Cheney Mason Jars the Truth, By George!

It’s hard to believe that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first-degree murder three years ago, but she was. My coverage of the case began in November of 2008 and continued in earnest until the verdict. That’s when it ended. Many people wanted me to resume writing about her — the lawsuits and bankruptcy — but my job was finished. Those news stories were of little relevancy to me, so I never wrote about her again. Until now. Something (or someone) has piqued my interest. Most assuredly, it must be of major importance to stir me from my restful, peaceful, crime-free, post-Zimmerman Rip Van Winklish sleep, right? Yes, and it’s Cheney Mason. Just as the Casey Anthony saga began with a flurry of horrible lies, the nest of iniquity continues.

Certainly, I have reasons to seek vengeance on those who took down the presiding judge at my expense, but I’m not a begrudging type, and the years have softened my stance to some extent. Jose Baez apologized years ago. It was nothing personal against me, he said, but he didn’t feel Casey could get a fair trial, especially in light of the check fraud pleas. That’s a different story and I understand more about the incident after years of study and reflection; however, I firmly believe the idea was the brainchild of a vindictive Cheney Mason. Mason had it in for Judge Stan Strickland and you are just going to have to trust me on it with no further explanation at this time. Asking the judge to recuse himself from this case is not the reason why I decided to pick up my pen. It’s to set the record straight over what I consider to be a persistent and perpetuating lie perpetrated by Mason — that poor, little Casey is innocent of any and all wrongdoing, and that the media and prosecution are guilty of everything. 

In his book, Presumed Guilty | Casey Anthony: The Inside Story, Baez wrote:

Casey and I had discussed her sexual abuse, and I felt it was only a matter of time before she would tell me the truth about what happened to Caylee.

This was immediately followed by:

The day I had a major breakthrough with Casey came in the early months of 2009 […]

He continues to explain what Casey told him about the drowning and her father’s involvement:

“Don’t worry. I won’t tell anyone. I’m taking care of it. Don’t say a word of this to anyone, especially your mother,” and he walked away.

Believe what you want. My point is that for over two years, until the onset of the trial in downtown Orlando, her defense team maintained an oblivious facade about the cause of Caylee’s death, and the public and many facets of the media were eschewing whatever Baez, et al, spit out. If she was so innocent, why not come forward much sooner than the trial? To be Nancy Grace-like, it would have been a BOMBSHELL and it would have sent the prosecution reeling into a downward, spiraling tizzy… momentarily, at least, until it had a chance to regroup. Instead, the young woman sat in jail from October 14, 2008 to July 17, 2011.

(I think it’s important to remind you, before I go on, that Baez was not death penalty qualified, so Mason was hired, pro-bono, in March of 2010, a year before Casey opened her mouth about the death of her daughter, as cited above. Mason had collaborated with Baez prior to officially joining the defense, too, so he was aware of his new client’s alibi and the accusation of sexual abuse. Unfortunately for George Anthony, he was going to be the defense scapegoat and he didn’t have a clue. If I was a minor target, George was huge.)

§

Presently, I know precisely what Mason is spewing. It’s called marketing propaganda and he’s doing it to promote his new book, Justice in America: How the Media and Prosecutors Stack the Deck Against the Accused due out soon. I think it’s important and fair to first note that Mason does come with credentials. He’s a highly regarded veteran of criminal defense trials, as CNN’s Jean Casarez just pointed out in her interview with him, What life is like for Casey Anthony, updated July 4:

A former president of the Florida Association of Criminal Lawyers, Mason, who just that year had been selected by Florida Monthly magazine as one of Florida’s top lawyers, was disgusted with the local media coverage about the relatively inexperienced Baez.

That’s great. What a hero. Definitely, Baez was treated with contempt by the public and press, but it came with the territory of representing the most reviled woman in America and Baez knew that. What he needed was help forming a strong and capable defense, not a pompous ass press secretary/superhero. For now, though, let’s continue with the version Casarez wrote and elicited from Mason:

Shortly before jury selection was to begin, Mason got word that Anthony’s handwritten letters describing sexual abuse at the hands of her father were going to be made public under Florida’s open records law.

He believed it was only right that Anthony’s parents, George and Cindy, were warned. He called them to his office late on a Friday afternoon.

“We had them one at a time come into my personal office and made the announcement: ‘Monday’s going to be a bad day for you George. I felt man to man I would tell you in advance.”“

Mason said George Anthony’s reaction was “basically none.” “He looked at me … I turned sideways a little bit, he clapped his hands down on his thighs — let out a big sigh but didn’t say anything,” Mason said.

“He never admitted doing anything,” Mason said. “All we had were the letters and (separately) the statements Casey had made to the psychiatrist.”

According to Mason, he then called Cindy in to inform her.

Next it was Cindy Anthony’s turn. “We called Mom in, Cindy, and told her and she immediately welled up with emotion, cried, was very upset,” Mason said.

This is not what I recall from my experience with the case. Please note that Mason said George and Cindy Anthony went to his personal office after he got word, yet in his book, Baez wrote something contrary to Mason’s revelation.

Two psychiatrists evaluated Casey for the defense, Drs. Jeffrey Danziger and William Weitz. Danziger was initially appointed by the court in 2008 following her arrest. For the defense, he met with her four times in November and December of 2010. Weitz conducted two interviews in February and March of 2011. According to Baez:

After the prosecution took the depositions of the two psychiatrists, both sides agreed they should be sealed because they contained medical information as it related to Casey’s mental health, and there were issues of sexual abuse by George and Lee, which was protected under state law. Perry immediately sealed them, saying that he wanted to review them before deciding whether they should remain sealed.

Baez continued:

A couple of days later, Cindy called me to say she and George had an appointment the next day at the state attorney general’s office to discuss the depositions of the shrinks.

I lost it. I smelled the skullduggery of Ashton and immediately contacted Perry, telling him that the state was planning to meet with the Anthonys to discuss the information that he had sealed. 

Perry had a clear response: “Sealed means sealed.” Despite this clear message from the judge, the prosecution went ahead and had its meeting anyway. That was the arrogance of Ashton, whose attitude was, “I can do anything I want because I can get away with it.”

And get away with it he did.

In fact, according to Baez, the prosecution didn’t show the Anthonys the depositions, it showed them the notes they took during the depositions:

[…] The benefit to the prosecution by making sure the Anthonys found out what was in the shrinks’ depositions, of course, was that when the Anthonys found out that Casey was revealing George’s sexual abuse, they would turn on Casey, no longer support her, and became [sic] state-friendly witnesses.

I thought Cheney was going to have a heart attack. […]

This is proof that Mason did not individually call George and Cindy into his office to “warn” them. Instead, Baez warned Mason about what the Anthonys learned from prosecutors. But wait! There’s more…

Before Presumed Guilty was released, then assistant state attorney Jeff Ashton published his book, Imperfect Justice | Prosecuting Casey Anthony. He had something to say about this matter, too, and it offers a third view, far removed from Cheney Mason’s.  Beginning on page 215:

Even though the witnesses had been withdrawn [Danziger and Weitz], Linda [Drane Burdick], Frank [George] and I wondered how much of this George and Cindy knew. Just because the defense had dropped the witnesses didn’t mean they were abandoning the argument completely. There was still a chance that George could be dragged into this.

One evening around the time that all this was happening, Mark Lippman, the attorney who by then was representing George and Cindy, filed a strange press release. It said something to the effect that George Anthony had nothing to do with the disappearance of Caylee.

Ashton contacted Lippman, assuming that Baez had spilled the beans:

Mark told me that a few days earlier, Baez had asked for a meeting with just Cindy. When she arrived at his office, Baez, Dorothy Sims, and Ann Finnell via the phone were waiting for her with important news. Baez proceeded to tell Cindy that Casey had authorized him to say that Caylee had died at the house and that her death had been an accident. Baez also told Cindy that the state was investigating George’s involvement with Caylee’s death. Baez claimed that the authorities had information from a witness who said that George’s phone records held valuable clues.

I was speechless. Poor Mark only knew the tip of the iceberg. It was the cruelest thing I have ever seen an attorney do. […] To tell this grieving woman…

To say that Ashton was outraged would be an understatement. This is what pushed him to tell the Anthonys the whole story — to warn them.

I told Mark we weren’t investigating George, although sadly, there was more bad news. But I had to get back to him about it. Linda and I discussed the best way to handle the therapists’ reports and we decided to invite Mark, Cindy, and George to our office. I gave Mark a call.

“Are they saying that George disposed of the body?” He responded by telling Lippman it was worse than that. 

When Baez found out that Cindy was coming to our office to see what the doctors had said, he immediately shot off an e-mail to Judge Perry, essentially accusing us of violating Perry’s order.

Linda said that Judge Perry’s order indicated only that the transcripts would not be made public documents; it never restricted our ability to investigate the story, and there was no way we were going to let Jose’s lies go unchallenged. Baez would later attack us on this point, but the judge agreed with us.

The prosecutors decided to discuss their notes and recollections with the Anthonys since the depositions were, in fact, sealed. Caylee’s grandparents needed to know the truth about what was actually going on, despite the inherent risk of possible witness tampering accusations.

George and Cindy were visibly upset when they arrived at the state attorneys office, Ashton pointed out.

Before the meeting, we’d told Mark that we would speak to him privately and share what we knew with him. Then it would be up to him to decide what to tell the Anthonys. We put George and Cindy in the conference room and took Mark into the office with us.

Lippman heard the entire story…

Mark left and went to the conference room to talk to the Anthonys for what seemed like twenty to thirty minutes. Linda and I were in a nearby conference room when Mark came to find us. Cindy and George had questions, and we accompanied him back to the conference room. Cindy was sitting at the table just looking down. George was next to her, his face bright red. Cindy looked angry. George looked like he had been crying, like someone had just killed Caylee all over again. He was just devastated.

“I just want you to know that none of this is true,” George said to us.

Cindy patted him on the hand and said, “It’s okay, George. Nobody believes this.”

His words would catch in his throat as he assured us one more time, “I just want you to know that everything I told you is the truth and I am not changing any of it.”

I remember Cindy saying something like, “I don’t know what’s wrong with her,” referring to Casey. At least she was finally willing to admit that there was something not right about Casey. How it would affect her testimony at trial, though, was anyone’s guess.

There you have it. The rest is history. But is Cheney Mason rewriting the history books to glorify himself? To give himself most of the credit for saving poor, innocent, child-like Casey? Sometimes, certainly in this case, when someone keeps telling himself the same thing over and over and over again, he begins to believe it. Mason is, after all, one of Florida’s BEST attorneys, as I’m sure he would quickly remind us and his mirror. And if Washington chopped down the cherry tree, he chopped down the giant Ashton tree. And didn’t tell a lie. Yes, man-to-man, he gently pulled George into his office to softly break the news. What a kind and compassionate father figure. Only, I wouldn’t buy a used lemon from the man.

The amazon.com Website promo intro of Mason’s book says, “He shares never before revealed media bias, and enough case secrets to make readers re-examine their conscience and the quick path to judgment and personal conviction of Anthony.”

I am deeply concerned about the honesty of those “case secrets,” especially coming from a man with so much documented bias against the media. Until he needs to use us.

§ 

I think it’s important to mention something more enlightening about the defense psychiatrists, Drs. Danziger and Weitz. They were most likely removed as witnesses out of fear that the judge would have granted the state their own psychiatrist, who would have interviewed their client. That would have been problematic for Casey and the entire defense. It’s also necessary to say that Danziger was highly uncomfortable with being a mouthpiece for these “very, very serious allegations against someone in a situation where there is no other evidence he actually did anything.” (Imperfect Justice, Page 210.)

Voir Dire Straits

George Zimmerman enters the court room on the fifth day of jury selection for his trial in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla., Friday June 14, 2013. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel, Pool)

A lot could be said about the first week of jury selection in the George Zimmerman trial, but I will spare you most of the somewhat boring and quite tedious details. I must tell you that it’s an intense study into the human psyche. Some of those interviewed seemed to beg for the chance to sit on the jury; as if to say (quietly) OUT LOUD that there could be a book deal down the road. At least, that’s the perception made by some of my media peers.

