Casey Anthony Trial

[LoALAnna]

My opinion is that Jose Baez really knows in his "heart of hearts" that he is in over his head, but the inevitable book deal $ wins out over everything else. Just sayin'.

[susan lynn]

I think you are right. I have tried to watch some of it but this girl makes me so mad with her lies. They are wasting so much money on her, I am hoping she gets the death penalty but they will probably say she is crazy (what an idea) and give her life. I feel sorry for her parents and brother.

[roseylovestosho]

I'd rather she rots in prison. She is such a narcissist that I think prison will make her extremely miserable.

[gidget529]

Originally Posted by LoALAnna

My opinion is that Jose Baez really knows in his "heart of hearts" that he is in over his head, but the inevitable book deal $ wins out over everything else. Just sayin'.

I never thought about the book angle, but I think you have a point! Didn't Marsha Clark from OJ's trial make $ on a book? By golly, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure you're onto something w this book thing!!

[J_is_my_initial]

I saw somewhere she got $4.2 million in a book advance alone. Not sure what she made finally.

[mizzwanned]

ok..what is going on?? I have not been watching this case, but have seen snippets of it here and there..is it leaning towards casey being guilty? Or...her mom and dad, what do they have to do with it? I always believed casey is the murderer..i think she is a girl full of lies

[J_is_my_initial]

Originally Posted by J_is_my_initial

I saw somewhere she got $4.2 million in a book advance alone. Not sure what she made finally.

i meant marcia clark not casey anthony

[Bruce's_Mom]

I am sad as an attorney about all of the negative comments about the defense attorneys simply because they are defending someone that is from all appearances guilty. The fact that so many people are perplexed by this means that my profession has flunked in its obligation to protect its role in crucial Constitutional rights by making sure that this role is understood.

I no longer take criminal cases but I have and I have done so knowing in my heart of hearts the person was guilty (though I never would ask because I could not knowingly put on false evidence) and today some of my dearest friends are criminal defense attorneys that defend guilty people all the time. It is not so much that I or these people believe guilty people should go free. To the contrary, it is that we believe in our legal system when it works properly and that we want it to work properly for innocent people. At the time the U.S. was founded the founders wanted a free and just society as a result they wisely decided on a system that required the government to prove that an individual had committed a crime to the satisfaction of an unbiased jury. Not only that: they decided that a very high standard should be applied in determining legal guilt: "beyond a reasonable doubt," or near certainty because it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer. To achieve this goal it means you have to keep the government honest: no convictions based on false or planted evidence, unreliable or lying witnesses, or confessions extracted from the accused by torture, beatings, or other forms of duress…even if the accused is, in fact guilty. All that is essential for the system to work. If we permit the government to cheat in order to imprison a guilty individual, we have no way to stop it from cheating to imprison an innocent one.

Regardless of whether a l lawyer's client is guilty of the crime she is being tried for or wrongly accused, the defense attorney's job doesn't change: make the prosecution prove its case with sound arguments, real evidence, and reliable testimony. In a sense, the real client of a defense attorney isn't truly the defendant at all but the integrity of democracy and the justice system.

Criminal defense attorneys have an unimaginably difficult task, as stressful and emotionally challenging as any job on earth. It doesn't produce satisfaction or joy when defense attorneys see their guilty criminal clients go free. But unless defense attorneys do their jobs well enough that this can happen when the prosecution or jury don't perform their duties, a system that often doesn’t work could not ever work. Individuals accused of crimes would become helpless, completely dependent on the good faith and competence of police and prosecutors. Even when defense attorneys give zealous representation we know innocent people are sent to jail even death row. Look at what happened in Illinois!!!

Many attorneys can't handle the complex ethical balancing that criminal defense work requires. I left criminal practice because I couldn't. But they are not the villains and liars of the justice system; they are its ethical heroes. Their zeal in making sure that citizens lose their freedom only when there is strong evidence to justify it protects all of us! The attorneys in this case do not deserve everyone’s wrath. It is sad.

Sorry for the rant...

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by Bruce's_Mom

I am sad as an attorney about all of the negative comments about the defense attorneys simply because they are defending someone that is from all appearances guilty. The fact that so many people are perplexed by this means that my profession has flunked in its obligation to protect its role in crucial Constitutional rights by making sure that this role is understood.

I no longer take criminal cases but I have and I have done so knowing in my heart of hearts the person was guilty (though I never would ask because I could not knowingly put on false evidence) and today some of my dearest friends are criminal defense attorneys that defend guilty people all the time. It is not so much that I or these people believe guilty people should go free. To the contrary, it is that we believe in our legal system when it works properly and that we want it to work properly for innocent people. At the time the U.S. was founded the founders wanted a free and just society as a result they wisely decided on a system that required the government to prove that an individual had committed a crime to the satisfaction of an unbiased jury. Not only that: they decided that a very high standard should be applied in determining legal guilt: "beyond a reasonable doubt," or near certainty because it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer. To achieve this goal it means you have to keep the government honest: no convictions based on false or planted evidence, unreliable or lying witnesses, or confessions extracted from the accused by torture, beatings, or other forms of duress…even if the accused is, in fact guilty. All that is essential for the system to work. If we permit the government to cheat in order to imprison a guilty individual, we have no way to stop it from cheating to imprison an innocent one.

