This form will allow you to send a secure email to the owner of this page. Your email address is not logged by this system, but will be attached to the message that is forwarded from this page.
Simon Barrett will return to the Internet airwaves today as he continues his ever popular blogtalkradio show. Today’s subject?
Casey Anthony - A Gift That Keeps Giving
1:00 PM EST
Join Simon, myself, and attorney Peter Haven, as we discuss Casey’s recent developments, including a Florida appeals court decision reducing her four misdemeanor convictions to two, plus her recent Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. Haven represented Ron Goldman’s family during the OJ Simpson civil trial. Goldman, if you recall, was murdered along with Nicole Brown Simpson. Haven is also on the board of directors of the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice, which helps victims of crimes.
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:
being retried for the same crime after an acquittal
retrial after a conviction
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.
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:
whether appellant’s motion to suppress his confession should have been granted;
whether the trial court erroneously allowed an accomplice’s prior consistent statement into evidence;
whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror; and
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’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.
Someone hacked my marinadedave (at) yahoo dot com account. DO NOT OPEN IT!!! If you receive anything, delete it right away and change your password! I did not send it, and I am sorry for any inconvenience.
This site is secure because my e-mail account is not affiliated with Yahoo! in any way, and if you never received an e-mail from marinadedave (at) yahoo dot com, you have nothing to worry about.
If you don’t have Internet protection against malware and spyware, I would strongly recommend that you download malwarebytes and SUPERAntiSpyware. Both support free versions. Malware and spyware are the greatest lines of attack now, not viruses. Run those softwares right away. You may be surprised at what you find. If you need assistance, please don’t hesitate to ask. Use the “Contact Me” form in the lower left sidebar or click HERE.
I began blogging in 2004. This is an article I published way back on August 8, 2007, a year before I began writing about true crime. What’s interesting about it is that the old saying remains the same — some things never change. The name of the blogger I critiqued does not matter today. We had become very good blogging friends and he was responsible for my initial move from Blogger to WordPress, back in the day when WordPress was by invitation only. Today, my site is on the Squarespace platform, but my original “Marinade Dave” Blogger and WordPress ones are still up and running. Mostly, I use them to link articles here.
In any event, as time went on, I noticed more and more disturbing things about my friend. He embellished an awful lot. So much, so, that I slowly started to distrust him. How could someone so obscure be so famous when no one knows who he is, I wondered? Every claim to fame emanated from his blog and nowhere else. Eventually, I developed a very sour attitude and we had a falling out. The article that finally did it — the final straw — is explained in the post below. I removed the title because there’s no point in drawing attention to him; good or bad. This is exactly how I wrote it over 5 years ago. However, I did make minor word changes, mostly grammatical.
I was intrigued when I read a blogger’s post titled, [EDITED] about two distinct shootings that occurred on opposite sides of the Atlantic, one in Far Rockaway, Queens, NY, and the other in Fulham, a suburban area of West London, England. As I familiarized myself with the story, I found some discrepancies in his version and what actually transpired, and I believe it to be a distortion of the truth. In it, he represented himself as a friend of the Queens victim. How sad that a person would accept offers of sympathy from his unsuspecting audience [blog commenters] over the death of this friend in light of the facts I will relate here. I looked into the Far Rockaway shooting as he described it and found nothing. I talked to professionals working the field, including a detective at the (NYPD) 101st Precinct. I went to news wires and feeds. I tried search engines.
What caught my attention was evident from the start, that he and the victim were friends and the victim had just arrived from Haiti to live the American dream. The blogger didn’t strike me as a person who’s spent much time on that island nation. How did he cultivate this friendship? How did they meet? Queens is not in New Jersey’s back yard, where the blogger is based and works out of his apartment. Neither is Haiti. Something just didn’t click.
Interestingly, with all of the murders in NYC, I was case specific in my query. Rightfully so. I asked about a Haitian immigrant who was shot in the collarbone, based on the blogger’s description of “his friend’s” senseless murder as he sat in a second-floor. The bullet that struck his collarbone careened into the heart, killing him instantly. In reality, the unfortunate gentleman who met his demise in the news account was not a “recent immigrant from Haiti” at all, nor was he shot in the collarbone, unless it somehow worked its way from the eye to the collarbone to the heart. The victim had been living here for years and was from Guyana, not exactly within swimming distance of Haiti. Certainly, he should have known where this “friend” was originally from and how long he’d been here. I kept thinking it’s not the same shooting, they’re not related, but there was no other incident and his story crumbled.
Was this an unprofessional attempt to elicit sympathy for the overall message of his post calling for a worldwide ban on handguns? If so, he should have done more homework and gotten his facts straight. Although weapons of this nature are legal to buy in America, most used in the commission of crimes are not purchased by the book and ‘Saturday Night Specials’ are next to impossible to trace. So are the bullets. He tied this shooting to one in London. Britain has some of the most restrictive laws in the world that make it virtually impossible to legitimately purchase firearms, which means that both crimes were more than likely committed with illegal guns. The attempt to tie the two together was feeble at best, and because of a lack of solid information based on facts, it diluted the focus of the message. He used a falsehood as the pretext to further his own questionable agenda. But was it about the evils of handguns or a cry for sympathy over the loss of a friend?
In the realm of non-fiction writing, in this case what I would consider to be more of an op-ed opinion piece than a news report, authors must not stray from the truth. Embellishment and personal gain are words that should not be part of the vocabulary. The world is filled with distortions and with the tools we have readily available today, all reports of news events will be put under microscopes somewhere, sometime, by someone. Bloggers, especially of this genre, are no different from any other journalist and it’s only a matter of time before a watchdog group scrutinizes and exposes what is recorded as true. Until then, readers beware.
Although I did not know him, my sympathies go to the friends and family of the deceased, Urtez Burnett, and none for the imagination of the author of that post, who was only happy to accept sympathy.
There are three images just below this text. One is a photograph of George Zimmerman’s nose the night he shot Trayvon. Taken by a Sanford police officer, evidence may exist that the picture was altered in Gimp, an open source/free GNU image manipulation program that’s similar (but not equal) to Photoshop. Having spent a good part of my career in the world of graphics — art & design — I am quite familiar with photo editing software. While the information pertaining to the metadata file of this particular photograph is not new, it could be argued in court that the iPhone photograph should not be allowed into evidence. All it shows, in my opinion, is that he got hurt, so is it really worth the fight? Perhaps.
Look at the second image, which is nothing more than a screen capture of the fotoforensics Website that examined the photo. If you go to the link, make sure you click on “Metafile” located on the left side to see the data. (This information was e-mailed to me, so I won’t take any credit for finding it.)
Finally, take a look at the third image in this post. It’s my finger from earlier today. I am an insulin-dependent type 2 diabetic. Each and every day, I take a fresh lancet and PRICK my fingertip to monitor my blood sugar level with test strips that cost over $1.00 each. I do this at least twice, sometimes three, times a day — each and every day, puncturing finger after finger. Sometimes, I hit an area that produces more blood. The lancets I use are a mere 1/8” long.
Hmm… if an itsy-bitsy, teenie-weenie, tiny, little thing like that could produce this much blood, imagine what amount of damage an MMA-trained fist would have REALLY done.
Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 9:10AM 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
