Anybody watching the Casey Anthony Trial besides me?

[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.

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

Its always been a crap shoot but I think maybe with all these CSI type programs and Criminal Minds on tv plus all the DNA stuff they have now it has made jurors look to be even more sure and want more proof to convict. Plus good defense attorneys have learned how to poke holes better in evidence through technology and helping create more of a reasonable doubt. I also think in a case like this one where the death penalty is involved jurors want to be totally convinced. Being a juror in a case as complex as this one isn't easy.

[The Jackal]

Jackal, the trial maybe over, but he is STILL her attorney.  You know that !

No, he's not STILL her attorney...no matter how many times you try to say it and convince yourself. The scope of his representation extended up to her sentencing. There are no post conviction motions or appeals to file. In short, there's NOTHING else to do in the criminal case.

[The Jackal]

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?

How many cases have you tried? How many legal ethics courses have you taken? How many times have you read the Florida Rules of professional responsibility?

If you can't answer any of the above, stop wasting people's time with your bullshit.

[The Jackal]

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.

Yes, this blood sucking-high school dropout-deadbeat dad-failed businessman-bad check writer beat the living bejeezus out of the arrogant, smug, pompous Florida prosecutors who had the temerity to smirk at his closing. Baez has become an overnight national celebrity and millionaire while his imbecile opponent just "retired".

Now YOU tell ME who the real "loser" is?

for God's sake, darden and clark lost a dead bang winner and penned book deals...but you didn't say a PEEP about them, did you? Didn't piss you off that their incompetence helped acquit OJ? Instead, you focus on the ONE guy that actually did his job?

[The Jackal]

  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.

again, you're entirely CLUELESS....

[The Jackal]

Plus good defense attorneys have learned how to poke holes better in evidence through technology and helping create more of a reasonable doubt.

Baez didn't have to do anything of the sort...there was no evidence to support ANY of the charges to begin with.

[mustang54]

Plus good defense attorneys have learned how to poke holes better in evidence through technology and helping create more of a reasonable doubt.

Baez didn't have to do anything of the sort...there was no evidence to support ANY of the charges to begin with.

I don't know if you watched the interviews with any of the so called legal experts before the verdicts were read but every one of em ripped Baez to shreads for the way they thought he defended the case. Maybe those stations should now hire Baez and let those so called experts go!

[The Jackal]

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.

You have to be a complete imbecile and/or entirely unqualified to think the judge wasn't going to max her out on the four misdemeanors.

And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release.

The MAX was four years...and by operation of law, jail time counts towards the ultimate sentence...I would have let her sit also.

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.

I wasn't shocked AT ALL with the Blago verdict. People forget two things: 1) ONE SINGLE hold out juror saved Blago from a similar fate the first time around, and 2) you NEVER, EVER want to give the Feds a second shot at you. EVER.

[The Jackal]

  I don't know if you watched the interviews with any of the so called legal experts before the verdicts were read but every one of em ripped Baez to shreads for the way they thought he defended the case. Maybe those stations should now hire Baez and let those so called experts go!

That's why they were on their couches playing "armchair expert" and brass cojones Baez was in the courtroom getting an NG on a potential death penalty case.

[mustang54]

  Jeffrey Toobin on CNN predicted no jail time and said Baez should have asked for her release after the verdicts. Before the verdicts he was ripping the guy for how he defended the case. The only thing he was right about was the cockiness of the prosecutors.

[mustang54]

  I don't know if you watched the interviews with any of the so called legal experts before the verdicts were read but every one of em ripped Baez to shreads for the way they thought he defended the case. Maybe those stations should now hire Baez and let those so called experts go!

That's why they were on their couches playing "armchair expert" and brass cojones Baez was in the courtroom getting an NG on a potential death penalty case.

They should have been on their couches instead they were gettin a paycheck on tv to make predictions about as good as I can cook!

[mustang54]

  Got 2 questions for ya Jackal. 1. How much time you think Blago will get? and 2. Now that they're done with him who is next?

[The Jackal]

  Got 2 questions for ya Jackal. 1. How much time you think Blago will get? and 2. Now that they're done with him who is next?

1. My guess is about 12 years

2. Daley got out of Dodge at the right time..and fast. Cellini is already under indictment. Burke might be the next logical target, but he's no dummy (Blago)...and I'm not sure he's ever left himself exposed. 

[mustang54]

  Got 2 questions for ya Jackal. 1. How much time you think Blago will get? and 2. Now that they're done with him who is next?

