Anybody watching the Casey Anthony Trial besides me?

[billyjean]

Juror states there was no cause of death.  Wait a minute.  Ppl have been convicted of murder when the body has never been found !  I don't get it.

You don't get it because you fail to comprehend the difference between the CAUSE OF DEATH and the corpus delicti (body) of the crime.

Another juror stated that she based her decision on the fear that Casey would get death penalty.  It wasn't her job to worry about the death penalty.  It was her job to decide guilty or not guilty.  I think we had a Jaywalking crew of jurors here.

On ONE count only...in any event, maybe that's evidence that the prosecutor OVERCHARGED the case?

Oh one last thing.  Don't forget now to lie your ass off to law enforcement.  It's only one year and $1,000.  Most of you could do that standing on your head.  For the 1 year and $1,000 you can avoid death or life in prison.  Sounds good to me.  Didn't realize it was that easy.  You learn a lot by watching this stuff.  Now I know how to avoid being convicted for murder.

NOBODY on these forums could do a year standing on their heads, much the less over three like Anthony has served.

Think about it for a minute...Anthony was given MAXIMUM one year misdemeanor sentences, running CONSECUTIVELY, on all four counts, despite not having any previous criminal history (from what I understand). I've NEVER seen that before, but can't say I'm surprised. In fact, its EXACTLY the sentence I expected. The Judge covered his ass well, understandably so.

Wrong.  She has previous criminal history.

"Casey Anthony found guilty of several check fraud charges
By Bianca Prieto and Sarah Lundy


Orlando Sentinel

Updated: 3:27 p.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010

Posted: 11:43 a.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010


Casey Anthony was found guilty this afternoon in several of the 13 check fraud charges she faced.


The 23-year-old woman entered a plea this afternoon to Orange Circuit Judge Stan Strickland. The judge found her guilty in six of the charges and withheld adjudication in seven. She was given credit for 412 days of time served in jail and one year of probation.


Casey Anthony was also ordered to pay $348 in court fees and $5,517.75 in investigative fees.


Anthony was accused of stealing hundreds of dollars from a friend, Amy Huizenga, in July 2008. Investigators have said Anthony used Huizenga's checks to buy more than $400 worth of clothes and groceries at area Target and Winn-Dixie stores.


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/casey-anthony-found-guilty-of-several-check-fraud-194235.html

Further, she stole hundreds of checks from her mother and raided her grandfather's retirement home fund.  It was shortly after that her mother and her got in a big fight where Casey's mother tried to choke Casey out.  Casey left with the kid, and was never seen till Cindy made the 911 call when she told dispatches she wanted her daughter arrested for the theft of the checks and the retirement fund and told them the car smelled like a dead body.  Apparently, she didn't follow through with the complaint.

The defense had Cindy and George both LIE on the stand, so their original statements about Casey, car smelling like body (w/Cindy on tape to dispatcher and w/George on video to investigators).  That testimony was damning so they got the Anthonys to agree to make themselves look like total liars on the stand so that it would wipe out the damning statements they gave to authorities.  George was already pointed to by defense as a monster, with no proof.  Cindy was the only question mark.  So they sent the SON to seal it and call his own mother a liar.

Sorry, Jackal.  I think most ppl survive one year in a 6 x 8.  There is no real penalty for lying to law enforcement.  Casey's lies setup the Defense for a win.

I'm NOT saying they can just in the courtroom change the law on the max sentence for lying to law enforcement.  The Judge did all he was allowed to do under the law.  What I AM saying is what's on the books is not enough.  One year and $1,000 is not going to scare anybody.  It certainly didn't scare Casey, her mother or her father.  It's perjury is it not to lie under oath?  Cindy was proved to be a lying when she said she was at home doing computer search (which is what Defense wanted her to do ... lie).  Her employement records proved she was not home but at work.  That is perjury.  Yet she won't be charged because the consensus is from the talking head lawyers is that they wouldn't have enough room in the jails for all those that lie on the stand.  What a system.

[billyjean]

Was waiting for this to happen, and if reports are true, Bozo Baez should be disbarred.  It's been reported (I have to see more tho) that Baez has signed with William Morris agency with him and Casey as a package deal.  If that is true, OMG.  He should either step down and reliquish his right to practice or the State of Florida should step in and disbarr him.  If it's true, he is the kind of defense attorney that gives other defense attorneys a bad rep.  If Casey wants to sign ... fine.  If she wants to have him at her side when she talks to the various entities ... fine.  Then whatever she makes ... she pays him for his time.  Not him using her to make money in a contracted deal.  That is wrong ... I don't care what you say.

