Without Prejudice

Casey Anthony’s defense team has filed a lot of motions; too many to some, but plenty of them have been denied without prejudice by the presiding judge. With prejudice and without are fairly cut and dry. With prejudice means that once a judge rules, that’s the end of it; dead in the water, leave it alone and give it a rest. In other words, it’s a final disposition. Without prejudice means that the present form is not good enough to rule positively on, but the motion can certainly be filed again after tweaking and rewriting it. In other words, similar, but not identical. It leaves a party free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action. That’s not to say the latter outcome would be any different, but it leaves the door open for further explanation and review. A lot of the motions ruled against the defense by Judge Stan Strickland were ordered without prejudice. In my opinion, one of the reasons why Jose & Co. wanted him off the bench was made clear after Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. took over. Many of those motions turned down by Judge Strickland were refiled. They expected the new judge to be more favorable in his rulings. Unfortunately for Casey, Judge Perry didn’t overturn a single one of them, so they did nothing to help her cause.

In light of Judge Strickland’s rulings, I want to discuss something that’s been weighing on my mind - without prejudice, of course. Actually, there are two things, the other one being George and Cindy and where they sit in the courtroom; but first, I come to Judge Strickland’s defense - not that he needs it or anything.

Of late, I have been reading comments on blogs, including my own; personal testimonials that praise Judge Perry for keeping this trial on track; that he is expediting the schedule. Consequently, and because of him, the trial will start on time - his time. That’s simply not true. Not to take away from him or his regimented structuring at all, but the facts in this case are, in fact, facts, and facts don’t lie. Just where has Judge Perry sped up the process as it relates to deadlines and the like?

On March 5, 2010, just over a year ago, Judge Strickland affixed his name to an amended order setting deadlines. It’s titled [the] AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY, MOTION and HEARING DEADLINES and TRIAL DATE. On February 7 of this year, Judge Perry wrote his ORDER MEMORIALIZING STATUS HEARING. Please make a mental note that these are orders written by both judges.

Judge Strickland wrote: Depositions of law enforcement officers or employees shall be completed by September 30, 2010.

Judge Perry wrote: Depositions of Law Enforcement Persons: Defense anticipates completion of all depositions by the February 18,2011 deadline.

That’s a four-and-one-half month discrepancy, folks, and Judge Strickland stepped down six weeks after his deadline order. Who reset the deadline? Please understand that this, in no manner, disparages Judge Perry. This is a complex death penalty case and tentative deadlines are meant to be broken. Recently, a very prominent attorney told me, “So much misinformation is out there,” and this stretches beyond the mundane aspects of this case.

Another good example of this is Judge Strickland’s original deadline for the depositions of defense expert witnesses. The date he set was February 28, 2011. Judge Perry extended it a bit to March 11, 2011 for the final one - Dr. Werner Spitz.

On a side note, we now know Dr. Spitz will argue that Dr. G’s autopsy results are flawed. We will look more into this aspect at a later date, but meanwhile…

Judge Perry said, by hook or by crook, this trial will commence to start on May 9, 2011. It’s etched in stone, but lest you think that he is speeding up what the defense tries to set back, guess again. While Judge Perry keeps both sides on course, it was Judge Strickland who set the trial date of May 9, 2011. I show you Exhibit A, right on schedule:

I remember when I told readers of my blog that I was going to attend my first hearing. It was back in mid-October, 2009. Everyone told me to sit on the prosecution side. If you sit on the defense side, it means you support the defense. I said, no it doesn’t, this isn’t like a wedding, where friends of the bride and groom sit on their respective sides. Oh yes it does, I was lectured. Well, I’ve always been the independent sort, and I told them I will sit wherever I want. It so happens that upon entering the courtroom, the only seat available was next to George and Cindy on the, you guessed it, defense side. That awarded me the opportunity to say a few words to George when the hearing was over, and I’m glad I did. As a writer, I try to remain neutral, although it’s downright impossible at times.

Nowadays, almost all I ever read, over and over and over again, is that because George, Cindy and Lee sit behind their daughter, it means they have “thrown their granddaughter under the bus.” They are not interested in justice for Caylee. At all. That brings me to one very important thought. It’s actually two separate pieces of the whole, but I think it’s worth pondering. No, I am not setting this in stone; let’s just say it’s a fresh perspective that most people haven’t given much thought to, if any at all. Please keep in mind that keeping an open mind usually means everything is not always hidden behind Door Number One. Answers can come from anywhere, and they usually do.

