I want to understand what is going on with Casey Anthony and her family, and I know that several readers have written, voicing similar interests. So, I've sent an invitation to an expert in narcissism and asked for a guest post.
Hopefully, we'll have that input by Friday evening - if not, I'll send out another invite to an expert in narcissism or sociopathy, etc. and (fingers crossed) either way, we'll have an expert giving us details on this issue.
Personally, I pondered on this issue a couple of years back, as fodder for character studies in my personal writing and I posted about this at my fiction writing blog (here).
For me, I don't believe that Casey can be considered without looking at her family, particularly her mother. There's something sad and bad about their relationship - but I'll wait to hear what the psychologist has to reveal about all this.
Reading one reader's comment here - Anonymous on June 5th to Who Is Jose Baez? post - I think she may know more than the rest of us about the family dynamic in that house, e.g., that Casey became a liar as a means of escaping the overwhelming power and control of her mother. That makes sense to me.
One other thing: I wish that I could look at Casey Anthony and consider the possibility of a mother killing her child as a bizarre, unique instance - but I can't. One of the biggest shocks that I had when I worked the local CPS Docket was the parents, particularly the mothers. There were some that were blind to their children, they did not care. I learned that a maternal instinct is not a given in humans. Some chose drugs, true. Some, however, just did not love those babies - and "blind" is the closest I can get right now to describing their lack of perception.
6/08/2011
6/04/2011
Casey Anthony Trial - Here is What the State Has To Do To Prove Its Case Under Florida Law
In the Casey Anthony trial, the prosecution must provide the jury with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes for which she was charged were indeed committed by defendant Casey Anthony. I'm providing two helpful links here for those wanting to follow along with the trial as the state puts on its case.
What Casey Anthony Has Been Charged With - First Degree Murder, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child
From a CNN article, I found a listing of the grand jury indictment's seven counts: Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four (4) counts of providing false information to police. First degree murder in Florida carries the possibility of the death penalty (see below).
(By the way, when I found this article I re-read something that I had forgot: Casey was arrested after she switched cars under an overpass shortly after the indictment came down - wow. Forgot all about that one.)
Florida Prosecutors Burden: What They Must Prove With Admitted Evidence To Win Their Case
The Florida Supreme Court's website includes the current jury instructions that are to be used in Florida criminal trials. From these instructions you can find each prong of the case, or element of the crime, that must be shown by the reasonable doubt standard. Just surf through.
"There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.
"To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
"1. (Victim) is dead. (State will have to put in evidence that Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.)
"2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant). (State will have to put in evidence that Casey caused Caylee's death and this was by a criminal act.)
"3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim). (State will have to put in evidence that this was premeditated.)
"Definitions.
"An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing. "
What are jury instructions?
Jury instructions take the actual statutes and place them into a format for the jury to use in their deliberations, as they assess the evidence presented to them. There is a charge conference between the lawyers and the judge (at least that's what we do here in Texas), where the jury instructions are debated by the lawyers and after arguments, finalized by the judge. The charge will include the instuctions as well as question like you hear on Law n Order all the time: "how do you find" type of thing.
For example, here is the Florida statute for murder which can result in a life sentence or the death penalty which you can see dovetailed into the Jury Instructions for Homicide (above):
Florida Statutes 782.04
Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:
(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or
2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and
(b) Is intended to:
1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;
2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.
History.—s. 2, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2380; GS 3205; RGS 5035; s. 1, ch. 8470, 1921; CGL 7137; s. 1, ch. 28023, 1953; s. 712, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 72-724; s. 14, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 76-141; s. 290, ch. 79-400; s. 1, ch. 82-4; s. 1, ch. 82-69; s. 1, ch. 84-16; s. 6, ch. 87-243; ss. 2, 4, ch. 89-281; s. 4, ch. 90-112; s. 3, ch. 93-212; s. 11, ch. 95-195; s. 18, ch. 96-322; s. 1, ch. 98-417; s. 10, ch. 99-188; s. 16, ch. 2000-320; s. 2, ch. 2001-236; s. 2, ch. 2001-357; s. 1, ch. 2002-212; s. 12, ch. 2005-128; s. 1, ch. 2010-121.