These reports are being denied.  I hope it's not true.

Lastly, lil Caylee will not rest in peace till someone is brought to justice for her murder.  That said, it is unlikely her killer will ever be brought to justice.  Here's the justice.  Like lil Caylee ... finding no peace ..... neither will any of the Anthonys.  There's nowhere to run ... nowhere to hide.  Lawsuits will be coming out of the woodwork, and only the bloodsuckers will cozy up.

[The Jackal]

Was waiting for this to happen, and if reports are true, Bozo Baez should be disbarred.  It's been reported (I have to see more tho) that Baez has signed with William Morris agency with him and Casey as a package deal.  If that is true, OMG.  He should either step down and reliquish his right to practice or the State of Florida should step in and disbarr him.  If it's true, he is the kind of defense attorney that gives other defense attorneys a bad rep.  If Casey wants to sign ... fine.  If she wants to have him at her side when she talks to the various entities ... fine.  Then whatever she makes ... she pays him for his time.  Not him using her to make money in a contracted deal.  That is wrong ... I don't care what you say.

These reports are being denied.  I hope it's not true.

Lastly, lil Caylee will not rest in peace till someone is brought to justice for her murder.  That said, it is unlikely her killer will ever be brought to justice.  Here's the justice.  Like lil Caylee ... finding no peace ..... neither will any of the Anthonys.  There's nowhere to run ... nowhere to hide.  Lawsuits will be coming out of the woodwork, and only the bloodsuckers will cozy up.

Why is Baez a bozo and under what theory should he be disbarred? Where in the Florida Rules of professional conduct do you see ANY authority that he should be disbarred? If my memory serves me correctly, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden BOTH wrote books after the OJ trial, correct? Where you jumping up and down and asking for their disbarment as well?

[The Jackal]

Wrong.  She has previous criminal history.

"Casey Anthony found guilty of several check fraud charges
By Bianca Prieto and Sarah Lundy


Orlando Sentinel

Updated: 3:27 p.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010

Posted: 11:43 a.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010


Casey Anthony was found guilty this afternoon in several of the 13 check fraud charges she faced.


The 23-year-old woman entered a plea this afternoon to Orange Circuit Judge Stan Strickland. The judge found her guilty in six of the charges and withheld adjudication in seven. She was given credit for 412 days of time served in jail and one year of probation.


Casey Anthony was also ordered to pay $348 in court fees and $5,517.75 in investigative fees.


Anthony was accused of stealing hundreds of dollars from a friend, Amy Huizenga, in July 2008. Investigators have said Anthony used Huizenga's checks to buy more than $400 worth of clothes and groceries at area Target and Winn-Dixie stores.

Check fraud is a financial crime where the sentencing goal is primarily restitution, especially for minimal amounts. Its not a crime of violence, nor does it include deceiving the police. Nonetheless, even for a defendant with misdemeanor convictions on a previous case, FOUR CONSECUTIVE max term misdemeanor sentences is unheard of.

Further, she stole hundreds of checks from her mother and raided her grandfather's retirement home fund.  It was shortly after that her mother and her got in a big fight where Casey's mother tried to choke Casey out.

So what was she charged with in THIS ^^^^ matter?

The defense had Cindy and George both LIE on the stand, so their original statements about Casey, car smelling like body (w/Cindy on tape to dispatcher and w/George on video to investigators).  That testimony was damning so they got the Anthonys to agree to make themselves look like total liars on the stand so that it would wipe out the damning statements they gave to authorities.  George was already pointed to by defense as a monster, with no proof.  Cindy was the only question mark.  So they sent the SON to seal it and call his own mother a liar.

You have absolutely NO CLUE what the defense did or didn't do, but you DO weave quite a tangled, schizo web.

Sorry, Jackal.  I think most ppl survive one year in a 6 x 8.

No they wouldn't. You wouldn't and nobody else on this forum would, either. There's a little more to it than sitting in a 6 x 8.

There is no real penalty for lying to law enforcement.

Sure there's a penalty for lying to law enforcement....FOUR years of your personal liberty taken away from you. Or do you forget the time Anthony has spent locked up?

I'm NOT saying they can just in the courtroom change the law on the max sentence for lying to law enforcement.  The Judge did all he was allowed to do under the law.  What I AM saying is what's on the books is not enough.  One year and $1,000 is not going to scare anybody.