Regardless of whether a l lawyer's client is guilty of the crime she is being tried for or wrongly accused, the defense attorney's job doesn't change: make the prosecution prove its case with sound arguments, real evidence, and reliable testimony. In a sense, the real client of a defense attorney isn't truly the defendant at all but the integrity of democracy and the justice system.

Criminal defense attorneys have an unimaginably difficult task, as stressful and emotionally challenging as any job on earth. It doesn't produce satisfaction or joy when defense attorneys see their guilty criminal clients go free. But unless defense attorneys do their jobs well enough that this can happen when the prosecution or jury don't perform their duties, a system that often doesn’t work could not ever work. Individuals accused of crimes would become helpless, completely dependent on the good faith and competence of police and prosecutors. Even when defense attorneys give zealous representation we know innocent people are sent to jail even death row. Look at what happened in Illinois!!!

Many attorneys can't handle the complex ethical balancing that criminal defense work requires. I left criminal practice because I couldn't. But they are not the villains and liars of the justice system; they are its ethical heroes. Their zeal in making sure that citizens lose their freedom only when there is strong evidence to justify it protects all of us! The attorneys in this case do not deserve everyone’s wrath. It is sad.

Sorry for the rant...

The comments I made I was trying to get at this exact sentiment...I hope nothing I said made you feel the opposite. What kind of law are you practicing now?

[Bruce's_Mom]

No not you at all...It is more the "how could anyone ever do that job," and the implication of what sort of person would, and "god I cannot believe tax payers are paying for this defense," and "oh they just want to write books." These are common arguments I here around the courthouse every day so it is obvious lawyers are poor at communicating what their job is and why they do it...

To answer your question my primary practice now is family law focused on domestic violence protection and child advocacy in dependency court, I represent kids in actions seeking to severe their parents' parental rights or foster kids that need access to social services.

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by Bruce's_Mom

No not you at all...It is more the "how could anyone ever do that job," and the implication of what sort of person would, and "god I cannot believe tax payers are paying for this defense," and "oh they just want to write books." These are common arguments I here around the courthouse every day so it is obvious lawyers are poor at communicating what their job is and why they do it...

To answer your question my primary practice now is family law focused on domestic violence protection and child advocacy in dependency court, I represent kids in actions seeking to severe their parents' parental rights or foster kids that need access to social services.

And still, you admire those who can stomach criminal defense...I can't imagine the cases you come across with respect to child advocacy and domestic violence. I would probably lose a lot of sleep and it would definitely end up affecting my personal life. I wish I had your strength. Thank you for what you do.

[Bruce's_Mom]

btw please excuse my prior spelling and grammar errors...Smart phones and auto correct not my friend.

[gidget529]

Bruces Mom: I cannot speak to others' posts, but I will speak on my own negative comments of Mr. Baez. I do not believe Mr. Baez is providing an adequate, let alone zealous, defense for his client. I am not the only person who has questioned Mr. Baez's motives or ability.

Just as one example, Mr. Baez failed to file motion to dismiss jailhouse video in time to meet court deadlines, then went on to object the playing of said video right before it is played in the courtroom. Judge admonished Mr. Baez for not filing in time to meet deadline. Mr. Baez cited not enough time as the reason. The judge then aptly pointed out there are 4 to 5 attys present on that side of the table. Just one of Mr. Baez's foibles.

As for the book penning, Marsha Clark (prosecuting atty) pocketed millions on her book about the OJ trial.

Unfortunately, as in any profession, not all of our colleagues put forth as much effort in schooling, practice their craft with the same level of competency, or operate in the same realm of pure motives. I have a dear friend who is a defense atty, whom I have been very impressed with professionally. I am sure he is able to file motions to meet court deadlines, provide a zealous defense of his clients, and know when to walk away from a case. We have the same problems in my professional field, healthcare. You probably know the old saying, "What do call a man who graduated last in his class in med school? Doctor."

I hope you will implore your colleagues to practice at the same level of excellence you strive to attain; however, I am afraid we will both find disappointments in our colleagues who do not share our pure motives and pursuit of excellence.

[gidget529]

I'm sorry, early in the am. I meant to say "motion to supress" not "motion to dismiss" video.

I'm off to get more caffeine!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Bruce's_Mom

No not you at all...It is more the "how could anyone ever do that job," and the implication of what sort of person would, and "god I cannot believe tax payers are paying for this defense," and "oh they just want to write books." These are common arguments I here around the courthouse every day so it is obvious lawyers are poor at communicating what their job is and why they do it...

To answer your question my primary practice now is family law focused on domestic violence protection and child advocacy in dependency court, I represent kids in actions seeking to severe their parents' parental rights or foster kids that need access to social services.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this, once I learned that a defense attorney was more of a legal advocate protecting a person’s rights to a fair trial as protected by the constitution, and not someone trying to prove someone innocent, I more fully understood their job, but I’ve never been able to explain this to anyone else, and you did a marvelous job.

Got to ask you, since you represent children, doesn't it drive you insane, when you KNOW the parents are guilty, and some attorney is misleading the judge just to win the case, even though he/she knows it will be harmful to the children?