There’s also the matter over knowledge of the case. No one in Sanford, let alone all of Central Florida, is expected to be mentally blind to the tragic shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. To deny knowing anything about it is to be so out of tune with current events, it’s close to incompetency. Or it’s a giant lie — obviously knowing more than one would admit to. Either way, this is the type of pre-trial publicity questioning that should qualify or disqualify a prospective juror. It’s like sifting through the weeds of a garden to get to the root vegetables; like carrots hidden under a lush layer of rich soil, waiting to be plucked and added to the recipe now simmering inside the Seminole County Courthouse.

When making a good stew, one must be very careful about the ingredients added. Too much salt is not good. Neither is too much pepper…. which leads me to a working segue — one of the potential jury prospects — E-7, a white male in his 50s with salt & pepper hair and a goatee. Soon after questioning began, I turned to the person to my left, a woman from ABC network news, and whispered that I recognized him from somewhere; like we had met or something. I couldn’t place him then and still can’t.

Initially, I thought he was quite smart and open. He seemed pretty square and strong in his tenets. I noticed he was a bit adversarial while facing Bernie de la Rionda, but he said he liked playing the role of devil’s advocate. OK, fine, but when Don West questioned him, I began to feel a bit leery and said so in my notations. I wrote that he was a bit cocky and sure of himself. Something about his earnest sincerity began to unravel. Here’s a guy who stated that he watches both FOX and MSNBC. Open minded? At first glance, yes, it appeared that way, yet he paid no attention to either side. That didn’t compute in my head. He was someone, I wrote, who says he knows nothing, but he “knows too much, perhaps. Or a know it all.”

The final thing I wrote was “I don’t think so,” meaning, he will not sit on the jury. 

When he left the courtroom after questioning, I was surprised when the judge called him back to ask about a comment made on Facebook. Did he write it? No need to explain why. Just say yes or no. He admitted to it and I knew right then and there he was doomed. This man, Jerry Patrick Counelis, is a pathetic human being. Sick. Everyone from both sides wants this to be a fair trial. Counelis tried to infiltrate the jury; to force his pro-Martin agenda on everyone else. Had he been selected, it would have been a terrible blow to justice.

Two days later, Counelis returned to the courthouse to express his concern over the lack of anonymity and privacy during the selection process. Huh? He was only happy to be questioned publicly Wednesday after leaving the courthouse. He gladly appeared on local and national television later that day and night and he has concern over WHAT? When I stopped for coffee at my local 7-Eleven on Thursday morning, an employee told me he was interviewed right in the parking only the day before. Because he protested loudly at the courthouse on Friday, kicking and screaming and attempting to get back to the jury room, he was trespassed until the end of the trial. In my opinion, a trespass was not enough. Instead, the man should have been arrested on the spot and held without bond until the end of the trial; then tried in criminal court. On what charges? Whatever could legally be thrown at him. He is the epitome of social immorality. Thankfully, he was caught by someone from the defense side and was stopped dead in his tracks. Imagine the dire consequences…

On Thursday, E-81 took center stage. She was an attractive woman who told de la Rionda that she thought Zimmerman was innocent. One of the first things that caught my mind was a simple statement that came out of her mouth. Trayvon Martin wasn’t beat up like George Zimmerman. He was dressed like a street fighter. Duh… he only had a bullet in his heart.

She made up things as she went along. Zimmerman had blood on his clothing. Down his collar and on shirt. Trayvon was a pot smoker. Guns. Street fighting. Parents weren’t aware he was going down the wrong path. George was just doing his job at neighborhood watch. Drugs made Trayvon aggressive. George was protecting his neighborhood.

She told de la Rionda she wouldn’t be able to erase it from her mind, which was pretty well made up. She told him she was quite educated. I laughed under my breath. Every American has a right to protect themselves. The more armed people; the better. She admitted she wanted to donate money to the Zimmerman defense, but didn’t.

When O’Mara took over the questioning, she mellowed to a good extent. Where she had been more adversarial to de la Rionda, she was amenable to the cordial defense attorney. When prompted, she said she could follow evidence and court instructions. If Martin’s alleged street fighting is “not presented at trial, she would not consider it,” she added. She said she had “no real concerns about leaving opinions out of the equation,” I didn’t believe her one bit and made note of it. 

Baloney! She sways in the breeze, but is fervent in her beliefs. I am convinced of it.

She was summarily dismissed later on.

This leads me to a very interesting and important part of jury selection. How many strikes does each side get? When we broke for lunch that day, someone sitting on the public side addressed the possibility that the defense was forcing the state to use one of their strikes on E-81. After all, she seemed to be more neutral by the time O’Mara was finished questioning her, but was she, and did it really matter? A local legal analyst said that the Defense had the State on the run, but was it true? Or was it merely another opinion formed by a criminal defense attorney turned temporary legal analyst?

In the state of Florida, one of the frequent questions concerns challenges from each side. This is directly from an e-mail sent out from the Court Services Administrator/PIO to all credentialed journalists:

Q. How many challenges does each side have in jury selection?
A. Because this charge is punishable by life in prison, each side will have 10 peremptory challenges and unlimited challenges for cause. Challenges are also commonly referred to as strikes.

Law.com describes peremptory as:

[T]he right of the plaintiff and the defendant in a jury trial to have a juror dismissed before trial without stating a reason. This challenge is distinguished from a “challenge for cause” (reason) based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties or their attorney, personal knowledge about the facts, or some other basis for believing he/she might not be impartial. The number of peremptory challenges for each side will differ based on state law, the number of parties to a case, and whether it is a civil or criminal trial. The usual phrasing used by lawyers exercising the challenge is “Juror number seven may be excused.”

§

While I’m on a legal roll, let me continue by explaining why there are six jurors on this case:

Florida Statute 913.10 
Number of jurors. — Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases. History.—s. 191, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(198); s. 87, ch. 70-339. 

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

In an 1898 ruling, the Court wrote, “a jury comprised of 12 persons, neither more or less” was a requirement. If that’s the law of the land, then what happened? Why six? In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the Court reconsidered the size of a jury and affirmed the criminal robbery conviction made by six people. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment says nothing about jury size. From hence on, it rejected the earlier decision and held that six was sufficient to satisfy the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, which, in part, states that:

[…] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In 1979, the Court again visited the issue of jury size and unanimity. In Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979), they found that Louisiana law which allowed criminal convictions on 5-1 votes by a six-person jury had violated the Sixth Amendment (along with the Fourteenth Amendment) right of defendants to a trial by jury. In a state criminal trial:

We thus have held that the Constitution permits juries of less than 12 members, but that it requires at least 6.  And we have approved the use of certain nonunanimous verdicts in cases involving 12-person juries… This case lies at the intersection of our decisions concerning jury size and unanimity… But having already departed from the strictly historical requirements of jury trial, it is inevitable that lines must be drawn somewhere if the substance of the jury trial right is to be preserved.

In other words, if a jury is to be as small as six, the verdict must be unanimous. Therefore, in Zimmerman’s case, a guilty verdict can only be rendered unanimously or not a all.

§

I will have more to write about this case as the trial progresses. This coming week should prove to be much more exciting than the first one, although I do find the whole thing to be quite fascinating and educational.

There are questions I am asked during this tedious process I sometimes have trouble answering. One, for example, is about George Zimmerman. What does he look like in court? What are his expressions? I can tell you this. I sit behind the Defense. All journalists do. I cannot see George’s face unless he turns sideways. I occasionally put the live feed on one of my iPads, but it’s a battery drainer; however, I do have my spy, code name Pea Pod, who keeps me informed while I stare at the back of Zimmerman’s head. For those of you who cannot watch the trial, he is more animated now than he was during the hearings. He must be! Potential jurors are watching. He is taking notes and smiling. He is paying close attention to details. This is very normal. Jodi Arias was transformed into a librarian by her attorneys. During the Casey Anthony trial, her seat was adjusted to its lowest elevation so she would appear to be too tiny to have murdered her child. Poor, poor, Casey; sitting next to Cheney Mason, who was much, much larger. He put his arms around her to comfort her; squeezing her shoulder. He patted her hands as they rested on the table. Pity, pity, pity party.

In Zimmerman’s case, he pretty much has to fend for himself, whether you like him or not. He weighs over 100 lbs more than the day he shot Trayvon. The jury must be made aware of that. While he most certainly will never be a demure librarian, he will never be a cop or judge, either — something he aspired to be — no matter what the verdict.

And Trayvon? Whatever some of you may think, he was not a 6’3” monster weighing over 180 lbs, and the jury isn’t going to hear that he was.

See also: Daily Kos

Casey Anthony: Not Very Appealing, Part 3

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

In POINT TWO of the appeal, Casey’s defense wrote that:

II. The Appellant’s constitutional rights were violated when she was convicted of four separate counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer because each count stemmed from the same single offense where there was no break in the temporal aspect of the crime.

In that sense, if I fire a bullet through the brain of someone (who dies, obviously) and, as it passes through my intended victim, kills the person standing immediately behind him; does that constitute two homicides but one murder charge because it was one bullet? After all, it stemmed from the same single offense. That’s the logic of this Appellant’s argument. The defense also argued Fla. Const. Article 1 §9:

”[…] that individuals are given ‘protection from multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense arising out of a single episode.’”

I completely disagree. First, let’s look at the testimony by law enforcement at Casey’s murder trial acknowledged by her defense:

TRIAL TESTIMONY

Corporal Rendon Fletcher:

“Corporal Fletcher relayed that the Appellant, after questioning, stated that her daughter was missing, in the custody of a nanny, and that the Apppellant was conducting her own search.” LIE #1.

Lieutenant Reginald Hosey (then Sergeant) and Officer Adriana Acevedo:

”[…] Officer Acevedo escorted the Appellant to the last stated location of the ‘nanny.’” LIE #2.

Hosey: “[…] after being escorted to the Sawgrass Apartments, […] the Appellant was led back into her residence…” LIE #3. There was never a Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez living at Sawgrass, in Apt. #210 or anywhere else. She led Hosey on a wild goose chase.

Detective Yuri Melich:

“The recorded statement by the Appellant stated that she worked at Universal Studios, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales was Caylee Anthony’s babysitter, and that the Appellant informed Jeffery Hopkins and Juliette Lewis of the disappearance of her child.” LIE #4.

You cannot simply lie to every law enforcement officer that comes down the pike and consider it one big lie. It may have been one in Casey’s mind, but each lie to each officer is a separate offense.

On March 12, 2009, I addressed the fraud charges filed against Casey by her onetime friend, Amy Huizenga, on a post titled Double Jeopardy. Casey stole and cashed her checks while she was out of town. Thirteen third-degree felony charges were filed in all. She was convicted of six and Judge Stan Strickland withheld adjudication on seven.

This applies today because the defense tried to do the same thing then; to count the separate charges as one. They failed. On The Wisdom of Solomon, dated January 10, 2010 - three years ago! - I wrote:

Judge Strickland gave the defense an opportunity to challenge the charges. We can discuss the lack of brevity or the levity of the arguments, but let’s cut to the chase - it came down to the judge. First, it should be noted that Casey had no prior convictions and she did make full restitution and  Baez did bring up “equal justice” for his client. He asked for one year of probation and credit for time served, rather than the five years of incarceration the State sought. In the end, His Honor sentenced the 23-year-old Casey to (jail) time served - 412 days - plus $5,517.75 in investigative costs and $348 for court. The amount may be discussed and negotiated at a later motion hearing because the defense found the investigative charge too high and not justifiable. He also adjudicated Casey guilty on six of the fraud counts and withheld adjudication on seven, plus he tacked on a year of supervised probation, which could be problematic and complex later on, given that she still faces a huge mountain of charges ahead. He said that he had given this a lot of thought prior to sentencing.

“There was not an even number of offenses, so I withheld in seven, I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is.

On each and every count, Casey must submit a DNA sample because she is now a convicted felon. There it is, the words everyone has been waiting for…convicted felon. Time to move on to the next chapter, but first, Casey apologized to Amy Huizenga.

“I’m sorry for what I did. I’d like to sincerely apologize to Amy. I wish I would have been a better friend.”

§

That same standard for double jeopardy applies today, as surely as the day I wrote it in the 2009 article based on those fraud charges:

In essence, Casey’s defense team points out that under law, she should be charged for one crime by one count. The defense also claims that charging her with multiple counts for the same act prejudices her, therefore the counts should be dismissed.