Suppose the Anthonys are seeking justice for their grandchild, but they just don’t like the fact that the state of Florida wants to kill Casey. Hey, life is okay, but death? No matter what your child has done, and I want you to think hard and heavy about this, would you beg the state to kill your child? No matter what? If you honestly answer no, then you will you understand why they refuse to support the prosecution. THEY WANT TO KILL MY DAUGHTER!!! To be realistic, I doubt that you could execute your own child. I couldn’t, because…

Personally, I am against the death penalty. My beliefs are my own and so are my reasons, but if you ask me why I feel the way I do, I will gladly explain my position. With that in mind, has anyone EVER asked George and Cindy what their positions are on the death penalty? If not, what if they feel the same way I do? Why would they want to support the state by sitting behind them? I wouldn’t if it were my child, but she’s not, and it’s not my call.

Think about how you would feel as poison flows into your child’s veins. Without prejudice, of course.

Comments

[Peggy222]

Nan, I believe that Cindy and George loved Caylee, that can never be disputed. But I also believe that Cindy made things worse in that household by not loving Caylee too much but not reigning Casey in. She saw what she was doing, the stealing the lies but she put her head in the sand and did nothing. What should she have done? Well. she could have had her committed and or arrested. She had enough reason to do so. Casey is the reason Caylee is no longer alive but Cindy did play a role in it by acting the way she did not only toward to Casey but Caylee too. Casey was so jealous of Caylee and the love the not only she gave to Cindy but the love Cindy gave to Caylee.

[SassyBass]

Dave, thank you for welcoming me to this great forum.

I can’t remember if this has been addressed or discussed. Is it a consideration that Casey may cop an insanity plea? If the trial is going so horribly for the defense, is this a possibility?

My pleasure, SassyBass. Pull up a chair and relax.

Casey cannot cop an insanity plea. She was examined in the beginning, and it's downright impossible to get away with in the state of Florida. Now, if she's convicted, her frame of mind can be discerned during the penalty phase.

[BMan]

Feathers :-)

I obviously over-shot your post and i love reading what you have to say. I love and respect your perspective but, if i may, let me ask you this: i agree, at the 50,000ft level, that the DP is not a deterent but how is LWOP a deterent. I understand that cost issue but most of the costs are largely in relation of appeals and things like that not so much the actual DP.

IMO, and i am not trying to advocate the DP by any means, but i think those who are given the DP become kinda complacent?? They have seen and come to expect some sort of reprieve while many of them live a life that can be enriched by education, there are friendships made, there is a sense of "outside normalcy"?? I would sumize that many of their victims werent allowed such a gift??

Nice to see you land here too 8-)

[Feathers]

BMan, you speak wisely, and I don't disagree. I would have wanted the mother to be free.

Dave, let's hope beyond hope that by the time this trial ends, there won't be another child much like Caylee to so capture our hearts.

If Casey does get the Death Penalty, then, so be it.

How sad it is that there are such things to write about.

Amen to that, Feathers.

[Sempre Invictus]

Hi Dave - Great article. About the with or without prejudice. If a judge makes a ruling with prejudice, can't either side file an immediate appeal?

As for what would I do if in the Anthony's situation? I am very much opposed to the death penalty, but I honestly don't think that would make any difference one way or the other if my child was facing the DP. I would sit on the defense side, even if I knew she had murdered my grandchild. And I can assure you, as their daytime caregiver, I have spent more hours with my daughter's children than most, and love them with all my heart. I would hate what she had done, it would be very hard to forgive her, but I could never stop loving her. And would most certainly not wish her dead or leave anyone with the impression that I did. As a parent or grandparent, it would not be my job to see that justice was served. I would leave that up to the prosecution, the defense the judge and the jury. My job would be to demonstrate my love for my child, even if she had failed to do so with her own.

However, I would never lie for her. I would never attempt to frame another person for her. I would never belittle others who did not share my love for her.I would never publicly declare her innocence and attack people for doing their job in making certain that the person who killed my grandchild was held accountable. Even if that person was my child.