What Casey Anthony Has Been Charged With - First Degree Murder, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child
From a CNN article, I found a listing of the grand jury indictment's seven counts: Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four (4) counts of providing false information to police. First degree murder in Florida carries the possibility of the death penalty (see below).
(By the way, when I found this article I re-read something that I had forgot: Casey was arrested after she switched cars under an overpass shortly after the indictment came down - wow. Forgot all about that one.)
Florida Prosecutors Burden: What They Must Prove With Admitted Evidence To Win Their Case
The Florida Supreme Court's website includes the current jury instructions that are to be used in Florida criminal trials. From these instructions you can find each prong of the case, or element of the crime, that must be shown by the reasonable doubt standard. Just surf through.
- You can read the section under Homicide and get an idea of the prosecution's duty here, it's in somewhat of an outline format but easy enough for following along with the current proceedings.
- Search the Florida Supreme Court's instructions to find First Degree Murder as well as Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child: Florida Supreme Court - Jury Instructions.
"There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.
"To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
"1. (Victim) is dead. (State will have to put in evidence that Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.)
"2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant). (State will have to put in evidence that Casey caused Caylee's death and this was by a criminal act.)
"3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim). (State will have to put in evidence that this was premeditated.)
"Definitions.
"An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing. "
What are jury instructions?
Jury instructions take the actual statutes and place them into a format for the jury to use in their deliberations, as they assess the evidence presented to them. There is a charge conference between the lawyers and the judge (at least that's what we do here in Texas), where the jury instructions are debated by the lawyers and after arguments, finalized by the judge. The charge will include the instuctions as well as question like you hear on Law n Order all the time: "how do you find" type of thing.
For example, here is the Florida statute for murder which can result in a life sentence or the death penalty which you can see dovetailed into the Jury Instructions for Homicide (above):
Florida Statutes 782.04
Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment. (emphasis added)
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:
(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or
2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and
(b) Is intended to:
1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;
2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.
History.—s. 2, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2380; GS 3205; RGS 5035; s. 1, ch. 8470, 1921; CGL 7137; s. 1, ch. 28023, 1953; s. 712, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 72-724; s. 14, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 76-141; s. 290, ch. 79-400; s. 1, ch. 82-4; s. 1, ch. 82-69; s. 1, ch. 84-16; s. 6, ch. 87-243; ss. 2, 4, ch. 89-281; s. 4, ch. 90-112; s. 3, ch. 93-212; s. 11, ch. 95-195; s. 18, ch. 96-322; s. 1, ch. 98-417; s. 10, ch. 99-188; s. 16, ch. 2000-320; s. 2, ch. 2001-236; s. 2, ch. 2001-357; s. 1, ch. 2002-212; s. 12, ch. 2005-128; s. 1, ch. 2010-121.
6/03/2011
John Edwards, Expert Trial Attorney, Indicted Today in Six Count Indictment From Federal Grand Jury: This Should Get Interesting Fast.
This afternoon, actually in about an hour and a half, former Vice-Presidential nominee (with Kerry in 2004) as well as a Presidential candidate on more than one occasion, John Edwards is going to make his first appearance as a defendant in a North Carolina federal courtroom, since he's been indicted by a federal grand jury on six counts of essentially campaign fraud.
This is going to be a case to watch, at least I find it interesting. Not only is John Edwards a career politician, he's got a history as an extremely successful trial attorney.
Put those two together in the current scenario, where's he is fighting to stay out of jail, and this is going to be fascinating. Not that he's really demonstrated all that much savvy so far. I mean really.
My first question: who is John Edwards choosing to be his lead criminal defense lawyer? This will bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "controlling your client."
Oh, and fine. I've been expecting this for awhile. Back in August 2008, I wrote a post wondering about the money after the Rielle Hunter story broke. I asked about campaign financing back then. Guess I got my answer today....
This is going to be a case to watch, at least I find it interesting. Not only is John Edwards a career politician, he's got a history as an extremely successful trial attorney.
Put those two together in the current scenario, where's he is fighting to stay out of jail, and this is going to be fascinating. Not that he's really demonstrated all that much savvy so far. I mean really.
