Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law

Judge Bars Critical Defense Argument in Casey Trial

As the lawyers prepared for final arguments in the capital murder trial of Casey Anthony, Orange County Chief Judge Belvin Perry Jr. hit the defense with a major ruling barring them from making a key argument to the jury: that Casey had been sexually abused. Perry ruled that there was no evidence to support the allegation and therefore defense counsel Jose Baez would be prevented from even mentioning it in his closing.

Baez has been criticized for some of his actions in the trial, including his suggestion that Casey was abused by her brother, Lee, and her father. This was the critical lynchpin in Baez’s explanation of Casey’s odd behavior after the disappearance of Caylee.

Baez said in his opening statement that Casey Anthony’s brother, Lee Anthony, abused her, but “it didn’t go as far” as the abuse by her father. However, Perry ruled that there are “no facts in evidence or reasonable inferences that can be drawn … that either Mr. George Anthony or Mr. Lee Anthony molested or attempted to molest Ms. Anthony.”

I agree with the view that Baez was unable to show any evidence of such abuse. Indeed, I thought the argument was pretty weak and counterproductive. However, there is a broader question of the increasing limitations imposed by judges on criminal defendants. The failure to show such evidence tends to destroy your credibility with the jury and the prosecutors are able to show the jury that the defense failed to deliver as promised. The concern with these rulings is that judges are increasingly tailoring cases to bar arguments that were once left to the jury to weigh. With the recent changes in states like Michigan to allow judges to summarize evidence, this trend raises serious concerns over the influence and bias of judges. When such arguments are barred, it is very difficult to deal with the issue on appeal since courts rule that the defense cannot show that the argument would have clearly produced a different outcome if allowed. In this case, the defense was allowed to raise the allegations in the opening statement but was then barred from directly discussing it in the closing, including an explanation of how the evidence supports the claim. Indeed, I would think that the prosecution would want to stomp on the issue in light of the failure to back up the allegations.

This is a trial for the life of Casey Anthony and the prior view was that she should be allowed to make her own case. I tend to favor this view, though I find this a difficult question in this case due to the lack of evidence and the failure of Anthony to take the stand. I think that there is a good-faith basis for the ruling in light of the utter failure to present evidence to support the claim. Yet, if this is her view, shouldn’t she be allowed to voice it to the jury? I can understand and support the court barring some arguments that are racist or discriminatory, but when does a court do too far in preventing a person from stating her case to a jury of her peers?

What do you think?

Source: CNN

Jonathan Turley

60 thoughts on “Judge Bars Critical Defense Argument in Casey Trial”

  1. News just in. The judge added a year and $4,000 in fines. She may get enough time off due to time served that she gets out later this year. Four grand seems cheap considering the man-hours that went into the added search time for the remains, all because of her lies to the investigators.

  2. “My understanding of Stockholm Syndrome must be askew…”

    LK,

    Perhaps they meant a new theory, Reverse Stockholm Syndrome, where jailers are “taken over” by inmates. No research in back of that, but what the hell, we don’t need no stinkin research.

  3. Mike Spindell
    1, July 6, 2011 at 10:37 am

    Yet on HLN, we had commentators speculating the jury was suffering from “Stockholm Syndrome” having sat across from Casey and having to thus look in her direction.

    —————————————————
    My understanding of Stockholm Syndrome must be askew….

  4. Beyond the despicable and frankly unwatchable (for those with a semblance of sentience) Nancy Grace, I’d like to point out that one of the alternate jurors was interviewed in the afternoon. He unequivocally agreed with the jury’s ruling. When you get 13 people on a jury agreeing so quickly and so positively on a case I think it is highly likely that the prosecution failed to prove the case. Yet on HLN, we had commentators speculating the jury was suffering from “Stockholm Syndrome” having sat across from Casey and having to thus look in her direction.

