Guilty After Proven Innocent?

Longhair · #1 07-31-2011, 06:44 AM

Casey Anthony: Prosecutors bill $141K for Casey Anthony case

Prosecutors want Anthony to pay the prosecution and investigative costs associated with her case, and will take the matter up at a hearing Aug. 25

The jury found her not guilty. That should be the end of the story.

Chef FourString · #2 07-31-2011, 06:55 AM

She should have to pay something for killing her daughter.

fmoore200 · #3 07-31-2011, 06:58 AM

I'd be surprised if that case holds up. Sounds like sour grapes.

Febs · #4 07-31-2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longhair

Casey Anthony: Prosecutors bill $141K for Casey Anthony case

Prosecutors want Anthony to pay the prosecution and investigative costs associated with her case, and will take the matter up at a hearing Aug. 25

The jury found her not guilty. That should be the end of the story.

If I remember correctly, the jury found her guilty on at least one count. I'm not familiar with Florida law on the issue, but if it permits the prosecution to recover its costs when it prosecutes to a conviction, they have a basis for seeking at least some portion of their fees and expenses.

Tegzsa · #5 07-31-2011, 07:16 AM

Regardless of any opinion about any individual case, this would set a very dangerous precedent if it went through.

If you're found guilty you go to jail; if you're found not guilty you pay the costs.
Wouldn't this give prosecutors free reign to open cases regardless of evidence if they knew that they could just send a bill to recoup their expenses? I think it would certainly increase court workloads, as more frivolous and unwinnable cases are brought to trial.

That said, I don't think they stand a chance and will probably suffer in the court of public opinion for being not only incompetant but also desperate for ANY result.

Double E · #6 07-31-2011, 07:16 AM

She was convicted of lying to the police and leading them on a wild goose chase. If her version of the circumstances surrounding her child's death are true, and she'd done the right thing in the first place...there'd never been that drawn out, god-awful trial in the first place.

I agree she should be forced to pay.

Febs · #7 07-31-2011, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tegzsa

Regardless of any opinion about any individual case, this would set a very dangerous precedent if it went through.

Do you really think that this is the first time a prosecutor has ever sought to recover costs from a defendant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tegzsa

That said, I don't think they stand a chance and will probably suffer in the court of public opinion for being not only incompetant but also desperate for ANY result.

Have you reviewed the Florida standard for recovery of costs under these circumstances? If not, why bother to opine on the issue?

Double E · #8 07-31-2011, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tegzsa

Regardless of any opinion about any individual case, this would set a very dangerous precedent if it went through.

If you're found guilty you go to jail; if you're found not guilty you pay the costs.
Wouldn't this give prosecutors free reign to open cases regardless of evidence if they knew that they could just send a bill to recoup their expenses? I think it would certainly increase court workloads, as more frivolous and unwinnable cases are brought to trial.

That said, I don't think they stand a chance and will probably suffer in the court of public opinion for being not only incompetant but also desperate for ANY result.

This is not a valid argument...each case's circumstances are different.

By her own admission, she knew her daughter was dead the whole time through the massive search and trial. Just like anybody that falsely reports a crime, she should pay.

warnergt · #9 07-31-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double E

She was convicted of lying to the police and leading them on a wild goose chase. If her version of the circumstances surrounding her child's death are true, and she'd done the right thing in the first place...there'd never been that drawn out, god-awful trial in the first place.

I agree she should be forced to pay.

+1 Casey Anthony was convicted of multiple counts of
providing false information to authorities. Florida police spent
man-months searching for little Caylee Anthony back in 2008,
while her mother, Casey Anthony, knew exactly where the
child's body was.

john grey · #10 07-31-2011, 07:55 AM

"Guilty After Proven Innocent? "

This is not a correct assertion. She was ruled NOT GUILTY - not innocent. There is a big difference between not being able to prove beyond a shadow a doubt someone's guilt and their unmitigated innocence.....

Many a murdering slime or a disgusting child rapist or molester has been ruled not guilty.....but their innocence was not founded within the scope of the trial. If you think back you could come up with many examples of this concept. But criminal justice should be blind to "beyond a reasonable doubt" while "civil litigation" has less stringent demands.

Quickie · #11 07-31-2011, 08:02 AM

This is BS UNLESS Florida has some kind of policy for acquiring these costs. She was found not guilty. Get over it everyone and Florida prosecutors. Your incompetence should not be billed against Ms. Anthony. Why don't you charge all the jurors while you're at it.

Double E · #12 07-31-2011, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quickie

This is BS UNLESS Florida has some kind of policy for acquiring these costs. She was found not guilty. Get over it everyone and Florida prosecutors. Your incompetence should not be billed against Ms. Anthony. Why don't you charge all the jurors while you're at it.

Man, WAKE UP! She was found not guilty of murder...she was convicted of providing false information which led to great measures being taken by folks from all over the country.

Again...had she told the truth in the first place the search and ensuing trial would not have had to take place. Instead she stonewalled for over a month and contrived a story about a fake kidnapping by a fake person...all while she was hanging out with her boyfriend or whoever and hiding out from her parents.

Wow...just, wow.