According to the motion, “Miss Anthony is guaranteed double jeopardy protection by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 9 and 17 of the Florida Constitution for duplicative charges.” Let’s take a look at what the law says:

I will leave the indentation out for now, but the following paragraphs are from my 2009 article:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Florida Constitution – Article 1, Sections 9 and 17

SECTION 9.  Due process.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

SECTION 17.  Excessive punishments.

Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the legislature. The prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, shall be construed in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court which interpret the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. This section shall apply retroactively.

The double jeopardy rule of the Fifth Amendment is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in agreement with the common law concept ofres judicata which prevents courts from relitigating issues which have already been the subject of a final judgment. There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are:

1. being retried for the same crime after an acquittal
2. retrial after a conviction
3. being punished multiple times for the same offense

Does the defense motion to dismiss those extra charges, something it sees as ancillary in nature, hold any merit? In Solem v. Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277, a split court found that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony was unconstitutional. In Solem, a bare majority of the court held a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

In Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, a life sentence without possibility of parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine was upheld. The case produced five separate opinions. While seven justices supported a proportionality review under the Eighth Amendment, only four favored application of all three factors cited in Solem. As one court has concluded, disproportionality survives; Solem does not. (McGruder v. Puckett (5th Cir.’92) 954 F.2d 313, 316.) In Harmelin, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, determined Solem was wrongly decided and the Eighth Amendment contained no proportionality guarantee. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices O’Connor and Souter, found the Eighth Amendment encompassed a narrow proportionality principle. In other words, the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. Moreover, in Solem v. Helm, the court focused on the nonviolent nature of both the defendant’s current offense of uttering a ‘no account’ check (one of the most passive felonies a person could commit) and his prior offenses. The majority acknowledged a life sentence for fourth-time heroin dealers and other violent criminals would pass constitutional muster.

While we ponder the legality of the double jeopardy clause in the appeal, allow me to look at the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks. I don’t need to go into any detail of what transpired. This is purely about the charges, the trial, and the conviction.

On August 10, 1995, Timothy McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and 8 counts of first-degree murder. On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on all 11 counts of the federal indictment. He was executed by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. on June 11, 2001, at the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Despite killing 168 people, McVeigh was only charged with 8 murders. Casey was convicted of four misdemeanor counts of lying to law enforcement personnel. The convictions should stand. Double jeopardy, in this case, would mean reducing her convictions from four to one. No dice, I say! Why? If Timothy McVeigh’s attorneys used the same logic and prevailed in a similar motion to dismiss the counts by reducing the eight murder charges to one, that means out of 168 deaths he was responsible for, he would have been tried for one single murder and the entire weight of those deaths would have been reduced from 8 to 1. Would he have been sentenced to death for one murder? If so, would it have been appealed? Yes, and it would have carried much less weight. With Casey, it’s the same thing in my book, although the charges are not similar. I am merely making an analogy.

Ultimately, double jeopardy should not be an appeal issue as far as I’m concerned. Casey was convicted, sentenced, and she did her time on all four counts. That cannot be taken away from her. In the end, it will hinge on whether she was in police custody when she was questioned.  Was she free to go and was she Mirandized? Should she have been? By her own admission, she spoke freely. Should she have been Mirandized just because she decided to sing like a bird? Not until she was placed in custody, meaning under arrest or when her freedom was greatly deprived; enough to be equal to an arrest. Custody could be interpreted as being handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. It could also include her interrogation — an attempt to elicit incriminating statements — but to what extent? Who said she was a suspect at the time?

I believe the appellate judges will rule against her. Those misdemeanor convictions will stand by a vote of 2-1. No matter what the outcome is, she’s still — and shall always remain — a convicted felon. Thank you, Amy Huizenga.

Shop Amazon’s New Kindle Fire

Casey Anthony: Not Very Appealing, Part 2

In its SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS from the INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT, Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, concerning Casey Anthony’s four misdemeanor convictions of lying to law enforcement officers, her defense wrote:

There’s three points on appeal. First, the lower court [9th Circuit] erred in denying the Appellant’s motion to suppress her statements to Detective Melich. The record establishes that the Appellant was placed under arrest, never Mirandized, and subsequently interrogated. Either the statements occurred at the Appellant’s residence or Universal Studios. At both locations, the Appellant was in custody. At her residence, the Appellant was unhandcuffed and questioned to purposely avoid informing her of her Miranda Rights. At Universal Studios, the Appellant was in custody, placed in a small room for questioning by three members of law enforcement, confronted with evidence against her for an extended period of time, and never informed of her rights under Miranda. In either scenario, the Appellant’s statements were involuntary [emphasis mine] and, therefore, the lower court erred in denying the Appellant’s motion to suppress.

This article will focus on one aspect of the three points on appeal; whether Casey was read her Miranda warning and whether it was necessary while being questioned by law enforcement prior to her arrest. This will be a lengthy article, and most of the legal information comes from a post I wrote and published on March 9, 2011, A Sneaking Suspicion. Ultimately, I feel the appellate court will rule 2-1 against Casey. I base my decision on several things; all legal in nature. Please pay particular attention to the final part of this post, where the charges are listed. Remember, Casey was not charged with murder until October. Also, there’s an interesting video to watch. It’s short and, in it, she tells her brother that she WAS Mirandized, although the State did not argue that in court on Tuesday.

§

Keep in mind that this was written almost two years ago:

While sitting in the courtroom, I must say Cheney Mason impressed me. His voice was stronger than it usually is. During one of the detective’s testimony last week, he asked if he was familiar with the term unarrested. The detective responded positively. Yesterday, Mason exclaimed that there is no such thing as being unarrested. He went on to scrutinize the tactics of the deputies and detectives from the first hours they spent with Casey to the final moments they pressed the Anthony family into service to visit her in jail. Agents of the State? Please.

When Casey was driven to Universal, he asserted that the detectives were already aware that she wasn’t employed there. They had set the meeting up with the chief of security, where a small room was awaiting her for questioning. The door was closed, he said, and the intimidating tactics began. Voices were raised. Was she free to go, he wondered. No, of course not. She was at their mercy. No car and no one telling her she had a right to leave. The only way it could have been a voluntary interrogation would have been if she drove herself to meet them there.

He said it would have been impossible for trained law enforcement personnel to not treat her as some sort of suspect once they took a whiff of her car that first night. Where the defense had been weak in citing case law, Mason let loose here with the case of Ross v. State of Florida and the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling upon appeal:

After carefully reviewing the issues raised on appeal, we reverse the convictions and sentences of death because of the police conduct in interrogating Ross on January 9, 2004. Specifically, the police, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), obtained inculpatory admissions, and when the warnings were finally administered midstream, minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation—all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.

In Ross’s case, the court wrote that investigators mishandled his interrogation days after his parents were beaten to death with a baseball bat more than seven years ago. On 7 January 2004, Ross, then 21, called 911 to report that someone had murdered his parents. No weapon was ever found. The Supreme Court ruling described a pressure-packed investigation two days later in which a detective questioned Ross for hours without reading him his Miranda rights. The high court ruling states the detective deliberately delayed reading Ross his rights in an effort to obtain a confession, while assuring him that he was not under arrest, amounting to an involuntary confession. Specifically, law enforcement, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the Miranda warning. According to the ruling, when Miranda warnings were administered “midstream,” detectives…

… minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation — all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.

There is another case in Florida that is a real puzzler. In Ramirez v. State, 1999 WL 506949, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed Nathan Ramirez’s conviction and death sentence for his role in the execution-style murder of Mildred Boroski, a 71-year-old widow. He and another man broke into her home, killed her dog, tied her to a bed and raped her. Then, they forced her into a car, dead dog and all, and drove her to a remote field where Ramirez shot her twice in the head.

Investigators with the police department discovered some of the woman’s possessions in Ramirez’s custody and asked him to go to the station for a taped interview. He agreed. The investigators began the interview without a Miranda warning because they thought he was only a witness rather than a murder suspect. Within a few minutes, he began to sing like a canary and one of the investigators stopped the interview to suggest he be Mirandized. The colleague immediately read Ramirez his rights which the (now) suspect acknowledged and waived. He proceeded to detail what transpired that day.

Sadly, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Ramirez’s conviction and sentence despite how careful and diligent the investigators were. Why? Four of the justices claimed that his Miranda warning was given in a manner that unconstitutionally minimized and downplayed the importance of his rights. They exploited his pre-Miranda admission about being in the house.

That’s bad enough, but back to the matter at hand. The most startling revelation made by Mason was his assertion that the first time Casey was Mirandized was not until 14 October 2008, when she was indicted on first-degree murder and other charges. I beg to differ with him. According to Casey’s ICJIS (fraud) Arrest Affidavit, she was read her Miranda warning by OCSO Detective Johan Anderson on 29 August 2008 at 2135 hours, or 9:35 pm:

I responded to 4937 Hopespring Drive and made contact with defendant Anthony. She was placed under arrest and transported to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. I read defendant Anthony her Miranda Rights and she advised that she did not want to speak to me without her lawyer. I terminated my interview and she was transported to BRC without incident.

Whether she was read her rights prior to this date is not readily available, but the above log refers to the fraud charges only. In any event, technically, she was read her Miranda Rights prior to 14 October. Was she advised of her rights before this exchange occurred on 16 July 2008?¹

“What happened to Caylee,” an investigator asks on the tape.

“I don’t know,” Casey Anthony said.

“Sure you do,” and investigator said.

“I don’t know,” Anthony said.

“Listen, something happened to Caylee,” an investigator said. “We’re not going to discuss where the last time you saw her (was). I’m guessing something bad happened to her some time ago and you haven’t seen her, so that part is true — is you haven’t seen her because she’s somewhere else right now.”

“She’s with someone else right now,” Anthony said.

“She’s either in a Dumpster right now, she’s buried somewhere, she’s out there somewhere and her rotten body is starting to decompose because what you’re telling us…,” an investigator said. “Here’s the problem. The longer this goes, the worse it’s going to be for everyone. Right now, everything you’ve told us — we’ve locked you into a lie. Every single thing that you’ve told us has been a lie.”

If she wasn’t read her rights before being interrogated, this could be a real problem because, clearly, she was the only suspect that law enforcement had as evidenced by their line of questioning. They were already on to her tricks.

On the other hand…

When Linda Drane Burdick approached the podium, she calmly stated that at no time was Casey in custody - there was no custodial interrogation. When at Universal Studios, Cpl. Yuri Melich wrote in his arrest affidavit, interestingly dated July 15:

At this time, we found a small conference room in which to talk to the defendant. This conversation was also recorded. Prior to beginning this interview, we stressed that the door was unlocked and were in the room for privacy only. She understood and agreed to speak with us on tape.

At no point in the arrest affidavit was it written that Casey was read her Miranda Rights. If there was ever a time for a sinking feeling, it may have come in the courtroom on Monday if she was not read her rights. There’s something else. Cpl. Yuri Melich made this notation in his affidavit:

I first met with the defendant inside her residence and spoke with her alone and away from other family members. Before asking for a recorded statement, I reviewed her original four page written sworn statement and asked if this was her version of what happened. She said it was. I told her that the incident was very suspicious and her version suspect.

Later that day, several of Casey’s friends and boyfriends called OCSO to report what they knew. It was a shock to everyone that darling Caylee was missing. Melich continues:

Once at our central operations center, and after I started receiving the above phone calls reference the defendant and her child, the defendant was given one more opportunity to change her story. She did not. She was then placed under arrest for child neglect, and providing false information to us regarding this investigation.

The official charges were:

• Neglect of a child 827.03 (3)(C)
• False Official Statements 837.06
• Obstruct Criminal Investigation 837.055

However…

At no time did Casey express an interest in remaining silent. Initially, as Linda Drane Burdick was quick to assert, Casey was not a suspect in the disappearance of her child when she was briefly cuffed and held in the back seat “cage” of Dep. Acevedo’s patrol car. She was never suppressed inside her house, nor was she ever held without her permission. Of course, common sense tells you when an officer of the law carries on a conversation and/or asks you to do something, you’d better comply, so there are gray areas defense teams are trained to exploit. Rightfully, Burdick contended that law enforcement merely treated Casey as a possible witness to some sort of kidnapping and there was no reason to Mirandize her.

I think before we continue, it’s important to clarify the written statement made by Casey. It came before she was handcuffed and placed in the police car.

