View Full Version : Taxpayers foot bill for Casey Anthony defense
Moose-Knuckle
07-22-11, 17:00
As if you needed another reason to hate the fetid c*nt . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/taxpayers-foot-bill-casey-anthony-defense-155506468.html
Suwannee Tim
07-22-11, 21:01
As well as Casey Anthony it is the Orange County State Attorney you should be angry at, the one who made the bad decision to try her before they had a solid case.
Belmont31R
07-22-11, 21:59
I think you should do a Google image search for lady justice.
Since she was declared indigent, wasn't she using a public defender? So why is it a surprise that the taxpayers are paying the bill? If I'm wrong and if she was using the defense of her choice, fill me in because researching this piece of shit makes me sick.
Belmont31R
07-22-11, 22:21
Since she was declared indigent, wasn't she using a public defender? So why is it a surprise that the taxpayers are paying the bill? If I'm wrong and if she was using the defense of her choice, fill me in because researching this piece of shit makes me sick.
She has been in jail for the last 3 years. Kinda hard to fend for yourself when you've been locked up for 3 years.
Like it or not she was cleared of the charges, and had already been in jail for 3+ years.
I don't know if you missed what I was getting at, but my question was that since she was determined to be indigent, why is it news that the taxpayers are paying for her defense? I am under the impression that an indigent defendant must use court-appointed counsel, which is payed for by taxpayers. I didn't know if I am missing something or not, but if I'm not then this shouldn't really be news.
Moose-Knuckle
07-23-11, 00:43
Like it or not she was cleared of the charges, and had already been in jail for 3+ years.
This has nothing to do with what people like or not, it's a wake up call for a lot of Americans to just how F&%#ED UP our justice system is. Charges where cleared, but that doesn't change the fact thay everyone and their dead great grandpa-pa knows this cock holster murdered her daughter.
I don't know if you missed what I was getting at, but my question was that since she was determined to be indigent, why is it news that the taxpayers are paying for her defense? I am under the impression that an indigent defendant must use court-appointed counsel, which is payed for by taxpayers. I didn't know if I am missing something or not, but if I'm not then this shouldn't really be news.
Most tax payers are unaware of this particular fact about her defense. The news story is spot lighting the insult to injury.
Moose,
Obviously this decision sits wrong with many, myself included. However, since she was declared indigent she is entitled to a defense. In addition many states, like Arizona have protections on place that allow you recoup legal costs (and I believe lost wages) if you are acquitted.
So yes sucks. But it's no worse than some of the other douches who have commmitted heinous crimes and received public defenders as well.
the prosecution decided that they would win the case based on elliciting strong emotions and providing weak connection to weak circumstances....they didn't bring their A game and they got trounced!
Quite frankly I'm surprised there even was a trial with the complete lack of evidence and motive they had.
99% of these cases, where the mother kills their child there is motive and typically a history of prior psychosis.
Although I may be in the minority I truly believe that there was an accident at the pool and the father covered it up. He buried the little girl in plastic and ductape in the exact same manner he buried his dead pets.
Just for the sake of arguement, it's kind of strange how many pets the father "lost" or killed over the years. I think you guy's are looking in the wrong direction. Especially if there was long term sexual abuse that may have still been going on.
Lions are known to eat their own, lots of male animals will try to kill the offspring to get the female back in heat.
I'm just playing devils advocate here......and presenting some of the questions and arguements that had to have come up among the jurors. I just don't see how they could have voted guilty based on the testimony and evidence presented.
Oh, and now it's come to light that there was 1.....1 search for chloroform on the comuputer...not 84 searches like the prosecution stated. AND the prosecution was informed of this during the trial by the witness that developed the software....they knowingly kept that information from the defense!! If anyone is a criminal in this case it's over eager prosecuters trying to hitch their name to a big win so that they can run for DA or Judge!
Moose-Knuckle
07-23-11, 15:40
Moose,
Obviously this decision sits wrong with many, myself included. However, since she was declared indigent she is entitled to a defense. In addition many states, like Arizona have protections on place that allow you recoup legal costs (and I believe lost wages) if you are acquitted.
So yes sucks. But it's no worse than some of the other douches who have commmitted heinous crimes and received public defenders as well.
Roger that.
I think many people were unaware of the fact that Casey Anthony claimed indigency. The article linked above was the first time most had heard about this. What I have an issue with is the high profile defense team she got on the tax payers dime. She should have got the typcial public defender who can't even tie his own shoes.
Prosecutors brought forth a shitty case, tax payers are paying for it. It's amazing when gov actually works.
The law is actually suppose to be blind. It's not guilt by emotion but actual factual evidence. No matter how you feel about the woman she was proven innocent based on the evidence presented. Does it mean she didn't commit the crime - nope.
But they couldn't prove she did either so she was rightfully found not guilty by a jury of her peers with the evidence presented to them. And I'm over joyed about it personally, had she been found guilty it would have been just another sad day for the judaical system.
public defender who can't even tie his own shoes.
Actually in many cases it can be advised to use a public defender since they usually deal with more criminal cases than you're average private criminal defender. And with such better versed in the law. :D
A lot of smart cookies are public defenders, I've seen them smack the shit out of fancy pant highly paid private practice scum of the earth assholes in court.
Prosecutors brought forth a shitty case, tax payers are paying for it. It's amazing when gov actually works.
The law is actually suppose to be blind. It's not guilt by emotion but actual factual evidence. No matter how you feel about the woman she was proven innocent based on the evidence presented. Does it mean she didn't commit the crime - nope.
But they couldn't prove she did either so she was rightfully found not guilty by a jury of her peers with the evidence presented to them. And I'm over joyed about it personally, had she been found guilty it would have been just another sad day for the judaical system.
I agree. the burden of proof is on the state and the state had nuthin'. Do I think she probably killed the rugrat? most likely. Can I prove it? noperino. I was just hoping to see Nancy Grace's head explode.
....So yes sucks. But it's no worse than some of the other douches who have commmitted heinous crimes and received public defenders as well.
Prosecutors brought forth a shitty case, tax payers are paying for it. It's amazing when gov actually works.
The law is actually suppose to be blind. It's not guilt by emotion but actual factual evidence. No matter how you feel about the woman she was proven innocent based on the evidence presented. Does it mean she didn't commit the crime - nope.
But they couldn't prove she did either so she was rightfully found not guilty by a jury of her peers with the evidence presented to them. And I'm over joyed about it personally, had she been found guilty it would have been just another sad day for the judaical system.
Exactly.
And (slightly off topic) I fail to see why the public in general is getting so bent out of shape over this. There's been a lot of other people who have gotten away with even worse stuff (ever watched AMW?).
Nobody in the general public is ever going to know all the facts of this case, other than what the news chooses to report- frankly I think some of this is just the usual media hype.
U.S. taxpayers cover this too? What a surprise. File this in with all the other stupid $#!+ they've been paying for.
I agree. the burden of proof is on the state and the state had nuthin'. Do I think she probably killed the rugrat? most likely. Can I prove it? noperino. I was just hoping to see Nancy Grace's head explode.
Couldn't have said it better. She moved on to another target. Her and the guy from America's Most Wanted should get together :lol:
We should change the court system to where the loser pays.
She was found innocent, the government should pay for her legal fees and give her restitution.
We need to value our rule of law.
I would be more worried about all the slime that is let go, and all the innocent people convicted.
She was found innocent...
"Not guilty" is not equivalent to "innocent". :)
Meh, if I was the state, I'd move to set aside the indigency determination on the basis that she's going to make millions on media deals alone.
I would be more worried about all the slime that is let go...
Actually she was a rather large blob of the slime that was let go.
CarlosDJackal
07-25-11, 12:05
As much as I don't like the outcome and in my gut I know she had something to do with her little girl's death; I also understand that the failure is on the Prosecutor's part. :mad:
They never should have charged her with something that is punishable by the death penalty unless they absolutely solid proof that she deliberately murdered that poor girl.
And this is why she does not have to pay for her own defense. JM2CW.
woodandsteel
07-25-11, 15:16
As much as I don't like the outcome and in my gut I know she had something to do with her little girl's death; I also understand that the failure is on the Prosecutor's part. :mad:
They never should have charged her with something that is punishable by the death penalty unless they absolutely solid proof that she deliberately murdered that poor girl.
And this is why she does not have to pay for her own defense. JM2CW.
That's my feeling on the matter.
The state never should have sought a potential death penatly. That is a lot of weight to put on the shoulders of twelve jurors. As far as I'm concerned, if the state is going to charge someone with a capital offense, then the defendant is entitled to the best defense possible.
And, I believe she is guilty as sin. But, I can't prove it.
Belmont31R
07-25-11, 20:07
"Not guilty" is not equivalent to "innocent". :)
In the real world no but in the legal system...yes. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. She was never proven guilty. The media and most everyone else wanted a swift trial and a guilty vedict no matter what the evidence was. The jurors concluded there was not evidence to move her from innocent to guilty, and thus she remains innocent.
Reading around this seems like a common tactic to smear someone with vague to non-existent evidence, and then get the jury to view the person as bad without every proving the case.
Look up the Timothy Masters case out of CO. They probably had more evidence than they did against Anthony, and DNA testing proved his innocence as well as a bit of evidence hiding and manipulation found out years later. Id rather the guilty walk free than the innocent spend decades behind bars because of convictions based on character assignation and shoddy DA work.
In the real world no but in the legal system...yes. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. She was never proven guilty. The media and most everyone else wanted a swift trial and a guilty vedict no matter what the evidence was. The jurors concluded there was not evidence to move her from innocent to guilty, and thus she remains innocent.
Semantics. She was found "not guilty" in the legal system, their phrase not mine, which is not "innocent" in any fashion. So the real world, outside the courtroom, and the courtroom, actually agree on terminology..
In fact, she was found guilty of lying to police. Further, statements from at least one juror, after the fact, indicate that while they believe she knows something about the death of her daughter, Caylee, (far less than innocent), there was no evidence to conclude guilt. Therefore, "not guilty" versus "innocent".
Belmont31R
07-25-11, 22:44
Semantics. She was found "not guilty" in the legal system, their phrase not mine, which is not "innocent" in any fashion. So the real world, outside the courtroom, and the courtroom, actually agree on terminology..
In fact, she was found guilty of lying to police. Further, statements from at least one juror, after the fact, indicate that while they believe she knows something about the death of her daughter, Caylee, (far less than innocent), there was no evidence to conclude guilt. Therefore, "not guilty" versus "innocent".
SCOTUS has case law on presumption of innocence unless found guilty. The accused are always presumed innocent until found guilty by due process in a court of law.
Being found not guilty does not take away the presumption and classification of being innocent. Theres really no middle ground. Either or. Since she was not found guilty she is still presumed to be innocent.
Coffin vs. US.
The accused are always presumed innocent until found guilty by due process in a court of law.
She was found guilty of four charges of lying to police. Anything else?
Moose-Knuckle
07-26-11, 16:55
Meh, if I was the state, I'd move to set aside the indigency determination on the basis that she's going to make millions on media deals alone.
I ran across a story some where about how the state of FL set forth motion to prevent any montary gain from the death of her daughter, I try and look for it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.