1. My guess is about 12 years

2. Daley got out of Dodge at the right time..and fast. Cellini is already under indictment. Burke might be the next logical target, but he's no dummy (Blago)...and I'm not sure he's ever left himself exposed. 

Stroger?

[The Jackal]

  Got 2 questions for ya Jackal. 1. How much time you think Blago will get? and 2. Now that they're done with him who is next?

1. My guess is about 12 years

2. Daley got out of Dodge at the right time..and fast. Cellini is already under indictment. Burke might be the next logical target, but he's no dummy (Blago)...and I'm not sure he's ever left himself exposed. 

Stroger?

I'm not sure he's worth going after....

[billyjean]

Jackal, since you OPS, and mustang were the only ppl interested in making at least one comment on this thread, if you notice, I did not post on it much.  I could have, but I didn't. 

If you think that my eye is only trained on Baez the sleaze ball, you're wrong.  The prosecution had an epic fail.  I can't even watch Ashton on TV cause I wanna smack him around, and it's just the system itself.

Somehow cause you hire a bountyhunter to bail out your client, this automatically means the bountyhunter is on YOUR side.  Why?  It's a private business and any testimony that bountyhunter can provide I would think would be important.  But, no, by way of motion and citing attorney/client privilege the Court doesn't allow it.  I have a problem with that, and since it was by way of motion, and not just assumed, and no doubt that motion was rebutted by the prosecution, the prosecution was not able to bring some very important information.

The info they could have gotten from Padilla and his team, was that George lied about seeing Casey leave the next day before he went to work.  Lee told Padilla directly that Casey left the night that Cindy choked her out after a big fight about stolen checks and money.  Further, if this team could have testified, they could have neutralized the testimony of River Cruz who said George told her it was an accident that snowballed out of control.  It was Padilla's right hand man (cause it was a 3 person team at that house), who told George outright something to effect of .... you know George, this may have been an accident that got out of hand.  Telling this to a man who could not reconcile anything at this point, and a possibility was given to him.  To discount the testimony of 3 ppl who were with the Anthonys at their home for weeks, and what all went on there is just a travesty.  This is as close as they were going to come to eyewitnesses as to what went on over there ... and the prosecution was shut out.  That said, I think the prosecution would have bumbled that too.

I didn't see Ashton's opening statement.  All I heard from the talking heads was how masterful it was.  I didn't see his closing statement ... I heard that was masterful too.  I did see his shared rebuttal, however.  I wasn't impressed, and when he laughed during Baez's rebuttal, I would have beat him over the head with a baseball bat.  To have all the hard work that many entities put into this case, go this far, and pull a stunt like that ... there was absolutely no excuse for it, other than he is an arrogant ass, and that winning a high profile case was far more important to him than justice for Caylee.  So make no mistake, I dislike Ashton ALMOST as much as I dislike Baez.

Max Cady .... YOU WERE MY LAWYER !!!!!

[Berwyn Patsy]

Bj, honestly in my opinion there is not much to comment on.  There simply was not enough evidence
In my mind to convict her. Had I been on that jury I couldn't have convicted her on murder and lived with
My decision on her life in prison or the death penalty.
Justice was done here, it's upon her death that her maker will decide her real fate.

[billyjean]

Regarding the making money off of cases for those directly involved in the case (in the courtroom), like Marcia Clark and Darden, and now Baez, jury, etc. ... there should be like a 5 year buffer from the time the case is over till the point they are allowed to benefit monitarily from writing a book, a TV show, or movie, or appearances of any kind.  If you want to go and do it for nothing ... go ahead.  But no monies should be paid to anyone for anything until a good time has passed.  And this would extend to say maybe Casey doesn't write the book, or Baez, but they have someone else write it for them, or movie rights for the future (you can sign 5 years from now), or anything else.  Bottomline, no monetary gain for whatever length of time.  

[billyjean]

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?

How many cases have you tried? How many legal ethics courses have you taken? How many times have you read the Florida Rules of professional responsibility?

If you can't answer any of the above, stop wasting people's time with your bullshit.

Thanks for directly answering the question, Jackal. 

[billyjean]

Bj, honestly in my opinion there is not much to comment on.  There simply was not enough evidence
In my mind to convict her. Had I been on that jury I couldn't have convicted her on murder and lived with
My decision on her life in prison or the death penalty.
Justice was done here, it's upon her death that her maker will decide her real fate.

I've already said none of the Anthonys will find peace.  That's good enough for me.  My comments Patsy are more about the system.  Forget about Casey.  It was a character study of the system we have in place.