Here comes the judge…

While Mason was arguing his case, Judge Perry broke in and asked him if he was familiar with Parks v. State (1994). Mason said no, and the judge advised him to read it. Now, if you want my opinion, when a judge suggests something to read, you’re darned-tootin’ I’m going to read it! The mere fact that a judge mentions case law is ominously significant, so here is where I think the judge will go with his decision regarding Miranda…

In the case of Darryl Parks v. State, in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, the appellant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and three counts of armed robbery. He asserted four issues on appeal:

1. whether appellant’s motion to suppress his confession should have been granted;
2. whether the trial court erroneously allowed an accomplice’s prior consistent statement into evidence;
3. whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror; and
4. whether prosecutorial statements in closing arguments amounted to a comment on appellant’s exercise of his right to remain silent.

The appeals court affirmed as to all issues. However, their affirmance of issues one and two did warrant discussion. The following is quoted directly from the ruling. I will highlight key points:

On January 16, 1991, an individual wearing a mask entered a business in Broward County, began waiving a gun, and demanded money. The gunman was joined shortly thereafter by a second individual. During the course of the robbery, the owner of the business was fatally shot.

Five days after the shooting, appellant was arrested on an unrelated robbery charge. He was brought to the Broward County Sheriff’s Department homicide office for questioning concerning the murder. He was handcuffed and shackled. However, doubts arose concerning whether there was sufficient probable cause for appellant’s arrest. It was decided that appellant would be released. Appellant was advised he was free to go, the handcuffs and shackles were removed, and he was offered a ride home. Thereafter, but prior to leaving, appellant was asked whether he would remain and talk about the shooting. Appellant said he would talk to the officers about it. After appellant was informed of his Miranda rights, he was questioned by detectives. During this questioning, appellant made incriminating statements concerning his involvement in the murder and robberies. Appellant said he was present and he only intended to rob the place. However, he admitted using a substandard quality gun and “it just went off.”

The evidence shows appellant freely and voluntarily gave his statement to police. Even if the police lacked probable cause for the arrest on the unrelated charge, the fact appellant was released from custody and voluntarily remained to answer questions breaks the causal link between the arrest and his making of the incriminating statements to police. Appellant’s agreement to discuss the crime when he was free to decline and go home was an act of free will sufficient to purge any possible taint from the arrest. We find the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress appellant’s incriminating statements.

Parks asserted that the trial court improperly allowed a prior statement by his accomplice into evidence to help build the case against him. The day after he was arrested for the murder, Terrance Batten was brought to the police station for questioning. After being informed of his Miranda Rights. He then gave a tape recorded statement to police which implicated himself and Parks in the murder. About 22 months later, Batten received a plea deal from the state.

At trial, Batten testified about the shooting and robberies. He said appellant shot the victim. On direct examination, Batten acknowledged he gave a statement to police shortly after the shooting. During cross-examination by defense counsel, Batten was extensively questioned about his plea deal with the state. The details of the deal were spelled out for the jury. Batten was also questioned about the circumstances surrounding his prior statement made to police. Batten acknowledged the detectives told him that they did not want him, but wanted appellant. Batten also acknowledged he was told if he did not cooperate, he would be charged with murder and sentenced to the electric chair. He admitted he was thinking if he gave a statement to the detectives he could go home, but if he did not give them a statement he was going to be held on the murder charge.

Defense counsel also questioned Batten about specific contents of his prior statement. Batten was asked about his comments concerning who he was with prior to the robbery. Defense counsel noted that Batten said in his statement to police he was cooperating because the victim was shot. Also, Batten acknowledged there is no mention of a mask in his prior statement.

During the testimony of one of the detectives who questioned Batten, the tape-recorded statement was admitted into evidence over defense objection. Defense counsel had argued the prior consistent statement itself was made after Batten had an improper motive. Therefore, it was inadmissible.

Here’s the clincher, though:

We agree with appellant that the prior consistent statement should not have been admitted into evidence. Generally, prior consistent statements are not admissible to corroborate a witness’ testimony. Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1986). An exception to the rule provides that such statements are admissible to rebut charges of improper influence, motive or recent fabrication against the witness. Id. at 910; see also § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). However, the prior consistent statement must be made “prior to the existence of a fact said to indicate bias, interest, corruption, or other motive to falsify.” Dawson v. State, 585 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

We hold, however, that the erroneous admission of Batten’s tape recorded statement was harmless. The jury was aware of the existence of the prior statement. A reasonable jury could presume the prior statement was consistent with Batten’s in-court testimony. Further, defense counsel delved into some of the specifics of the statement, referring to actual comments made by Batten to police. Thus, portions of the statement were highlighted for the jury, by defense counsel, prior to the admission of the statement in its entirety.

These factors, in combination with appellant’s incriminating statements and testimony linking appellant to an item stolen in the robbery, convince us of the harmless nature of the trial court’s error. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). We therefore affirm appellant’s convictions on all counts.

AFFIRMED.

What does this tell me? Well, when Mason mentioned October 14 - and he did so twice - and the State did not counter, it sent a message. Two times and the prosecution came back with no response. I think the judge is going to allow Casey’s early statements [made in July of 2008] to stand until a clearly defined moment surfaces that distinguishes her standing with the police.

§

Back to the present…

If you’ve ever watched COPS, you’ve seen officers detain and handcuff people not under arrest, and they make their point clear about doing so for everyone’s safety; the detainee’s and the officer’s.

Ultimately, Judge Perry did side with the State on both motions filed by the defense. In his decision, Perry wrote that the test of law primarily focused upon the perceptions of the suspect, not the intent of the police. In this regard, Casey was quite aware of what was going on around her, yet she continued to blab, acknowledging that she didn’t need to do that. George Zimmerman spoke freely, too, and this may work against him if he loses his battle in court and goes for an appeal.

Next, I will explain double jeopardy and I promise it won’t be as long. 

Casey Anthony: Not Very Appealing, Part 1

Casey’s appeal will be heard today. I will expound on that after it unfolds. First, here’s a little background music to set the mood…

I guess most of you know by now that Casey lives in a gated community in Cape Canaveral. If you know the location; fine, but I’m not going to disclose it here. There are too many people living there and they don’t need an onslaught of visitors, including media-types and hostile folks out to get her.

For certain, she has been spotted around town. I know people in that neighborhood; some so well that I won’t even discuss them — and virtually across the street from her. I will tell you what I do know about her, though, before I go into today’s appeal and what I wrote years ago that led up to this motion; the gist, of which, is whether she was Mirandized while being questioned, whether she was legally under arrest when placed in the back of a police vehicle the night of July 15, 2008, and whether the four misdemeanor convictions for lying to law enforcement should be considered double jeopardy. In other words, were four charges too many? Could they have been condensed into one since they were, virtually, one and the same?

Casey likes the Cape Canaveral neighborhood and the surrounding area. She loves the bars at the port, where giant cruise ships sail. They are a sight to behold. She’s always enjoyed that side of Central Florida and I can’t say I blame her. For sure, if you’ve never been up close to a cruise ship or watched one leave port while sitting on an outside deck sipping a cold drink, munching on a fresh grouper sandwich or oysters on the half shell, you’re missing something. Besides, don’t cruises run in her family?

She’s been spotted out and about, alright, but she never looks anyone in the eye. Never. That’s why a lot of people question whether it’s her or not. They’re pretty sure, but they’re not sure. During the day, there’s hardly a time that she doesn’t wear her big sunglasses. To me, that’s a giveaway. Most of the time, she wears wigs. That helps keep her from being identified.

Where she lives, she walks her pet. A maintenance man offers up treats to all the neighborhood dogs, but wonders why this particular woman thanks him while looking askance; her face emotionless. Never in the eyes. No smile, but gracious just the same.

In order to move into the place where she lives, she needed help. This is where it gets quite interesting. Her father, George, is seen all the time. He never hides from view. He’s the one who got her in. She’s got a three-month lease with an option for three more. 

On the day of the final hearing before the trial, George took the stand. Jose Baez asked him if he’d be willing to lie for Casey in order to save her life. He said yes. Jose asked him one more time and he responded with a resounding YES, heard loud and clear throughout the courtroom. I know; I was there.

When George was accused, during Baez’s opening statement, of sexually molesting his daughter since childhood, I immediately reminded myself of the words spoken by him only a month or so earlier. Did I really believe George had ever touched Casey improperly? No, of course not. For the most part, no one did. However, did I think there was a (better than) good possibility that the State had been set up? That he was the fall guy, willing to allow it in order to save his daughter from conviction and a possible sentence of death? You’d better believe it! They are a family of liars and the record is clear on that matter, in my opinion. There is no defamation here. No libel or anything else. I firmly believe George swallowed that bitter pill because it was the only thing — a very desperate move — that would help assure his daughter’s acquittal. He set up the defense by turning her into the real victim. This was a brilliant move because, in the end, no one would brand him an incestuous child molester. Who, in all reality, would really believe it? It was a win/win scenario! Do I know this to be true? No, of course not, but this is what I’ve been told, considered hearsay in a court of law.

George has been spending an awful lot of time in Cape Canaveral, according to witnesses willing to speak publicly. He was the force behind her getting into the community where she lives. That comes from inside. He dotes over his daughter like a mother hen. (Let’s not go into how henpecked he is.) He makes sure she is safe. Does this sound anything like a father scorned? One who was maligned so wretchedly by his ingrate daughter?

Let’s say this. During the Christmas holiday season, she left her safe harbor because news crews were parked outside. That’s been going on months now. She went to a condo down the road in Cocoa Beach; a condo owned by snowbirds who are close personal friends of the Anthonys. Does this sound anything like a broken family set apart by the death of their beloved granddaughter? No, but in order to understand that dynamic, one must remember that mother and father still believe the loss was a giant accident; that daughter would never do such a heinous thing of which she had been charged. In the end, the court proved it. They had been right all along, but had they? That no longer matters. In the end, the family seems whole again; over the ordeal that lasted for years, ripping at their souls. Today, George goes happily about his business of being a father, fulfilling the pledge he made under oath on the final hearing before his daughter’s trial. Meanwhile, those persnickety TV trucks are always lurking. In my opinion, they need to leave her alone. Not out of concern for her, mind you, but for the safety of the residents of her community — the people who never invited her in, but must live with her. They could fall victim if enough people with bad ideas try to find her.

When Casey was returning to the condo, a local TV station’s trucks had been laying in wait; ready to pounce. They relentlessly pursued her every step of the way. She called 911 and tried to shake them, to no avail. As the private gate to the community opened for her to enter, the truck followed her in. So did a police car or two, and that was the last she saw of them. No one from the unnamed station reported that incident, nor has there been anything new to report from anyone else. Most people are tight-lipped. No one pays much attention to her in and out of the small world where she resides, seemingly, far from harm. 

If I were you and since I am me, I would proffer this advice: Leave her the hell alone. She may be out of jail, but she will never escape the prison she has placed herself in. Just the other day, someone saw her up close and personal; face-to-face, in other words. A rare sight indeed! She wasn’t wearing her signature sunglasses. Caught off guard! What this person told me was sad, but I felt no sympathy. Casey’s eyes were void. Looking into them, there was nothing but emptiness and a total lack of human emotion; dull and dead. As if she has no soul.

The Prince and the Pea: Subjective or Objective Fear in the Petitioner?

In his ORDER SETTING BAIL on July 5, 2012, Judge Kenneth Lester made several stipulations clear about what attorney Mark O’Mara’s client, George Zimmerman, could and could not do. For instance, he would be able to travel anywhere he wants as long as it’s within the boundaries of Seminole County. If he finds it necessary to leave the county, all he has to do is pass it by the court for authorization. It’s a rather plain and simple directive and something a five-year-old should be able to comprehend.

However…

In his MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE dated August 22, 2012, Mr. Zimmerman, through his attorneys, cited two issues pertaining to matters addressed in the judge’s above order. Call them problematic. The Court, for instance, must realize by now, due to the great amount of national and international publicity, not to mention notoriety and animosity, that Zimmerman “and his entire extended family have had to live in hiding, fearing for their own safety.” Therefore, he should be able to move out of the county, too.