My first question: who is John Edwards choosing to be his lead criminal defense lawyer? This will bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "controlling your client."
Oh, and fine. I've been expecting this for awhile. Back in August 2008, I wrote a post wondering about the money after the Rielle Hunter story broke. I asked about campaign financing back then. Guess I got my answer today....
Watching the Casey Anthony Trial - Judge Belvin Perry Is One Great Trial Judge
Watching the daily television feed of the Casey Anthony trial, lots of the good work that Judge Belvin Perry is doing gets lost, as the TV channels take the opportunity for throwing in commercials the minute that the presentation of evidence is halted.
That's too bad, because lots can be learned from watching Judge Perry in action.
What makes me think that Judge Belvin Perry is really good at what he does? Lots of things, but these come to mind immediately:
1. He understands the lawyers' jobs. Granted, my background is in huge, voluminous civil cases that take weeks if not months to try. One example: in these cases, there's lots and lots and lots of paper, and amidst all that pressure of trial, there's the need to keep track of all that stuff. Judge Perry offers the lawyers a secure place to keep their files there in the courtroom - not all judges do that; I have horrific memories of waiting for the firm courier and his cart so we could move all that stuff back to the office every evening, and into the courtroom every morning. Pack up the bankers' boxes, unpack the bankers' boxes. How nice to have the Judge give that secure space, it's a little thing but it's a big deal, too.
2. He lets the jury know that they are the Important Ones here - along with everyone else in the courtroom. I respect the American system of justice primarily because in the search for truth, that jury really does tend to sniff it out. True, it's not 100% of the time, but it's amazing to watch those 12 individuals take their spots in the jury box and meld into a cohesive whole. The jury in a trial does become an entity: the factfinder. It's great to see the trial judge here give the jury the respect and courtesy that it deserves. Judge Perry will ask them to make the call on staying late (he did this yesterday); Judge Perry will blast the lawyers on how the Jury wanted to work Memorial Day and their desire to keep moving is going to be respected.
3. He's approachable. Racehorse Haynes was one of my mentors when I was a baby lawyer, and one of the things he told me was that the masters of the profession knew who they were, and let you know that, too. They brought their own personalities into their work, they didn't conform - he told me to watch for the ones that didn't wear the blue suit, that didn't carry the Right Briefcase, you get the idea. Judge Perry doesn't demand respect from the bench, he assumes it will be given - you know he's been doing this for years, without checking his background. He could be intimidating or arrogant and we'd accept it. He's not, he listens to the lawyers and while he's routinely denying Jose Baez's requests for sidebars, Judge Perry is accommodating and ready to help everyone get their jobs done, as best he can.
I could go on and on about this judge. He's just wonderful. I really, really, really respect Judge Belvin Perry.
That's too bad, because lots can be learned from watching Judge Perry in action.
What makes me think that Judge Belvin Perry is really good at what he does? Lots of things, but these come to mind immediately:
1. He understands the lawyers' jobs. Granted, my background is in huge, voluminous civil cases that take weeks if not months to try. One example: in these cases, there's lots and lots and lots of paper, and amidst all that pressure of trial, there's the need to keep track of all that stuff. Judge Perry offers the lawyers a secure place to keep their files there in the courtroom - not all judges do that; I have horrific memories of waiting for the firm courier and his cart so we could move all that stuff back to the office every evening, and into the courtroom every morning. Pack up the bankers' boxes, unpack the bankers' boxes. How nice to have the Judge give that secure space, it's a little thing but it's a big deal, too.
2. He lets the jury know that they are the Important Ones here - along with everyone else in the courtroom. I respect the American system of justice primarily because in the search for truth, that jury really does tend to sniff it out. True, it's not 100% of the time, but it's amazing to watch those 12 individuals take their spots in the jury box and meld into a cohesive whole. The jury in a trial does become an entity: the factfinder. It's great to see the trial judge here give the jury the respect and courtesy that it deserves. Judge Perry will ask them to make the call on staying late (he did this yesterday); Judge Perry will blast the lawyers on how the Jury wanted to work Memorial Day and their desire to keep moving is going to be respected.