    Vinnie Politan, son of a judge, brother of a lawyer and himself a former prosecutor, has become an HLN celebrity with this case, beating out FOX News in his time slot. One would think, given his background, that he would provide legal perspective, yet his reaction was over the top emotional and he acknowledged that reasonable doubt played a part, only to conclude the jury was mistaken. He talked of how difficult a prosecutor’s life was, how hard it was for them to prove a case and how they were underpaid. This seems to me the opposite of reality. Many prosecutors use the experience as a resume builder to get into better law practices, or run for higher office. The resources available to prepare and prosecute a case are usually far beyond the capacity of the average defendant’s lawyer. Also the public in general presumes an indictment is a heavy presumption of guilt.

    To me the destructiveness towards an equitable criminal legal system and in the public’s mindset, is completely exacerbated by the media. However, we need an unrestrained media to help ensure freedom. This is indeed a conundrum.

  6. Mespo,

    McLean’s song is one of those rare compositions that seamlessly binds evocative lyrics with hauntingly beautiful melodic contours.

  7. He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche

  9. “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

    ~ William Blackstone

    Now who accounts for the violent death of that precious other innocent?

  10. she only got convicted on a “Martha Stewart”

    bet most of the fox viewers are doing a nancy grace. (loudly overreacting to a situation)

  12. http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/273571/Casey-Anthony:-The-charges-against-her

    “Counts Four Through Seven, Giving False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer in Reference to a Missing Person: The charge in these four counts carries a maximum of one year in county jail for each count. As a result if convicted of all four of these counts, Casey Anthony could receive a sentence of four years if the sentence for each count is run consecutively.”

    I’m not sure that this is accurate, but… And it doesn’t answer the question about “time served.” How much time has she already served?

  13. “This was a great victory for the Jury and Legal System in our country. To my mind the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury got that and as we all know here, their verdict did not declare Casey innocent, they declared that she had not been proven guilty.

    The media coverage of the case has misinformed the public about our legal system, inflamed hatred and made a circus out of this case. The harm the media has done is substantial and it endangers any known jury members and even defense counsels.” -Mike S.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Mike S. There isn’t much that I know for certain, but this I do know (I think 🙂 ):

    The truth is elusive. And juries usually — not always, but usually — reach the correct decision. Of course, this isn’t to say that she is “innocent”, but the state did not prove its case on the most serious charges

    We’re in deep trouble in this country. The outcome in this case gives me a tiny hint of hope.

    What is the potential sentence for misleading law enforcement, in this case? Is it possible that she’ll be credited with “time served” and released?

  14. I do not know if anyone has stated this yet…But do NOT confuse NOT GUILTY with innocence…She is guilty of something….Just not convicted of the crimes charged….if they had gone for a lesser included offense maybe they could have nailed her….But not today…

  15. I’m so glad she was aqcuitted. Who knows what happened but she was not acting like a normal person and i have become so hardened listening to my pts who sit in front of the tv watching this crap all day long screaming for blood and having convicted her in their minds before they had a single fact. It was like watching jackals drool over a scrap. blech.

    And hello, the jury has PTSD!!!!! What a hellhole courts have become. I hope you all take your vitamins….

  17. This was a great victory for the Jury and Legal System in our country. To my mind the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury got that and as we all know here, their verdict did not declare Casey innocent, they declared that she had not been proven guilty.

    Nancy Grace is indeed having a cow and is inflaming people with her intemperate rhetoric. The comment afterwards by defense counsel Cheney
    Mason slashing the media coverage and the participation of many attorneys in that media coverage, was directly on point. Right now as I type this they are interviewing morons waiting outside of the courtroom building. I say morons, because to me anyone who would wait outside a courthouse for a case like this is a moron. They want “bragging rights” or they’re hoping to get on TV. These people, of course, are saying it was an outrage.

    This is what has bothered me about this case from when I first began paying attention about 5 weeks ago. The media coverage of the case has misinformed the public about our legal system, inflamed hatred and made a circus out of this case. The harm the media has done is substantial and it endangers any known jury members and even defense counsels.

  19. Buddha,
    If I ever get in trouble in Florida, Mike A. will get the call! meanwhile, this “lady” was acquitted?! Wow! The tabloids will be going crazy.

  20. OS,

    Just this morning I was talking to my mother about the trial and she’s usually a very demure person. I had to laugh out loud when she said, “What exactly is Nancy Grace’s problem? Other than being a general a**hole?”

Comments are closed.