Its a msidemeanor, what part of that don't you understand? in Illinois, the max on a misdemeanor is 364 days in county and a $2, 500.00 fine.

It's perjury is it not to lie under oath?  Cindy was proved to be a lying when she said she was at home doing computer search (which is what Defense wanted her to do ... lie).  Her employement records proved she was not home but at work.  That is perjury.  Yet she won't be charged because the consensus is from the talking head lawyers is that they wouldn't have enough room in the jails for all those that lie on the stand.

......including quite a few cops........and prosecutors OFF the stand.

What a system.

Know of a better one?

[The Jackal]

Here's just a sampling.......


In the Matter of Danielle M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Danielle M. Muscatello, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4479754) DISCIPLINARY proceeding instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. By decision and order on application dated June 1, 2010, this Court authorized the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based on the petition dated January 29, 2010, directed the respondent to submit an answer to the petition, and referred the issues raised to the Hon. Jerome M. Becker, as Special Referee to hear and report. The respondent was admitted to the bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 28, 2007. Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mark F. DeWan of counsel),2010–01808Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.July 5, 2011for petitioner.

Michael S. Ross, New York, N.Y. for respondent.A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO REINALDO E. RIVERA PETER B. SKELOS DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JJ. OPINION & ORDERPER CURIAM. The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) served the respondent with a petition dated January 29, 2010, containing two charges of professional misconduct. A hearing was held on August 24, 2010. Following the hearing, the Special Referee sustained both charges. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the report and supplemental report of the Special Referee, and for imposition of discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and appropriate. The respondent joins in the motion to confirm and contends that the appropriate sanction under the circumstances is a public censure. Charge one alleges that the respondent by misrepresenting evidence to the Grand Jury, engaged in: (1) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, (2) conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, and (2) conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness as lawyer, in violation of Rules 8.4(c), (d) and (h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). The respondent was employed as an Assistant District Attorney with the Office of the District Attorney for Kings County. On November 5, 2009, she was presenting evidence to a Kings County Grand Jury in relation to a defendant who had been arrested on October 18, 2009, for driving while intoxicated. As part of the presentation, she moved into evidence a New York City Police Department form known as the Chemical Test Analysis (hereinafter the Form). The Form is an official document that reports, inter alia, the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time the breathalyser test is performed. The police officer who administered the test is required to certify on the Form that its contents are true, accurate, and complete. After moving the Form into evidence, the respondent realized that it was incomplete, in that the space where the number reflecting the defendant's blood alcohol content should have been, was blank. Nonetheless, the respondent told the Grand Jury that the form reflected a blood alcohol content of .08%, a fact she knew from other evidence previously introduced before the Grand Jury. Charge two alleges that the respondent altered a document that had been entered into evidence before a Grand Jury, thus, violating rules 8.4(c), (d) and (h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). On or about November 12, 2009, the respondent subpoenaed the police officer who had prepared the Form. On that date, knowing that her supervisor was out of the office, the respondent entered and searched that office for the Form. The respondent found the Form in her supervisor's briefcase and removed it. She then directed the police officer to fill in the blank to reflect the defendant's blood alcohol content, and returned the altered Form to her supervisor's briefcase without her supervisor's knowledge. Based on the evidence adduced and the respondent's admissions, the Special Referee properly sustained the charges. Accordingly, the motion to confirm is granted. In mitigation, the respondent asks the Court to take into consideration the fact that she was a young lawyer who had been practicing law for less than three years, that she panicked in a high-pressure situation and doubted herself, and that the conduct was isolated and aberrational. Further, she maintains that she has been punished enough as she was terminated from her position as an Assistant District Attorney, which she considered to be an ideal job. She is deeply remorseful and ashamed of her misconduct. Numerous character letters were submitted on the respondent's behalf, all of which attested to her reputation for honesty and integrity. The respondent's present employer, who hired her after full disclosure was made to him of the grand jury incident, indicated in a letter that the respondent "consistently has expressed remorse ... and displayed a high standard of ethical and moral character during her employment with me at my firm." Notwithstanding the respondent's candor, youth, remorse, and lack of a prior disciplinary history, we conclude that the circumstances of this case warrant the respondent's suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS and ANGIOLILLO, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the petitioner's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Danielle M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, commencing August 5, 2011, and continuing until further order of this Court. The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than February 6, 2012. In such application, the respondent shall furnish satisfactory proof (1) that during the said period she refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (2) that she has fully complied with this order and with the terms and provisions of the written rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10), (3) that she has complied with the applicable continuing legal education requirements of 22 NYCRR 691.11(c), and (4) that she has otherwise properly conducted herself; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Danielle M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, shall promptly comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys ( see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until such further order of this court, the respondent, Daneille M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, shall desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. ORDERED that if the respondent, Danielle M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f). ENTER:

Matthew G. KiernanClerk of the Court N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,2011.