I disagree with Mr. O’Mara’s choice of words. He exaggerates. How? In many ways, but for now, here’s a ‘for instance.’ It’s one thing to complain about the woes that have befallen his client, but his client and only his client was responsible for the big mess he’s in — not his family. Daddy did not hold his hand the night he pulled the trigger. Therefore, why bother bringing up any issue over his family’s fears for their own safety? It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that there is nothing stopping them from moving out of the area any time they please. There are no restrictions on them whatsoever, and to suggest in that motion, albeit indirectly, that the Court was somehow responsible for this problem is, well, not showing a clear sense of responsibility. There is no way the Court can magically order the public to leave the Zimmerman family alone.

This is George’s unfavorably conducive style; his M.O. These are his edicts, sua sponte, not necessarily those of his attorneys. While his motions are filled with innuendos that tend to absorb what little substance they hold, it’s when he opens his mouth that we see him for what he is.

Full of Zimmermanure.

He not only speaks with a forked tongue, he also twists his tongue when he speaks. A good example of this came during his Hannity interview on FOX News. When asked if he would have done anything any differently, given ample opportunity to think about it now, he said he really hadn’t had the time to think about it, but after thinking about it, he wouldn’t have changed a thing. He regretted nothing and it was God’s plan. He had nothing to feel sorry about. Did that make sense? Wait. It gets worse.

Later in the broadcast, he turned and faced the camera, and in his best “My fellow Americans…” presidential-style address, he apologized to the nation, his wife, and everyone involved in the case, including Trayvon Martin’s parents. In my opinion, it was, at best, sickeningly insincere. Incidentally, a truly biased judge would have called him on the carpet for addressing Trayvon’s parents because, in his order, Judge Lester wrote:

“The Defendant shall not have any contact with the victim’s family, directly or indirectly, except as necessary to conduct pretrial discovery through his attorneys[.]”

Redundancy

My complaint, while being about the Petitioner, also includes his attorney and how he’s handling the case; his motions, in particular. In this very same Motion To Modify Conditions Of Release, O’Mara wrote:

“One of the conditions of release is that Mr. Zimmerman is not to leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this court.”

Right, Mr. Knechel, you already said that. Well, yes I did, but so did the judge and Defense, and just to clarify, this is a two-part motion. The second part addressed traveling outside the county, not moving out. The judge’s order covered it and the defendant acknowledged it, so what was the point of this final statement in Zimmerman’s latest motion?

“The restriction of Mr. Zimmerman not to leave Seminole County has had a deleterious effect on his ability to assist in the preparation of his own defense. Communications have been unnecessarily limited to telephone and occasional visits by counsel. Mr. Zimmerman must be able to travel to meet with his lawyers, and to attend to various other necessary matters to prepare this matter to move forward.”

Hmm… deleterious… injurious to health; pernicious, hurtful, destructive and noxious according to dictionary.com. My, what $5.00 words he uses that won’t impress any sitting judge let alone little old me. While I realize the motion also asked that Zimmerman be allowed to move outside of Seminole County, a request the Court denied, the rest of it is redundant. Here, verbatim, is what the judge wrote in his July 5 order:

“The Defendant shall not leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this Court[.]”

How much clearer can one get? All the defense had to do was ask. Why was it necessary to dedicate the brunt of this motion on something that was already covered a month-and-a-half earlier? And if O’Mara were really fearful of Zimmerman’s safety while residing somewhere in the entire county of Seminole, how much safer should he feel while his client is sitting in his office in downtown Orlando? Talk about deleterious! I’m serious.

Here’s the way I see George Zimmerman. When he doesn’t get what he wants, he whines and cries. He feels boxed in and claustrophobic. He gets restless and can’t sleep at night. His mattress turns lumpy. You see, George is starting to remind me of The Princess and the Pea with one major difference. He cannot get a comfortable night’s sleep until all his demands are met. The pea, in this case, is Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. who must be removed and replaced by a fairy tale friendly judge so Prince George, his friends, his family and his fellow American loyalists will be allowed to live happily ever after.

Fearing Fear Itself

In Nit-Picking Nit-Writ, I addressed the PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION filed by the Zimmerman defense. I pointed out how O’Mara had offered evidence about the shooting on the night of February 26 and why it was not only unnecessary, it was useless. A writ of prohibition, in this case, only pertains to why the trial judge should be recused. It’s not for anything else. What O’Mara did was inflate a very weak document with superfluous fluff, like adding TVP to a package of fatty, grisly hamburger meat, and I don’t feel the appeal court is going to buy any of it. 

I do believe that Assistant Attorney General Pamela Koller offered up a much meatier argument against the Defense appeal. I will elaborate on that a bit and address the finer points of the State’s RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION. In particular, I want to look into the two types of fear that the district court will examine — objective and subjective.

In 2005, I wrote a post about how slants change your views of the news. Titled, An unbiased look at news slants, I last updated it in February of 2010. I think it should give you a foundation on objectivity and subjectivity.

Objective information strives to remain unbiased. Dictionaries and other materials of reference, such as encyclopedias, generally provide factual information. Traffic lights are red, green and yellow. Yellow means caution, green means to go and red means to stop.

Subjective information is formed by personal opinion. Editorial sections in newspapers are subjective. While editorials and letters to the editor can be based on fact, opinions are usually based on personal interpretations of facts. Humans are responsible for global warming. Global warming is caused by natural earth cycles, such as the Ice Age. In these cases, separate and valid viewpoints can be substantiated by citing legitimate sources.

We know that George and Shellie Zimmerman lied to the Court about access to money and a second passport they claimed they didn’t have. The judge acknowledged that in his order revoking bond and Team Zimmerman then proceeded to call it biased, including the judge’s reprimand. (It’s interesting to note that the defendant still managed to post bail despite the Court setting it much higher than what was originally granted.) The fact that bail was granted at all after the second request could be considered a testament to the judge’s fairness. 

The Judge’s Order Setting Bail infuriated the Defendant and his counsel. How dare the Court look at his lies at all, let alone “judge” his actions and lack of respect for the court. To do so was nothing short of biased, they claimed, so they filed their writ of prohibition with the higher court. The bottom line now is how the Fifth District Court of Appeal will look at this motion — as an objective or subjective complaint — and rule accordingly, based on objectivity. Does Zimmerman have a leg to stand on? Is his distress based on a paranoid fear of persecution in general (subjective) or has this judge exhibited (objective) behavior in the past that truly legitimizes his concerns?

Let’s look at this objectively. In its response to the writ, the State wrote:

Petitioner complains about rulings in the past in his background section, but it is well established that “[t]he fact that the judge has made adverse rulings in the past against the defendant, or that the judge has previously heard the evidence, or ‘allegations that the trial judge had formed a fixed opinion of the defendant’s guilt, even where it is alleged that the judge discussed his opinion with others,’ are generally considered legally insufficient reasons to warrant the judge’s disqualification.” Rivera, 717 So. 2d at 481 (quoting Jackson v. State, 599 So. 2d at 107; see also Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So. 2d 494, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (It is well established that a trial court’s prior adverse rulings are not legally sufficient grounds upon which to base a motion to disqualify).

In other words, this is not merely a complaint about Lester’s language in the bail order, it’s also about his prior rulings in Zimmerman’s pretrial motions. This is something that should be taken up post-conviction, if necessary, not now, and it epitomizes my description of superfluous fluff; not worth the paper it’s printed on. What the defense wants to do is set a silly precedent; that every single defense motion denial is biased. This would then have to include every case that has ever come before a court. Overturn every verdict because motions were denied! All in the name of George! Clearly, this is subjective thinking. “I think,” O’Mara could opine, “every motion that was turned down was done so by judicial bias.”

Of course, it’s every defense attorney’s dream, but most are smart enough to know it’s nothing more than a whimsical flight of fancy. Cheney Mason tried the same thing during the Anthony case and got nowhere.

The State cited Rolle ex rel. Dabrio v. Birken, 984 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008):

Likewise, we recently pointed out that a “mere ‘subjective fear’ of bias will not be legally sufficient, rather, the fear must be objectively reasonable.” Arbelaez v. State, 898 So. 2d 25, 41 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240, 242 (Fla. 1986)). We do not find Mansfield’s allegations of fear to be objectively reasonable. See also Asay v. State, 769 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2000). Our cases support the trial court’s denial of the motion to disqualify, and we affirm the trial judge’s order. 

Notwithstanding, Lester had every right to keep Zimmerman behind bars because the State went on to say that:

The judge again set a bond for Petitioner, and Petitioner is currently out on bond. Thus, the grounds listed by Petitioner in his motion are facially insufficient.

… and that the Petitioner is manipulating the system. From Cf. Brown, 561 So. 2d at 257 n. 7:

(“We hasten to add that our holding should not be construed to mean that a judge is subject to disqualification…simply because of making an earlier ruling in the course of a proceeding which had the effect of rejecting the testimony of the moving party. At the very least…there must be a clear implication that the judge will not believe the complaining party’s testimony in the future.”).

While the assistant attorney general cited many examples of why this particular writ of prohibition is without merit, it is, by its very nature, nearly as subjective as the writ itself. Both sides came to their respective conclusions based on their own interpretations of case law. As the appellate court looks at this issue with complete objectivity, it should see that Judge Lester has not been prejudiced against George Zimmerman — and most assuredly, not personally. In my opinion, based on what the Defense and State both submitted, the original motion to disqualify the trial judge in this case was legally insufficient. Judge Lester made the right choice, and so will the appellate judges,  C. Alan Lawson, Jay P. Cohen and Kerry I. Evander.

Poor Prince George is not just afraid of a li’l old pea, he’s also afraid of his shadow. Oh, and don’t even get me started on (d)(1) and (d)(2). That’s a whole “nother” bedtime story.

Cross posted at the Daily Kos

Zenaida's Trial Against Casey Postponed

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Patience is a virtue, and we certainly did learn that from all of the postponements in Casey Anthony’s criminal trial. This time, with regard to the Zenaida Gonzalez (Plaintiff) v. Casey Anthony (Defendant) civil trial, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Lisa T. Munyon chose to postpone it until January 2, 2013. This trial had been postponed in the past for several reasons, all stemming from motions filed by the defense, but this time, both sides agreed that one more postponement was necessary. Why?

Let’s start with the basics, beginning with what’s been going on since the start of the new year. On February 29, the defense made a request to continue the trial date by filing a motion to Abate Trial Deadlines. A continuance means to postpone a date set by the court. Last week, on March 6, the judge heard the motion and the plaintiff’s objection to the continuance. Zenaida and her team of lawyers were ready to go to trial. After hearing from both sides, Judge Munyon chose to deny the defense motion that day. Jury selection was scheduled to start on April 10, 2012, with the trial slated to begin the following week in the same courtroom as the criminal trial. That would be Courtroom 23.

All honky dory, right? No, because on March 9, Zenaida’s attorneys filed a Notice of Conflict stating that they were scheduled to be in a Duval County courtroom trying other civil matters beginning on April 9. Their reasoning was solid. The Duval court scheduled that trial date before Munyon set this trial date in September of 2011. Munyon chose to go with what court had precedence. Since Duval set the date first, Orange/Osceola would have to wait. (See: Florida Rules 2.550(a)(6) - The case in which the trial date has been first set generally should take precedence.)

There’s more to it than just that, though. Judge Munyon could have ignored the request had the costs of rescheduling been too much of a burden on Florida taxpayers. After consulting with court representatives and the sheriff’s office, the grand total for a continuance would come to a mere $157.00, and that includes additional summonses to prospective jurors, printing, sorting, and mailing fees. Lest you think that’s all there is, guess again. Judge Munyon wasn’t able to secure Courtroom 23 for the week of April 10, and what that translates into is that the cost to the sheriff’s office for additional security would exceed the costs expended for the summonses. That’s because there are three other courtrooms on that floor, meaning the potential for a lot of people milling around. Okay, fine, but why so long of a postponement? It’s because Courtroom 23, the only courtroom on that floor, is in use. January 2, 2013 is the earliest time it will be available for two consecutive weeks.

So, what we have ahead of us are deadline adjustments originally set on September 1, 2011. We’re talking about 8+ months in the future now. The judge did set a two-week deadline from the date of her order (March 13) to file any notices of conflict for the new trial date. There is a hearing scheduled for March 23. The judge ordered that it remain on the docket and limited the proceeding to motions for summary judgment and all matters related to discovery, such as Gonzalez’s request for Anthony’s residential address. A motion for summary judgment, in this case, means the motion the defense filed to have the case against Anthony thrown out.

