Mock

Nope, his opening is not evidence.

It is up to the state to prove the charges and that proof has to rise to the level of the charges, "death penalty", premeditated murder in the first degree.

reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to cause of death is enough to diminish that and no matter how it's sliced that is a defence win.

(06-03-2011, 12:13 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]no the defense does not have the burden of proof. but his opening was what i would consider an affirmative defense, which would require some basis in fact, i.e. proof.

The burden of proving an affirmative defense is by the preponderance of the evidence. A bit less than reasonable doubt, but the burden is definitely on the defense. They have to offer a hell of a lot more than Casey's word.

Wrong, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defence could have rested right after opening statements, they do not have to prove one damn thing.

Just watched Padilla (the guy who bailed Casey out at one point) being interviewed on HLN.

Padilla said that when Casey came home, George went into her room and was yelling "Where's my granddaughter? What have you done with her?" Two people had to drag George out of there. Casey yelled something like "Just for once, stop being a cop."

Padilla had a female operative (Tracy) staying with Casey. He said all Casey wanted to do was arts and crafts stuff. She and Casey would string beads, cut stuff out - never once in two weeks did Casey ask to go look for Caylee. He also said Casey frequently spoke of Caylee in the past tense, though often she would correct herself.

He said once Cindy came into Casey's room with a little photo album and was showing Tracy pictures of Caylee, saying "look how cute she is here..." Casey jumped up and went and grabbed another photo album with pictures of herself and said "What about me? I'm cute too."

********
After watching these jailhouse videos, no way is the jury going to buy the story that George or Lee abused Casey, or that George knew Caylee was dead.

So this pretty much says that the defense does have the burden of proof seeing as Bozo now says that the State got it all wrong. And Bozo placed the defendant at the scene of the crime.

Quote:An affirmative defense is also allowed under rules of Criminal Procedure. For example, a defendant accused of assault may claim to have been intoxicated or insane, to have struck out in Self-Defense, or to have had an alibi for the night in question. Any one of these affirmative defenses must be asserted by showing that there are facts in addition to the ones in the indictment or information charging the defendant and that those additional facts are legally sufficient to excuse the defendant.

i missed it, but i understand old foghorn mason was very rude and combative with female detective. chauvinistic pig. won't go over well with jurors.

CHARITY BEASLEY: Orange County Sheriff's deputy who removed evidence, including the Anthony car, from the home in 2008.

(06-03-2011, 12:37 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2011, 12:13 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]no the defense does not have the burden of proof. but his opening was what i would consider an affirmative defense, which would require some basis in fact, i.e. proof.

The burden of proving an affirmative defense is by the preponderance of the evidence. A bit less than reasonable doubt, but the burden is definitely on the defense. They have to offer a hell of a lot more than Casey's word.

this is correct.

"I believe they have almost relieved the state of their burden of proof by making such strong assertions in opening statements," said Karin Moore, a professor at Florida A&M University's College of Law. "They are going to have to prove it now. It is going to be a difficult task for them."

They can put up a defence and most do, but there is no burden under the law that they do, the state has to prove their charges or they are done.

legal -V- practical don't get hooked up in the practical and miss the legal part of a trial, the defence does not have to prove that CA didn't kill caylee, the prosecution has to prove she did and for the death penalty to hold water they have to prove she did it with intent and forethought.

I can't help it that you don't agree, but that is the law and that is exactly where the defence is playing their cards.

my only point Dick, was that if in fact he is going to mount an affirmative defense, he must provide backup/proof/evidence.

Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff (the state in this case), generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

(06-03-2011, 12:37 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]The burden of proving an affirmative defense is by the preponderance of the evidence. A bit less than reasonable doubt, but the burden is definitely on the defense. They have to offer a hell of a lot more than Casey's word.

This is bullshit, preponderance is a civil court "judge judy" level of proof.

criminal court demands reasonable doubt as it's threshold for the defence.

You're wrong, Ima.

Quote:Affirmative Defenses
Under certain circumstances, Florida law allows a person to raise an Affirmative Defense, which does not deny that an offense occurred, but that the conduct was legally justified.

Importantly, when an Affirmative Defense is raised, the defendant must present some evidence to support the defense.
If such evidence is presented, the burden shift back to the State to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

Affirmative Defense - AKA: Get the prosecution chasing their tails.