--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2624002 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05812

[billyjean]

Jackal her wonderful mother didn't bring the charges for the hundreds of stolen checks, credit cards, and raid of the retirement fund for the grandfather, she just threatened to in the 911 call.

[The Jackal]

Right...I thought so...the schizo mother made claims/threats against the schizo daughter...gotcha. And this is what you take as gospel. What the mother may or may not have done/thought has NO BEARING whatsoever on Casey's criminal history for sentencing purposes.....NONE.

[billyjean]

Jackal, are you nutty.  If I'm convicted of any crime that puts me in prison whether 6 x 8 or in general pop ... you do your time.  If you survive, and your time is up .... you leave.  What are we going to do ... drop dead of fright the moment the cell door is closed?  If Martha Stewart ... so can I.

[The Jackal]

Martha Stewart went to FEDERAL, not STATE, prison. Nonetheless, of course one is going to physically survive...the question is, at what cost?

[billyjean]

Right...I thought so...the schizo mother made claims/threats against the schizo daughter...gotcha. And this is what you take as gospel. What the mother may or may not have done/thought has NO BEARING whatsoever on Casey's criminal history for sentencing purposes.....NONE.

I never said it did, did I?  I gave you what she was charged with.  I just told you a little of the history of things she did she was not charged with.

[billyjean]

Martha Stewart went to FEDERAL, not STATE, prison. Nonetheless, of course one is going to physically survive...the question is, at what cost?

Whether state or federal, if you do the crime and are convicted you have to do the time ... and that would include BTF posters also, unless we are exempt somehow and no one told me.

[The Jackal]

Btw, take a look at the above scenario involving prosecutorial misconduct. Now lets play a little make believe and transfer this case to Cook County and assume its a first time misdemeanor offense. Lets also assume this prosecutor alters evidence to obtain a wrongful conviction.

As a result bj, and utilizing YOUR criterion of max sentences/penalties for misdemeanor offenses, this poor soul would get 364 days in Cook County, $2,500.00 in fines and fees, mandatory drug and alcohol counseling from anywhere between 10 and 75 hours, plus attendance at a Victim Impact Panel AND........REVOCATION (not suspension) of his/her driving privileges...for GOOD (with a minimum one year bar to reinstatement).

All for a first time Class A misdemeanor..

[billyjean]

Was waiting for this to happen, and if reports are true, Bozo Baez should be disbarred.  It's been reported (I have to see more tho) that Baez has signed with William Morris agency with him and Casey as a package deal.  If that is true, OMG.  He should either step down and reliquish his right to practice or the State of Florida should step in and disbarr him.  If it's true, he is the kind of defense attorney that gives other defense attorneys a bad rep.  If Casey wants to sign ... fine.  If she wants to have him at her side when she talks to the various entities ... fine.  Then whatever she makes ... she pays him for his time.  Not him using her to make money in a contracted deal.  That is wrong ... I don't care what you say.

These reports are being denied.  I hope it's not true.

Lastly, lil Caylee will not rest in peace till someone is brought to justice for her murder.  That said, it is unlikely her killer will ever be brought to justice.  Here's the justice.  Like lil Caylee ... finding no peace ..... neither will any of the Anthonys.  There's nowhere to run ... nowhere to hide.  Lawsuits will be coming out of the woodwork, and only the bloodsuckers will cozy up.

Why is Baez a bozo and under what theory should he be disbarred? Where in the Florida Rules of professional conduct do you see ANY authority that he should be disbarred? If my memory serves me correctly, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden BOTH wrote books after the OJ trial, correct? Where you jumping up and down and asking for their disbarment as well?

I was objecting if they were on media as a package deal contracted together.  If she goes, then pays him as her attorney to sit next to her fine.  But to sell yourself as a package, I would think messes with his relationship with her as a client.  Is is acceptable that you as an attorney be in business (show business) with your client?  If you represent the head of Apple, is it OK if you share money making interests with your client?  IDK ... can you tell me?  If not, what scenario would be improper in this light?

[The Jackal]

There is NO IMPROPRIETY there...none whatsoever. The deal was made AFTER trial, no?

[billyjean]

There is NO IMPROPRIETY there...none whatsoever. The deal was made AFTER trial, no?

you don't need to yell.  settle down.  If he is still her lawyer, if he has NOT severed the lawyer/client relationship is it proper for him to be in business with her?  That's all I'm asking.

[The Jackal]

The trial is OVER. There is no surviving atty/client relationship, nor ANY indicia of impropriety.

You make an absurd and unfounded claim that Baez should be disbarred, yet have no idea whatsoever what the ethical standards and/or facts are. Ridiculous.

[billyjean]

The trial is OVER. There is no surviving atty/client relationship, nor ANY indicia of impropriety.

You make an absurd and unfounded claim that Baez should be disbarred, yet have no idea whatsoever what the ethical standards and/or facts are. Ridiculous.

Jackal, the trial maybe over, but he is STILL her attorney.  You know that !  Why does the end of a trial signal automatically that he is not her attorney any longer.  He is her attorney NOW, and will continue to be her attorney for some time to come.  I asked you a question.  Since he is still her attorney, would it be improper for him to contractually go into business with her as a team.  I already told you that if he signs a contract on his own, and she her own, or she her own, and pays him for his attorney time to sit next to her, I have no problem with that, although I still think it unethical in the case of signing on your own.  I am speaking strickly of a "package" deal, making him and her, "together", a show business entity, while he is her attorney.  You tell me ... I'm waiting.

For instance, from a website:

"Lawyers in Business with their Clients
Some lawyers go into business with their clients, something which the ethics rules discourage. There are several things lawyers have to do if they want to be partners with their clients, and they can be sued if the venture fails. While not all business ventures with cheats are technically a conflict of interest, the Supreme Court has warned lawyers repeatedly of the dangers.

Lawyers often know the intimate details of their client's lives, especially their finances. Lawyers often have the trust of their clients. Some lawyers may then use that trust and insight to get their clients to invest in businesses that benefit the lawyer."

Now the above doesn't say you cannot, but it does suggest it is discouraged.  So I ask again, if you sign a contract .... lawyer/client ... as a "package deal" ... would that be closer to some degree of improper? ... or totally OK?

[billyjean]

Here is the article ...

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/paradigm-signs-casey-anthonys-attorney/

he did not sign as package deal but on his own.  Now the blood sucker will make millions.  She hasn't even gotten out of jail and he's already made his deals.  What a low life.  There is still the matter of his disregarding Judge Perry's Order early on in the trial.  At that time, the Judge said he would deal with the issue of contempt by Baez at the end of the trial.  Fat chance of that happening.

ABC Nightline, by Jessica Harper

Like many attorneys defending a client facing the death penalty, Casey Anthony's attorney recently moved for a mistrial. While the strategy is common, Jose Baez's reasoning was not. He claimed the evidence disparaged his character.

By stepping into the spotlight of the Florida courtroom, Baez went from being a local lawyer with a past that includes child support battles, bad checks and bikini businesses to the defense attorney in the most high profile case in the country at the moment.

Baez, 42, is defending Casey Anthony from charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, a crime that could warrant her a death sentence.

Richard Hornsby, a defense attorney who has followed the case closely, was president of the Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers when he first learned about Casey Anthony's hiring of Baez in 2008.

"I first said, 'Jose who?" Hornsby said. "I had no idea who he was."

It has taken a while for Baez to establish himself as a defense lawyer. Despite graduating from law school in 1997, the Navy veteran was denied admission to the Florida bar for eight years until 2005.

An order by the Supreme Court of Florida states that he was denied admission because of his failure to pay child support to his ex-wife and secure life and health insurance for his teenage daughter. It states that he had previously declared bankruptcy, written bad checks and defaulted on student loans, the court said.

The Florida Supreme Court said his financial mishaps coupled with failure to pay child support "show a lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."

http://tonilynntrottier.com/2011/06/10/casey-anthonys-lawyer-jose-baez-has-trials-of-his-own/

boy, I guess the bar accepts just about anybody.

[mustang54]

  What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys. And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release. I'm no lawyer but by what little I do see of court cases I would never bet on a jury's decision or the ruling or sentencing of a judge. As shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.

[billyjean]

  What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys. And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release. I'm no lawyer but by what little I do see of court cases I would never bet on a jury's decision or the ruling or sentencing of a judge. As shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.

The whole process because of attorney strategies and manuevers has turned the whole process into a crap shoot.