As far as I’m concerned, we should be used to it. After three years, plus this mess, we should know by now not to hold our breath. If you think this will ever end, guess again. This time it was the plaintiff’s request that did the trick.

Odds & Ends and Odd Endings

JOSE BAEZ

By now, most of you are already aware that Jose Baez is no longer affiliated with the client who turned his name into household fame. Cheney Mason made that clear a month or so ago when he stated that Baez severed all ties with her right after sentencing. It’s now official:

By clicking on the above image, you can inspect it at a much larger scale. Very revealing are the lines drawn through his name, his affiliation with the client and his work number, that signify his departure. Scan all the way down to the bottom left and you’ll also find that a Notice of Withdrawal [of] Attorney of Record was filed on 2/21/2012. 

There hasn’t been much said about it until now, but it’s most likely what I assumed since it was first reported. First of all, Casey Anthony is an ingrate. She only thinks of herself, which is something most of us will agree on. I can’t say for sure, but my guess is that it was one of those “I quit!” moments, followed by a typical response from an ingrate, “You can’t quit! You’re fired!”

While I am not offering any sympathy or line of defense for Baez, I do look at it from a rational point of view. After the trial, logic dictated that he didn’t need her any longer. He won the case and garnered one heck of a lot of publicity. He’s set because of it, no matter what anyone may think of him. He’s not the first criminal defense attorney to clasp a client from the clutches of the executioner’s claws, nor will he be the last. Think of Johnnie Cochran and OJ, but the world didn’t go wild when he was found not guilty of two counts of first-degree slaughter, and Cochran’s legal practice and notoriety gained significantly in the wake of that trial.

Here’s one little detail I’ll bet you’re not familiar with. Baez was the lead attorney on another murder case while the Anthony story was taking center stage. Contrary to what some may think, attorneys do work on multiple cases at a time. Speaking of time, please take time to watch the video below. It will open a number of eyes because, clearly, this client was not guilty, contrary to what the prosecution thought.

Back to the famous fall out. What Bob Kealing reported on Tuesday, in a nutshell, was that Casey was quite upset that her attorney didn’t land her a big dollar TV interview; something her parents were able to do for their charity, and trust me, I use that term loosely. In any event, so what? The man spent the last three years of his life eating, breathing, and… well, never mind, all things Casey. He was attacked from the left and from the right; from the front and from the back, but lest you think I’m being too kind, I am not. He knew what a strain it would be, but he also knew what the end reward could be and, in the end, he gambled correctly. The best possible thing for him to do was to stop affiliating with her. In a thunderous flash, she became toxic. Now, I’d venture a guess that he’d disagree with me publicly on what I just wrote, but that’s the way I see it. Like it or not, because of the outcome of the Anthony trial, he’ll have speaking gigs and new clients for years to come. That is, as long as he keeps his license to practice law, and I expect him to do just that, whatever the outcome of the Bar complaints filed against him. In other words, I don’t think they are significant enough to disbar him if he loses.

JEFF ASHTON

There’s a little bit of a situation unfurling with former prosecutor, now candidate Jeff Ashton, over his decision to represent his son in a Seminole County DUI trial. Clearly, there are two brains of thought. It’s understandable that any attorney would come to their child’s defense. I’ll give him that and add that no matter what, we can look at his worth as a caring parent and not argue the point. At the same time, he is running for the office of Ninth District (Orange/Osceola) State Attorney. If elected, he would be responsible for prosecuting people in the same boat, so was it a wise thing to do? In a later press conference, he said he had a problem with voters who couldn’t understand what he did as a father. Like I said, he’s loyal, but I read a lot of comments on Hal Boedeker’s Orlando Sentinel television blog and many of them were firmly against his decision. Some of them added that he’s just another typical lawyer and no hero after all. Do I agree with that assessment? No, but I will say that, in my opinion, he could have saved himself a lot of votes had he cashed in some of his courthouse chips and asked another attorney to handle his son’s affairs. Now, word comes that he’s defending his daughter, according to Seminole County court records. She was charged with driving without a license and for failing to show proof of insurance. 

While I refuse to blame Ashton for the Casey Anthony loss, at least not to a large extent because it was a team effort, he failed to win his son’s case. If he loses his daughter’s, too, his odds of winning the Democratic primary for state attorney will begin to deteriorate, but not enough to harm him beyond hope. However, it’s a tough road ahead any way he looks at it. Lawson Lamar has a huge political machine in Tallahassee and throughout the state, and lots of powerful friends, not to mention a much larger campaign chest. There’s also the old idiom, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Obviously, he doesn’t see it that way. 

That leads me to Linda Drane Burdick, but first, a little more information. When asked if she would support Jeff in the election, she said that she couldn’t do that in a Democratic primary because she a registered Republican. However, a month or so later, she donated $100 to Lamar’s reelection campaign. Incidentally, two other candidates are in the race. Ryan Williams, also a Democrat and former assistant state attorney, entered the race in September of 2011. And recently joining the fray is Orlando criminal defense attorney Joerg Jaeger, a Republican hellbent on defeating Ashton. He told Orlando Sentinel Senior Reporter Anthony Colarossi that, “I don’t think Jeff is fit to be state attorney.” And he’s made that point exceedingly clear.

JUDGE LINDA DRANE BURDICK?

Back to Miss Linda. In case you haven’t heard, the lead prosecutor in the Anthony trial threw her hat in the ring, along with 22 other applicants, to fill the bench left void when 9th Circuit Judge James Turner was removed for violating several judicial principles, including hugging and kissing a court clerk. This was also reported by Anthony Colarossi in the Feb. 13 issue of the Orlando Sentinel. If I could vote for her, I would! 

LAST WORDS

There have been many changes since the end of the Anthony fiasco. Judge Strickland retired at in December of last year and I don’t blame him. He had an outstanding career on the bench and it goes without saying that we wish him all the best. He is right where he wants to be at this stage in life and all is well in the world.

I also want to wish Jeff Ashton continued success in his career, including the upcoming election, but like Drane Burdick, I won’t be voting for him, either, but not for the same reason. You see, I live in the 18th District, and that’s Seminole County. If you want to learn more about him or contribute to his campaign, read HERE.

Thank you, and hopefully, I won’t have more to say about ‘you know who’ until the date of her civil trial filed by Zenaida Gonzalez - the real one, with no Fernandez in her name.

The convenience of karma and the cancer disconnect

I want to thank everyone for their concern over my health. I came out a victor in Round 1. The bone marrow biopsy showed no cancer in my blood or marrow. Previously, I had been diagnosed with chronic anemia and thrombocytopenia, which is low platelets. Yesterday, a new diagnosis was added to the list… monoclonal gammapathy. That’s abnormal plasma cells in the bone marrow. I will have to learn to live with it. There is a risk, albeit low, that it may develop into cancer one day, but I’ll take that with a smile. Friday, I get the lung biopsy. I was supposed to have it this morning (10/4), but no one told me to stop taking baby aspirin.

There is little understanding about what caused the blood conditions to manifest. They just strike people. At least I can stop worrying about it, although I will have to be checked every 3 months to keep tabs on whether it does turn into cancer, but if so, it could be years down the road.

I really wanted to go to the hearing on Wednesday afternoon — the one concerning the motion WKMG-TV filed that asked the court to release a video recording of Mizzanthony’s shocked and distressed jail house reaction to news that her daughter’s remains were found very near to where she lived. You see, back in 2009, Judge Stan Strickland agreed with the defense that the video would have been too prejudicial to show a jury because it could have negatively affected her right to a fair trial. Consequently, he sealed it. That was then, and now that the trial is over, what harm would it do to release it? After all, the defense openly admitted she knew all along that her child was dead.

WKMG’s attorney, Jack Kirschenbaum, stood toe-to-toe with Jose Baez in court, both arguing in front of Chief Judge Belvin Perry. While Kirschenbaum cited Florida’s open government in the sunshine laws, Baez stuck with his concerns over medical privacy. Perry is expected to render a decision by week’s end, and my educated guess is that he will side with the media. Why? Because administering the defendant a sedative in a waiting room with a TV does not constitute doctor/client privilege. Besides, the issue over the defendant receiving a fair trial is no longer a factor.

One of the reasons I wanted to attend the hearing was to see some of the people I interacted with during the course of the case — countless reporters, deputies, attorneys, and the bevy of courthouse employees and everyday people I got to meet. You know, for old-time’s sake. I had an 11:30 appointment to see my gastroenterologist and I figured I’d have plenty of time to make it to the courthouse by 3:00. Alas, I didn’t leave the doctor’s office until then. The doctor explained, apologetically, that it wasn’t from overbooking as much as it was from the federal government’s new law mandating that all medical offices must be computerized or face stringent penalties. I understand how the learning curve would be difficult for medical personnel of a given age, plus the fact that the software is quite complex and not mastered in a day. In any event, the only outcome of my day was learning that I will have both an endoscopy and a colonoscopy on October 18. Whoopee! Fortunately, I will be sedated.

Since I’m addressing doctors, sedatives, journalists and the court system, I’m going to haphazardly segue into one word that kept creeping up during the course of the whole Anthony ordeal — karma. But before I get into it, I want to apologize for not being all that attentive on my blog of late. For sure, I wanted a lengthy break after the crux of the Anthony mess came tumbling down in July, but it’s pushing October and I feel I owe you a legitimate explanation. I’ll get to that shortly.

Dictionary.com defines karma as “an action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation.” It goes on to mention fate and destiny as descriptors. Unfortunately for some of my readers, I have a real problem with karma. To be quite frank, I just don’t believe in it and I’ll tell you why. Take the case of Mizzanthony. All through the legal process, countless numbers of people were adamant about her karma coming back to “bite her in her azz”, only it didn’t happen that way. Otherwise, she would have been found guilty and sentenced to life or death for murdering her daughter, Caylee Marie. Speaking of Caylee, what did she do to warrant such horrendous karma that she had to die at such a young and innocent age? If karma killed Lee Harvey Oswald, what karma killed JFK?

While karma was a constant theme during the Anthony case, it was only used matter of factly, as a matter of convenience. In other words, when karma failed to get the defendant while incarcerated and tried in open court, it morphed into something else — that karma will get her while she’s out of jail and free. Just move the karma around to suit one’s fancy. Some people actually believe they have power over people by inflicting karma. Take a look at the slugs that attacked me and my friends unmercifully during the past two years. Karma was going to get us because they had ordained it so. In that regard, karma is pitted against karma; the good karma being us and the bad karma being them, although they would stupidly beg to differ. May the best karma win! Caylee’s mother may live to be 90, but karma will catch up to her then? Come on, we all know better than that. Eventually, she will have to meet her maker, and that’s what counts.

Regardless, karma goes against the will of God, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense. I don’t think the Bible puts much faith in reincarnation, for example, and I think it’s safe to say that most of my blog’s readers fall under the auspices of the Judeo-Christian credo and, therefore, karma is a direct conflict with the principles of both books of the Bible, although Job 4:8 (KJV) does state, “Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same,” but I’m not about to get all preachy on you. In this particular regard, a simple explanation can be found with one of our contemporaries, Orenthal James Simpson.

While O.J. was acquitted of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in 1995, he sits in Lovelock Correctional Center in Nevada until, at least, 2017; sentenced to 33-years for kidnapping and armed robbery in 2008. His first possibility of parole comes in 2017, but don’t count on it. Was it karma that finally caught up with him? Hardly. You see, if you hang around bad people and do bad things, your odds of getting caught multiply tremendously. That’s precisely what happened to OJ, plain and simple. He was responsible for his own undoing because he chose to hang around a bad crowd. He did it to himself, with no help from fate, destiny, karma, kismet, or whatever else you want to call it. He chose his own path.

That leads this article to yours truly and how karma did not come beckoning at my front door. Conveniently, the devil’s rejects who attacked me incessantly during the past two years will rejoice after reading this, but I don’t care. While they are sure I am Satan incarnate, sane people know otherwise. You know me as a caring individual. You know my sensitive side. Understanding human behavior is not in a troll’s vocabulary. For them to compare me to Hitler and Stalin¹, two of the worst people to ever walk the earth, is pure insanity. How anyone could make a comparison like that is beyond the realm of accepted behavior. Well, enough of them and their trashy troll talk.