I thank God I am not in the Anthony's position, that I am afforder the luxury of thinking I could love my child no matter what; and I pray that my children would never do such a thing to on of their children. I honestly have never worried about such a thing happening, Most parents haven't either. But, I think all of the signs were present in this particular situation, and the Anthony's failed to respond. Most of the time, when something like this occurs, there are a lot of things that pointed to a pending disaster when viewed in retrospect. I'm sure that guilt is something the Anthony's will have to live with for many years to come. But one thing they will not have to regret, and that is failing to "stand" behind their daughter while she was facing death. - VK

Wow, VK, what a great comment. It's honest, pragmatic and written from the heart. I hope everyone reads it.

As for the motion ruling denied with prejudice, no, there's not really any sort of appeal. With prejudice means you can not pursue this matter again. Any sort of appeal would have to take place post conviction, at the appellate level, but generally, when a judge rules with prejudice, it's not something that would warrant a new trial.

Thanks, you're comment was well thought out, and it's great to see you.

[Feathers]

BMan, it's sad to say but life without parole is no more a deterrent than is the DP.

I have refrained from expressing my innermost views on this because I am most troubled by them, if not even ashamed of myself for thinking such things, but, the only possible deterrent there might be, as far as I can see, would require cold blooded killers to be killed in the same manner in which they killed. To cause them the same fear and suffering they caused another might cause some to think twice. It sounds as barbaric as it is impossible, doesn't it? And as I said, I so hate to think such things.

You are so kind. Too kind, actually; and most certainly continue to give me far more credit than it is I deserve, though I no less than thank you for it, as you continue to cause me not only to think but to search my soul.

You know, when my child was born severely disabled and with such a horrific cardiac anomaly that his life expectancy was a mere matter of minutes all eyes were upon me. I had to make a split second decision to fight for his life or to let him die, and of course it was suggested by those who knew far better than I that it would probably be best to just let him go, so that his life wouldn't be such a constant struggle. Was it selfish of me to choose that we would fight for his life as constantly compromised as it is? Was that fair to him? Did I choose life over death for the benefit of him or for the benefit of myself so that I wouldn't have to suffer the loss of one whom I loved and love so much?

As such are the thoughts that you have caused me to ponder, and I am most grateful to you for causing me such wonder. You have caused me to search and so that I know beyond any of the doubts that have ever crept into my mind from time to time, when his life itself seems sometimes unfair, that I chose life for him, and not for myself. I allowed him his right to all of his moments of laughter, all of his own moments of wonder, all of his own contented moments of being so loved and so loving. He wouldn't have missed any of those moments for all of the world, yet can I fully understand the love of a mother who would end her child's suffering, and I would not, could not, fault her.

You are indeed a very wise soul.

[BMan]

:*-( Feathers,

To have such a decision i could never phathom, never...being that my childen are as young as they are i can easily remember the day they were born and being the first to hold them and oooops my Kyle just peed all over the duty nurse which was sooo funny cause it got on her face shield but i remember it like it was yesterday and just looking upon each of them with my hopes and dreams exactly what you were probably doing when your decision for life was made. To put that in your hand you are essentially playing God?? I think if i were in your shoes i'd made the same decision and would have emotional conflicts about the decision??

However, when i then view the sitution at hand, like you in your first paragraph, i'm confused and often have my own inner conflicts cause I'd want to live, as a child I'd want my parents to want me to live but the sitution differs from most...Like you said, there was an overabundance of lies, pointing fingers and not accepting that their daughter has become the proverbial monster. I take nothing away from the Anthony's as they are doing what society would expect them to do; stand by their daughter.

But to me that is the operative word is "by". When i watch the Anthony's, and i dont get the opportunity to do so very often as its not reallly discussed in Colo. and i avoid the computer on the weekends but i digress; the Anthony's are not standing "by" their daughter, they are standing behind their daughter (in the adjetive sense of the word). They believe that KC didnt murder their granddaughter!! Once they accept that she killed Caylee then, and only then, are they standing by...JMO

I assure you and other people who read this post that if KC would've came out and admitted to the world that she killed KC by accident or out of anger i'm pretty sure i wouldnt be arguing the DP as, like you, i would choose life.

I am no wise soul though but appreciate the kind sentiment :-)

[Ginny]

I am having a hard time knowing why any of the 3 family members did not report Caylee missing immediately. It shows me that all 3 of them (Casey, George and Cindy) had some kind of involvement in this crime.