Double E · #13 07-31-2011, 08:26 AM

This has nothing to do with the verdict on the murder counts or the botched prosecution, it has everything to do with the CONVICTION OF PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO THE POLICE!

I am sure the State of Florida is following through as they would (and should) on any case with similar circumstances.

You cannot yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater, this precedent has been set long ago.

Longhair · #14 07-31-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john grey

"Guilty After Proven Innocent? "

This is not a correct assertion. She was ruled NOT GUILTY - not innocent. There is a big difference between not being able to prove beyond a shadow a doubt someone's guilt and their unmitigated innocence.....

Many a murdering slime or a disgusting child rapist or molester has been ruled not guilty.....but their innocence was not founded within the scope of the trial. If you think back you could come up with many examples of this concept. But criminal justice should be blind to "beyond a reasonable doubt" while "civil litigation" has less stringent demands.

There are only 2 ways that a person can plead in a court of law - Guilty or Not Guilty.

There are only 2 ways that a jury can return a vertit - Guilty or Not Guilty.

Everything else should not matter.

Double E · #15 07-31-2011, 08:43 AM

and it doesn't...as far as the court is concerned.

Reality...that's a different story.

sloasdaylight · #16 07-31-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quickie

This is BS UNLESS Florida has some kind of policy for acquiring these costs. She was found not guilty. Get over it everyone and Florida prosecutors. Your incompetence should not be billed against Ms. Anthony. Why don't you charge all the jurors while you're at it.

It's entirely possible that there was something built into the charges against her that should she be found guilty on any of the counts against her, she be forced to pay the prosecution's bills. That's a common clause built into civil law suits at least, and I'd be very surprised if it wasn't at least somewhat common in criminal cases.

My company is suing a former client right now, and we have that built into the suit, where if we're awarded even $.01 by a judge or jury, the defendant has to pay our full court and legal fees, which at this point, are substantial.

sloasdaylight · #17 07-31-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longhair

There are only 2 ways that a person can plead in a court of law - Guilty or Not Guilty.

There are only 2 ways that a jury can return a vertit - Guilty or Not Guilty.

Everything else should not matter.

This. No one in the US legal system is found "Innocent" by a jury or a judge, they're found "Not Guilty" of the charges against them. The only time anyone anywhere gets up in arms over the semantic difference is when they KNOW for sure that the person found "Not Guilty" was in fact guilty.

sloasdaylight · #18 07-31-2011, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tegzsa

Regardless of any opinion about any individual case, this would set a very dangerous precedent if it went through.

If you're found guilty you go to jail; if you're found not guilty you pay the costs.
Wouldn't this give prosecutors free reign to open cases regardless of evidence if they knew that they could just send a bill to recoup their expenses? I think it would certainly increase court workloads, as more frivolous and unwinnable cases are brought to trial.

That said, I don't think they stand a chance and will probably suffer in the court of public opinion for being not only incompetant but also desperate for ANY result.

As I said before, the precedent has been set for one side of a legal matter to recoup court and legal fees from the other side under certain circumstances.

Febs · #19 07-31-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

It's entirely possible that there was something built into the charges against her that should she be found guilty on any of the counts against her, she be forced to pay the prosecution's bills. That's a common clause built into civil law suits at least, and I'd be very surprised if it wasn't at least somewhat common in criminal cases.

My company is suing a former client right now, and we have that built into the suit, where if we're awarded even $.01 by a judge or jury, the defendant has to pay our full court and legal fees, which at this point, are substantial.

The general rule in civil suits in the United States is that attorneys fees and costs are not recoverable. (In fact, this rule is known as the "American Rule.")

There are exceptions. For example, some statutes provide for awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party, and it is not uncommon for contracts to contain fee-shifting provisions.

Quickie · #20 07-31-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double E

Man, WAKE UP! She was found not guilty of murder...she was convicted of providing false information which led to great measures being taken by folks from all over the country.

Again...had she told the truth in the first place the search and ensuing trial would not have had to take place. Instead she stonewalled for over a month and contrived a story about a fake kidnapping by a fake person...all while she was hanging out with her boyfriend or whoever and hiding out from her parents.

Wow...just, wow.

Please. She lied. Big deal. She was found guilty of that. Period. End of story. The prosecution case was a joke. Casey's attorney was an inexperienced attorney that won a capitol murder case over the state of Florida.

And they want "payback" for fee's that should of never been charged for such an inept case. Look at the fees they want...

• $20,551 for work conducted by Dr. Neal Haskell, a forensic entomologist. He billed for a variety of areas, including report writing and work on specimens. The state also reported $9,650 for Haskell's trial testimony and preparation.

• $1,005 for court reporting service for the two-volume deposition of Sheriff's Office Sgt. John Allen.

•$ 833 for a court reporting service for the two-volume deposition of Sheriff's Office Cpl. Yuri Melich.

• $2,082 for a court reporting service for the deposition of Cindy Anthony.

• $6,112 for cell phone tower expert Charles Marth.

Outrageous fees by people (experts?) who were called in by an inept prosecution team that had no business being in that courtroom with such a flimsy case.