Everyone who has followed me for the past three years knows that I’ve had a number of health issues, none karma related. Recently, I was able to get some complex blood work done. One of those tests showed an abnormality in my blood protein, specifically, elevated M protein. For years now, my platelets have been quite low, along with RBC, hemoglobin and hematocrit counts. I was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia and chronic anemia years ago. Trust me when I tell you I am not seeking sympathy of any kind, nor am I looking for any sort of hand-out.

I have been seeing a specialist in the field of hematology and oncology. You know, a blood disorder and cancer doctor. I have had x-rays taken of every bone in my body in search of lesions. I have had CT scans and PET scans. I also had an MRI. Why my veins haven’t collapsed by now is beyond me. On Monday, my hematology/oncology doctor performed a bone marrow biopsy on my right hip. Believe me, in my case, it wasn’t nearly as painful as it sounds. While those tests were being performed, something new crept up; something totally unrelated to the problem with my blood. Something that put everything else on hold.

My long-time readers will remember when I was laid up with pneumonia back in December of 2008. It was confined to my right lung, and it’s not at all unusual to recur at any time in the future. Here’s where the karma comes in, or should I say, lack of karma? Some of the recent tests showed “an infiltrate is present within the left upper lobe and the right major fissure thickening.”

What this means is that there is an astute possibility that I have a cancerous tumor in my left lung, as in lung cancer. That’s something no one wants to hear. My doctor said it was large, and the PET result stated it had an “uptake value of 2.7.” The injection I got before the scan contained a radioactive substance and glucose. Cancer cells absorb the material 10-times more than healthy cells, so they light up like Christmas trees. 2.7 is not full-blown cancer like 5.0, but it’s enough to make any doctor sit up and take notice. It’s also the reason why all other health concerns are now on hold. The “major fissure thickening” is the area between lobes, near a vertebra. While that one shows no sign of cancer at this time, it may down the road. Next week, I will be put under a derivative of morphine and Valium, and my left lung will be biopsied. No matter what it is, and I’m fairly certain I know, the growth will most likely be removed after it’s evaluated.

This is just the start of many pokes and probes and possible operations. Trust me when I say it has weighed heavily on my mind, as my close friends and family will attest. Here and now, I am going to explain the matter of karma. I never did anything morally wrong enough for some silly karma to come and get me, despite being bitten in the azz by a biopsy needle. No, this problem has nothing to do with karma. The only thing that matters is the fact that I smoked cigarettes and cigars for nearly 40-years. It was my choice to smoke and no one else’s, and it’s what caused it. (I did quit four years ago.)

When giving my mother the news, I told her the most important part — the only reason why it was found early was because of tests taken for another type of cancer. Had I not had those tests at this time, odds are it wouldn’t have been diagnosed until it was too late. I have no real symptoms and that’s the problem. By the time real symptoms creep up on you, this type of cancer, which is extremely aggressive, has grown arms and legs and spread like wildfire. That’s the main reason why lung cancer has such a high mortality rate.

While I will insist it’s not karma, I will say I do believe in divine intervention, although I’m no authority on it. I think, in my case, it’s what made sure the right tests were performed at the right time — that caught it early enough. At least, that’s what I’m praying. So, if you wonder why I haven’t written much lately, truth be told, I’ll readily admit I’ve rested on my laurels, I can be a great procrastinator, and I have a lazy streak at times. But one thing is certain — there’s a lot on my mind right now that limits my creativity and I shouldn’t be that way. I need to find new stories to write about, but until I do, please bear with me. While I do not believe in karma, I do believe in the power of prayer, and that’s precisely what I am asking you to do. Please keep me in your prayers. That’s all I ask.

And if you smoke, please quit now.

Examining the Examiner

Recently, a news story surfaced that claimed Caylee Anthony’s mother had “inked a multi-media deal, 6 figure cash advance.” Several local media outlets in Orlando, and perhaps elsewhere in the country, credited the Los Angeles Examiner with the shocking revelation. There’s a serious flaw with that claim because there is no such publication as the Los Angeles Examiner. The Los Angeles Examiner was founded in 1903 by William Randolph Hearst. In 1962, it merged with the Los Angeles Herald-Express and became the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. On November 2, 1989, it published its last edition. While that paper folded, the San Francisco Examiner, also once owned by Hearst, is still in business, and at one time, the two papers complemented each other.

Today, a new breed of “newspapers” have entered the fray of Internet-based media outlets. While these new kids on the block print no paper editions, they are still loosely considered newspapers to some extent. One of them is Examiner.com, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any real newspaper, in print and online form, with Examiner in its name. The Washington Examiner and the San Francisco Examiner are two examples of print and online versions and there is a lot of confusion between Examiner.com and those two legitimate Examiner newspapers. To clarify the difference, let’s clear up any confusion. Examiner.com is a division of the Clarity Media Group, which is wholly owned by The Anschutz Company. Clarity Media Group is the parent company of the Washington and San Francisco newspapers. However, neither are affiliated with Examiner.com. The CEO of Examiner.com, Rick Blair, asserted that, “We offer stories about the best bike trips in the city and where to go on the weekend. We’re really not covering news.”¹

A few years ago, I thought about applying for one of the Examiner openings. I don’t recall what position it was specifically, i.e., Orlando Flirting Examiner, Orlando Drinking Games Examiner, Orlando Beauty After 50 Examiner, or whatever. (Actually, those are job offerings as of today.) Yes, whatever it was, Examiner.com seemed to promise more than it could deliver right from the start, and I walked away without applying. Their Website claims that you can:

• Earn extra income writing about what you love.
• Build your portfolio and gain valuable experience.
• Set your own hours
• Work from home

All of this sounds enticing because “IT PAYS TO BE AN EXAMINER!”

Rosetta Thurman is the author of Blogging for Branding.  Her Website claims that no one writes for “The Examiner,” you simply become an Examiner. From the Blogging for Branding Website:

I see a lot of people saying that they “write for the Examiner,” which is incorrect and misleading. Examiner.com itself is clear that (my bold emphasis):

“We are powered by Examiners, the largest pool of knowledgeable and passionate contributors in the world. Examiners provide unique and original content to enhance life in your local city wherever that may be.”

You are called “an Examiner” as a title that identifies you as a writer for the site. It is simply a descriptive noun. Again, you do not write for any of the Examiner newspapers in any way. Yet it’s a misconception that the site obviously profits from.

Now that we are aware of what Examiner.com is all about, let’s take a look at the bottom line. What kind of money can an Examiner make? Examiner.com bases its compensation on page view traffic, subscriptions, session length and advertiser interest, but it does claim that contributing writers should not consider a writing gig as any sort of full-time employment, and it “tries to be very clear and transparent that this isn’t a ‘quit your day job’ opportunity.”

WritersWeekly claims to be the “highest-circulation freelance writing ezine in the world.” Examiners were issued a call by WritersWeekly to share their experiences. After the interviews, an article was published on the site (no author credit) that consolidated the math of the respondents and claimed that the estimated cost per-article looked like this:

Penny $ 2.09 per article
Barbie $ 2.30 per article
Mario $ 0.07 per article
Katrina $ 1.96 per article
Tim $ 0.88 per article
Clark $ 1.60 per article
Franny $ 0.37 per article
Kathryn $ 1.96 per article
Courtney $ 1.88 per article

Average: $1.46 per article

Some had written hundreds of articles (usually 400-600 words each) and these were their averages. One claimed to make 10 cents per hour when all was said and done. WritersWeekly also noted that most of the pay-per-click contracts require continued contributions from writers, so if you stop writing for Examiner.com, you lose your residual income while they keep making money in perpetuity.

While many media outlets claimed that the defunct Los Angeles Examiner published the article about the Anthony book deal, it was not remotely close to the kind of newspaper the mind generally conjures up when mentioned by legitimate media sources. To make things more clear, the Orlando Sentinel  and Orlando magazine have print and online editions, whereas, Examiner.com merely has an online presence. Writers for the Orlando publications are real journalists. Those with Examiner.com cannot make that claim for the most part. That takes us to the article that started this mess. Written by Donna Thomas, the LA Crime Examiner, who is she?

Her Examiner bio says she “is a published author. She is a frequent contributor on different true crime cases. She has interviewed everyone from Ted Bundy to the Unabomber.” All fine and good, right?

Garth Stapley is a journalist with the The Modesto Bee. In a January 7, 2008 article, Stapley wrote that “Scott Peterson strangled his pregnant wife in their kitchen on Christmas Eve 2002, according to a book written by a woman claiming he confessed to her 15 months ago during a prison visit.” (See: Author says Peterson confessed how and why he killed Laci)

Stapley pointed out that Thomas’s book contained a number of inconsistencies with her first, self-published, book and with statements she made to The Modesto Bee in interviews during a 19-month period. According to Stapley:

His appellate lawyers in October issued a terse statement confirming that their client had contact with Thomas, but denying that Peterson made statements attributed to him in publicity for the book.

“It is unclear what the motivation was for Ms. Thomas’ initial contact with Mr. Peterson,” East Bay attorneys Larry Gibbs and Cliff Gardner wrote to The Bee. “We are unsure of her motive in writing the book after Mr. Peterson broke off contact with Ms. Thomas, but it was not the search for truth.”

Thomas’s “I’m sorry I lied to you” book did not cite her first book, “Conduct Unbecoming - However, the Scott Peterson I Know Is Innocent”, either. She told the newspaper that she had passed a polygraph regarding Peterson’s alleged jailhouse confession, but she never produced proof, and she never produced any of the original letters she claimed she had received from Peterson. Here’s an interesting little tidbit, in my opinion, of course. According to Stapley, Thomas pledged “to donate a portion of her proceeds to ‘Haven/Stanuslaus (sic) Women’s Refuge.’ But Belinda Rolicheck, executive director of the Haven Women’s Center of Stanislaus, said recently she has never spoken with Thomas or her publisher.”

I think Stapley pretty much painted a picture of Donna Thomas, who I am not out to impugn at all. Instead, I strongly recommend that you read The Bee article written by Stapley and formulate your own opinion.

In the 1981 movie, “Body Heat”, William Hurt played a gullible third-rate attorney who was taken advantage of by a sinister woman played by Kathleen Turner. IMDB described it this way:

In the midst of a searing Florida heat wave, a woman convinces her lover, a small-town lawyer, to murder her rich husband.

The great Paul Newman starred in a 1982 movie titled, “The Verdict”. His character was a washed-out, drunk, ambulance chasing attorney who gets set-up to fall hard by a huge law firm headed by James Mason. How could a drunk has-been (or never-was) topple the Boston Diocese and the most powerful law firm in the city? (I urge you to watch both films.)

What this leads me to is quite simple and straightforward. Jose Baez and Cheney Mason sure looked inept in the courtroom. By that, I mean the prosecution was clear and concise and they produced compelling evidence that should have convicted Caylee Anthony’s alleged murderer. While many still argue over the outcome of the trial, one thing we did learn was that the defense was shrewd, cunning, and willing to lie in order to exonerate their client. I would assert that there’s a good possibility that Donna Thomas and Examiner.com were set-up by Baez or one of his goons. For the life of me, and this is the very first thing that came to mind, I would never suspect that a real whistle-blower would contact an Examiner to hand over an exclusive story like this one. That sort of “bombshell” belongs to the Riveras and Graces of the world, or any other legitimate and credible journalist. Thomas claims it was sources that told her, not one singular source. That’s suspect to me because she wrote most of the article using the plural, but in the end, she wrote that a source said Anthony doesn’t care if her book is boycotted or not; she has her 6-figure advance and she will be flush with money for a long time to come. The article finished by citing a source - singular - not sources, as saying anyone who thinks that crime doesn’t pay is sadly mistaken. Also, who could possibly live for a long time on a 6-figure salary, particularly after the IRS, her attorneys and handlers, and potential lawsuits are paid off?