Sidenote: Guess George and Cindy think Padilla's been speaking to the media too much - he just got a cease-and-desist notification from them. When I heard Padilla interviewed today, everything he said about George and Cindy was positive. His characterization of Casey is that of a lying narcissist. Seems odd to me that George and Cindy would care at this point - seems to it's no different than the portrait of Casey shown by the courtroom testimony and jailhouse tapes.

padilla---->

he's been saying the same shit for years, he never shuts up. and none of it is very useful, just his opinions. he's a slob in a cowboy hat who interjected himself into this (and the Haleigh Cummings) case early on. i'll be delighted if he has to cease and desist.

many of the commentators in this trial are only attention whores.
like linda k. baden, she is all over the place based on her very brief stint on the defense team, and she is clearly promoting herself. she is dead wrong 99.9% of the time. and unethical to do so.

then there's henry lee (with 2 you get eggroll)..he was on defense team, but bailed out because there was no money in it for him. baez had spent all the funds by then. he's blabbing all over the place too, but fortunately you can't understand him. unethical also.

hahahaha notice the toothpick and tacky horseshoe ring---->

(06-03-2011, 03:56 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Affirmative Defense - AKA: Get the prosecution chasing their tails.

I see what you are saying. But there is a big butt here in this case. Baez admitted that Casey lies. Not that it wasn't glaringly apparent, but the big Butt just made it a fact of evidence. It seems that the state is sticking to their original theory. And trying as well as they can to ignore the butt Casey Anthony is now telling the truth theory. Who is going to believe that? Baez is just digging the Casey Anthony (w)hole deeper, imo.

that horseshoe guy is a gross looking character! yukky. Some poor hooker has to have sex with that slobby SOB.

(06-03-2011, 10:40 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: [ -> ]that horseshoe guy is a gross looking character! yukky. Some poor hooker has to have sex with that slobby SOB.

Nah. Bets he can't get it up even with viagra. I see him tied up naked with
75 ft of rope, then standing with his head holding his boxer shorts to the
wall getting his ass flogged occasionally.

I have been following this case from just about the time it started and I have to admit, I have always thought she was guilty.. Her Lawyer is a complete tool and only helps prove that she is a liar, theif and a cold hearted killer.. I can't say she is a pathelogical liar because in the interview she had with detective Yuri at the universal studios she admitted to lying about most stuff so there for she does know she is lying, maybe a compulsive liar, but I also believe she is mentally ill because her lies have sooo much thought put in to them and she can lie right off the spot when being questioned and theres soo much detail in the lies. The only thing I find very strange and I don't believe its been mentioned here is that, George stated Casey and Caylee left the house the 16^th of June and he helped put Caylee in the carseat as he normally does, however when they brought the cadiver (spell check) dogs to the home to sniff around they did find a smell in the car which we knew would happen but they ALSO found the smell in the backyard by the doll house, how would that be if George saw them leave that morning unless Casey returned when no one was home and was planning on placing Caylee in the backyard out of panic and thats why she asked her neighbor for the shovel and then relized that was a bad idea so she didnt do it but while in the time she was attempting to do so she had Caylee's limp body lay next to that doll house. EIther thats how it happened or George lied...

(06-02-2011, 02:56 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-02-2011, 02:47 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

Who is paying for Casey's personal "things". I know she is a guest of the state but who buys her hair care products & other personal items?

Yeah, yeah, I know it's incidental but I'm always interested in details.

[b]the jail has to provide necessities. it's not high-end products, believe me. a bar of soap, toilet paper, institutional crud.

any extras come from weekly canteen orders, but she must have funds in her acct. to cover it. her parents were keeping her account flush. $$$
there are assholes out in the public who sent her funds sometimes too.

Haaaaaaaaaay, it was only $10!


(Had to read the last two days posts in here to catch up)

saturday

15-year FBI evidence examiner is discussing post-mortem banding of hair found in trunk. so baez asks her if she failed a proficiency exam in 2000. she had.

i want someone to ask him how many times he failed the bar exam.

i heard baez was being a rock star outside court friday at end of day, posing with goo-goo trial groupie females and flipping his shades.hahahaha--- i can't find a photo anywhere damn it!!

http://www.baezlawfirm.com/




FBI agent Karen Lowe has been an FBI agent for over 15 years: