grasping that potential punishment isn't a proper consideration in reaching a verdict.
 
Old 07-23-2011, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
Jury nullification and compromise verdicts, among other things, technically violate jury instructions; we know they happen and aren't grounds for a retrial.
This is true. The jury is given a large degree of latitude in reaching their verdict.

Quote:
You've spent lots of time discussing a non issue. For me, it's an interesting subject, though not with implications for a retrial.
I'm open to discussing it as well.

Quote:
You have some sort of window into Ford's mind ? I'll go by her words.
Just employing some of that common sense I've seen harped about all thread. Common sense would tell you that you would have to apply some leeway to these people as they are not public speakers but rather everyday people that were taken from complete anonymity to having the spotlight of the country's biggest legal drama cast directly in their face.

Quote:
For someone who claims the jury instructions are easy to understand, you're having a terrible problem grasping that potential punishment isn't a proper consideration in reaching a verdict.
There is no trouble grasping anything, because at best you might be able to get them on a technicality here. People fail to realize that jury instructions are not uniform across the country and the "common language" that was used as an example to spark this issue on CNN was actually taken from the California court system and no such language exists in the Florida instructions.
 
Old 07-24-2011, 11:24 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
2,800 posts, read 1,771,441 times
Reputation: 1732
[quote=Bosco55David;20121540]Alot of your "facts" have been debunked or disputed.



You could apply that to every parent in America if you wanted to. That's hardly credible motive without something to substantiate it.


Really what parent in America when their child is missing would go out partying? It shows lack of concern about her child.
 
Old 07-24-2011, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984 View Post
Really what parent in America when their child is missing would go out partying? It shows lack of concern about her child.
The defense claimed Caylee was already dead at that time.
 
Old 07-24-2011, 01:02 PM
 
3,721 posts, read 3,923,859 times
Reputation: 3366
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984 View Post


Really what parent in America when their child is missing would go out partying? It shows lack of concern about her child.
I can answer that question without deflection: Someone that parties when their child is missing is not concerned about that child. It does not matter if the child is dead or not. If you truly are concerned you would not wait to call the police let alone party like a rock star.
 
Old 07-24-2011, 04:13 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
2,800 posts, read 1,771,441 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
The defense claimed Caylee was already dead at that time.
They did not know she was dead until later on unless someone did something to the body. Casey was partying when Caylee was missing. That is why they refer to the 31 days because that was time before Caylee was found.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top