With regard to a writer for Examiner.com, any writer, my guess is that an average pay-per-click amount would be somewhere around one cent. If a “How to make meatloaf” article written by an LA Home Recipes Examiner gets about 200 hits, it might make a whopping $2.00 for the hour it took to write. Imagine a story that draws the attention of millions of people worldwide; a powerful exclusive! How many hits would you guess it could garner? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? You know, it would be an easy incentive to make a fast buck, that’s for sure. Lots and lots of bucks, for that matter, but I’m not trying to infer anything seedy about the author. No doubt, the defense is capable of doing anything to keep their client in the limelight by planting a seed and later denying it, because that will keep her star from fading into oblivion, right? I really can’t say, but as far as I’m concerned, any way you look at it, it’s pure sleaze, from top to bottom. Bottom is more like it, and I’m not going to buy into any of it.

If you have any type of problem commenting on this or any other post, please let me know by sending me an e-mail. You can use the “Contact Me” form located at the bottom of the left sidebar. 

Of Biblical Proportions

SOLOMON, PART I

On January 27, 2010, I wrote a post titled, “The Wisdom of Solomon”. It was two days after The Honorable Judge Stan Strickland listened to Amy Huizenga’s thieving friend plead guilty to thirteen counts of fraud. Here is part of what I wrote that day:

State Attorney Frank George stood up at his respective podium and began to speak. On July 8, 2008, Casey wrote a check in the amount of $111.01 that accounted for charges 2, 3, and 4. She wrote this check at Target.  On July 10, she passed a check at Target in the amount of $137.77 that accounted for charges 5, 6, and 7. Also on July 10, she passed a third check at Target for $155.47 and that took care of counts 8, 9, and 10. Counts 11, 12, and 13 took place on July 15 when she wrote a check for $250 at the Bank of America. He then brought up count 1 which referred to a deliberate scheme of conduct overall. She planned on writing checks until they bounced off the walls, I would guess. Good thing we live in the information age, where account balances are instantaneous almost everywhere we go.

Judge Strickland gave the defense an opportunity to challenge the charges. We can discuss the lack of brevity or the levity of the arguments, but let’s cut to the chase - it came down to the judge. First, it should be noted that Casey had no prior convictions and she did make full restitution and  Baez did bring up “equal justice” for his client. He asked for one year of probation and credit for time served, rather than the five years of incarceration the State sought. In the end, His Honor sentenced the 23-year-old Casey to (jail) time served - 412 days - plus $5,517.75 in investigative costs and $348 for court. The amount may be discussed and negotiated at a later motion hearing because the defense found the investigative charge too high and not justifiable. He also adjudicated Casey guilty on six of the fraud counts and withheld adjudication on seven, plus he tacked on a year of supervised probation, which could be problematic and complex later on, given that she still faces a huge mountain of charges ahead. He said that he had given this a lot of thought prior to sentencing. “I’ve done what I thought is fair based on what I know.”

In closing, he added what he felt was the right thing to do:

“There was not an even number of offenses, so I withheld in seven, I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is.”

Of particular interest now is the Solomon-like decision Judge Perry faces regarding the recent clarification of Casey’s probation period set by Judge Strickland. I find it ironic that good old Solomon once again rears his head at the now acquitted and much detested convicted felon.

MOSES, PART I

That brings me to another biblical figure - Moses. He was the guy who cast ten plagues on the people of Egypt. He also parted the Red Sea after he turned the Nile into blood. The pharoah was none too happy with that, so he let Moses and his people go out of Egypt to be slaves no more.

My reason for bringing up Moses has little to do with him, actually. It’s more about the pharaoh at the time, and what his edict was while Moses was packing up the Israelites to wander in the desert for forty years. Every mention of his name and every word etched in stone was struck from the official records. (Historical records actually show that Ramses II was not in charge at the time, but Hollywood disagrees.)

As Ramses II, Yul Brynner exclaimed in Cecil B. de Mille’s film The Ten Commandments, “So it shall be written, so it shall be done.” In this same light, I proclaim that the name Casey Anthony will no longer be permitted on this blog. It is now stricken from the record. However, I do have an appropriate replacement. We know that Caylee called Cindy Ci Ci, and George was Jo Jo. What did she call her mother? How about Ca Ca? From now on, Caylee’s mother will only be known as Ca Ca. Yes, you know how it’s pronounced.

SOLOMON, PART II

Back to the problem Judge Perry called “a legal maze” and “a legal morass”. What sort of decision should he make? According to the Department of Corrections, Ca Ca served her probation while incarcerated and was duly discharged a year later; free from all restrictions. According to what Judge Strickland said in open court on January 25, 2010, her probation was supposed to begin AFTER her release from jail, not while she was sitting in a cell, and he made it clear last week, on August 1, when he issued a corrected Order of Probation and corrected Court Minutes, nunc pro tunc to January 25, 2010. Nunc pro tunc, of course, means now for then; whatever the action is, it has a retroactive legal effect.

Here’s the dilemma. Ca Ca’s defense argues that she has served her probation while incarcerated and they have a letter from DOC to prove it. On the other hand, Judge Strickland made it abundantly clear that Ca Ca did not serve her probation as per his instructions, and his order stated that it was to begin after her release, only there was a mix-up on the first order, as written by the court. But that was not Judge Strickland’s fault. Meanwhile, Cheney Mason filed a motion on his client’s behalf, the EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING TO QUASH, VACATE, AND SET ASIDE COURT’S ORDER. 

Judge Perry said (at the August 5 hearing on the matter) that what Strickland stated in court should trump all - not what the defense claimed. At the same time, Perry acknowledged that she DID serve out her probation in jail according to the Orange County Corrections Department. What a quagmire. “If anything could go wrong,” he said, “it went wrong here.”

Perry is quite aware of safety concerns, meaning keeping Ca Ca safe from harm. To openly serve probation now opens up a can of worms since her address would be made public due to Florida’s sunshine laws. You know, what with all those death threats and whatever.

Phooey. Ask OCSO how many real death threats they’ve received since her release from incarceration. From my own experience with trolls and the “vengenance is mine” crap - yes, that’s the way one idiot spelled it, insinuating harm on me - almost every one of them lives far enough away to be a real threat, although I wouldn’t trust any of them face-to-face, and that leads me back to Ca Ca. Personally, I feel she should be more afraid the farther away from home she is, as she enters uncharted territory. There are more crazies out there in the world than there are in Orlando. Believe me, I thank God for the Atlantic ocean, but that’s another story.

Ahum.

Moving on, I am left with prior motions the defense filed before the trial which asked the court to seal jail records, including visitation logs, telephone conversations and commissary purchases. They were filed and denied while Strickland was on the bench, and they were refiled, along with new ones, after Judge Perry took over. Both judges made it very clear that the judicial branch holds no legal sway over the legislative branch; the one that controls jails and prisons. Consequently, neither judge ruled in favor of the defense because they had no authority to do so.

That leads me to what I think the judge should do. Since he has no power over the jail because it’s a completely separate governmental branch from the court, his decision should be based on those prior rulings. The court does not have to honor the administrative decisions the jail makes in its day-to-day operations. What both judges have been saying all along is that they have no control over the executive branch, and at the same time, the jail has no power over the judicial. There you have it - a very simple solution to a complex problem. Ca Ca did not serve a day of probation while incarcerated because she did not satisfy the court’s order. The heck with what the jail says.

MOSES, PART II

As Ramses said about Moses, let Judge Perry say the same thing about Ca Ca. So it shall be written, so it shall be done. While he wanders through what must be at least 40 years worth of court cases, let’s see how he rules. Personally, I think the answer should be a year of supervised probation. Afterward, she can find her Promised Land. By then, she should be old news and TMZ won’t pay her another dime.

Have a Happy Heavenly Birthday!

Last Laugh?

I’m sorry. I did state that I planned on walking away from the Casey Anthony case, and it’s still my intent, but I just had to say something about today’s news. I couldn’t resist, especially when it comes to Judge Strickland…

On August 1, 2011, Judge Stan Strickland ordered Casey Anthony to serve one year of supervised probation, nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc is Latin for now for then. In other words, the judge issued a new court order showing that the earlier order was in error in its interpretation by the Department of Corrections. The words upon release were omitted in the original document.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Strickland said, “From my reading of this, she should be reporting to probation in Orlando probably within 72 hours. I suspect she’s going to be required to report to probation.”

On January 25, 2010, Anthony pleaded guilty as charged to check fraud. Her attorney, Jose Baez, asked Judge Strickland to give her credit for time served and to place her on probation for a year. He obliged by sentencing her to time served, 412 days for each of the six charges he found her guilty of , followed by one year of probation. The 412 day sentences were to be served concurrently.

At issue, upon her release from jail on July 17, 2011, was whether she had served her probation during the year following her guilty plea to fraud. Clearly, a person cannot violate probation while sitting in a 4’x9’ jail cell 23-hours each day. The judge’s intent was for Casey to serve her probation upon her release from jail, not during. Therefore, he made that very clear in his amended order today.

Casey was also ordered to pay the following amounts: $5.00 for court costs, $50.00 for CCF, $225.00 for LGCJTF, $3.00 for TEENCT, and $65.00 for the Criminal Ordinance program. She must also pay the costs of investigation and prosecution. Attached to the new order were special conditions, along with the year of probation. Of course, there’s to be no contact with the victim, Amy Huizenga, which should be no problem at all. Each month, Casey must make a “full and truthful report” to her Probation Officer, along with $20.00 (payable to the state of Florida) toward the cost of supervision, and a 4% surcharge.

Here’s where the order gets tricky. The order states that Casey “will not change [her] residence or employment or leave the county of [her] residence without first procuring the consent of [her] Probation Officer.” Oddly, her last place of residence was 4937 Hopespring Drive. Something tells me she will fight tooth and nail to keep herself away from that house.

The order carries a total of 13 legal stipulations she must follow, such as not being able to own any sort of weapon. Attached are the two documents released by the Clerk of Courts today. I think we can fully count on her defense challenging this new order, but what judge will hear the motion? None other than Chief Judge Belvin Perry, according to the Orlando Sentinel write-up.

I do not believe Judge Strickland intended to have the last laugh. His design was for Casey to serve her probation upon her release from jail. Isn’t it ironic, though, that in the end, while Cheney Mason claims he was able to take the judge down, he couldn’t take him out? Rich indeed!

OneTouch Aug 01, 2011 (1)

OneTouch Aug 01, 2011 (2)

Well Worth 10 Minutes of Your Time

Dumbfounded, With Prejudice

When Cheney Mason joined Casey Anthony’s defense team in March of 2008, he proclaimed that the day would come when “we will walk out of here with Casey in arm.” He was that confident she would be acquitted. He was right.

Please tell me what you think on Orlando Magazine

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

Justice Didn’t Take a Holiday

 Sitting in court yesterday, I found it ironic and so apropos that the fate of Casey Anthony was delivered into the hands of a jury of her peers on Independence Day. For nearly three years she has been afforded the presumption of innocence while the murder case against her slowly inched through our legal system. She has had the luxury of being ensnared by a judicial system that seeks to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Share your thoughts on Orlando Magazine

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

Pets, Lies and Duct Tape

In his opening statement, Jose Baez guaranteed that the jury would come to believe that George Anthony had sexually molested Casey when she was young, that he found Caylee’s body floating in the backyard pool, and he alone applied duct tape to her face. Somehow, someway, he would explain how meter reader Roy Kronk disposed of the child’’s body so he could later “discover” it and collect a reward. But as the defense wrapped up its case Thursday it was clear that Baez had failed to deliver the goods. His strategy created a lot of smoke but yielded little substance. 

What do you think?

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

A Fool's Errand

Casey seems to have turned into a hostile client. Two psychologists and a psychiatrist told the court she is as competent to stand trial today as she was when Judge Strickland ordered a mental evaluation three years ago.

What do you think?.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

All Fired Up

What really transpired behind closed doors, in chambers, on Saturday? It could be some sort of trap Mason has set for the judge – a legal technicality he hopes will derail the trial, but I don’t think so. There’s discord in this defense team. They are in disarray, and I sense that they are turning on each other.

Read my opinion and leave yours. There’s plenty of room to drive a Mack Truck through…

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

The Truth About Cindy's Testimony

What Cindy said on the stand Thursday was shocking, but the fact is, she did tell the prosecution almost the same thing back in July of 2009 during her deposition.  Technically, she didn’t lie the other day, unless she lied about it to begin with.

Whatever you think, it will be up to the jury to decide, but here’s what she said…

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

The Defense Wrests

Are Cheney Mason and Jose Baez really that bad or are they smarter than we think?

You can read my opinion and share your thoughts at Orlando Magazine.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!