3. He's approachable. Racehorse Haynes was one of my mentors when I was a baby lawyer, and one of the things he told me was that the masters of the profession knew who they were, and let you know that, too. They brought their own personalities into their work, they didn't conform - he told me to watch for the ones that didn't wear the blue suit, that didn't carry the Right Briefcase, you get the idea. Judge Perry doesn't demand respect from the bench, he assumes it will be given - you know he's been doing this for years, without checking his background. He could be intimidating or arrogant and we'd accept it. He's not, he listens to the lawyers and while he's routinely denying Jose Baez's requests for sidebars, Judge Perry is accommodating and ready to help everyone get their jobs done, as best he can.
I could go on and on about this judge. He's just wonderful. I really, really, really respect Judge Belvin Perry.
Posting on the Casey Anthony Trial - Better Late than Never
Like most of the country, I've been following the Caylee Anthony tragedy almost since the afternoon that Cindy Anthony's 911 call was first released by the national media. I'm not sure why so many of us are so pulled to this particular case. I know there are several theories, but there it is: enough viewers around the country that the trial is being shown all day long, every day, and then countless Talking Head shows are doing their various replays and analyses during the evening.
It may not be the O.J. Simpson trial, but it's getting close.
I haven't been posting on the case for one reason: Terry Lenamon, the first death-qualified attorney on the Casey Anthony defense team, is one of my writing clients. I didn't want to give any appearance of impropriety and for a very long time, I didn't write about this case. I just watched; discussed developments with friends.
However, I've changed my mind about this for these reasons:
1. Terry Lenamon hasn't been on that case for years now, and he has never (ever!) discussed the details of that representation with me. No, I haven't read the memo. No, I don't know the backstory about how he got on that case or why he got off. No, I don't know what his opinion is on what is happening now - haven't got a clue.
2. There are important things for all of us to learn from this trial.
3. I'm getting lots of questions about this trial, and I think that in the balance, it's better for me to post here on Casey Anthony than worry about this Terry Lenamon tie. Terry's posted his public statements on his blog for all to read, they are over there. What I post here are mine. No connection. I'm a 20+ year AV-Preeminent attorney in Texas, and I have something to contribute to this national dialogue. (Hopefully.)
It may not be the O.J. Simpson trial, but it's getting close.
I haven't been posting on the case for one reason: Terry Lenamon, the first death-qualified attorney on the Casey Anthony defense team, is one of my writing clients. I didn't want to give any appearance of impropriety and for a very long time, I didn't write about this case. I just watched; discussed developments with friends.
However, I've changed my mind about this for these reasons:
1. Terry Lenamon hasn't been on that case for years now, and he has never (ever!) discussed the details of that representation with me. No, I haven't read the memo. No, I don't know the backstory about how he got on that case or why he got off. No, I don't know what his opinion is on what is happening now - haven't got a clue.
2. There are important things for all of us to learn from this trial.
- First, there are more details here on the reality of how trials work, which is important because TV expectations (like CSI forensics) do impact how lawyers have to present their cases now. Having jurors of the future see the Real World of forensics, how evidence is presented, how experts are vetted, these are all good things.
- Second, having representing abused and neglected kids for three years here in the local Children's Court, I think this case helps bring light to those issues: not every mother (or father) has that parenting instinct we tend to assume they do. One of the biggest shockers that hit me in the face when I first started working that docket was my naive assumption that these parents loved their kids, put their kids first - you know, the way that you would think. Nope. Nope. Nope.
- Third, there are damaged people out there. We need to know more about what mental illness is, why it happens, how we can help. Or, if we can. Having met and worked with diagnosed narcissists, sociopaths, bipolars, and borderlines through that Children's Docket, I know now that there are people out there that see the world, and how to live in it, differently that I do - and some of them are very scary, and some of them will not change. Maybe they cannot be helped, maybe they don't want to change.
3. I'm getting lots of questions about this trial, and I think that in the balance, it's better for me to post here on Casey Anthony than worry about this Terry Lenamon tie. Terry's posted his public statements on his blog for all to read, they are over there. What I post here are mine. No connection. I'm a 20+ year AV-Preeminent attorney in Texas, and I have something to contribute to this national dialogue. (Hopefully.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)