Legally, no. As a practical matter, if you're going to ask the jury to believe something, it helps to have evidence to support it.

The defense now has the burden of persuasion, which is different from the burden of proof. They have completely lost on the latter. This bitch is a murderer. She needs to prove out her affirmative defenses, such as insanity or diminished capacity, at this point. The fact that she is represented by a totally incompetent "lawyer" almost or even more dumb than Orly raises a future ineffective assistance of counsel defense.

My guess is she gets death. This defense was utterly pathetic, and practically invited the jury to sentence her to death. Even if I'd somehow ended up on this jury, despite stating I'd practically never sentence someone to death, I'd seriously consider sentencing this evil swine to death.

Casey had stolen a significant amount of money from her parents, and while they weren't certain, they did think that she wasn't working as she had been saying she was.

Huggins also contests the admission of his nine prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes, arguing that the State, rather than defense counsel, elicited the hearsay statement attributed to Huggins and that evidence of Huggins' nine felony convictions should have been excluded under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2002). The trial court admitted the fact of Huggins' convictions on the basis of section 90.806(1), Florida Statutes (2002), which provides in part that "[w]hen a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, credibility of the declarant may be attacked and, if attacked, may be supported by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness." The trial court's ruling was made in accordance with First and Fourth District Court of Appeal holdings that section 90.806 permits the introduction of a defendant's felony convictions when the defendant elicits his or her own exculpatory, hearsay statement through another 756*756 witness at trial. See Kelly v. State, 857 So.2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Werley v. State, 814 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Llanos v. State, 770 So.2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Two of those decisions cite the following treatise passage concerning the functionally identical federal evidence provision: "A defendant who chooses not to testify but who succeeds in getting his or her own exculpatory statements into evidence runs the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions." 5 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 806.04(2)(b) (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed.2002). We agree with the First and Fourth Districts on that point of law. Under section 90.806(1), a hearsay declarant is treated as a "witness" and his or her credibility may be attacked in the same manner as any other witness's credibility. In turn, section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2002), provides in pertinent part that "[a] party may attack the credibility of any witness ... by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year."

(One of the reasons why a defendant doesn't take the stand is because usually at that stage felony convictions can come in as impeachment. Now Baez has additional reasons to put her on the stand and insure she gets the death penalty.)

Baez stinks. Anthony may yet have an ineffective assistance of counsel claim after she is convicted and sentenced to death.

Although an attorney can certainly make alternative arguments to a jury, Mr. DePalma's arguments were not in the alternative, they were unguided, and inept shots at anything that moved, or that appeared to move, with no apparent purpose, thought, or strategy.


Dist. Ct. Op. at 20 (emphasis added).

We agree.

On the other hand there is the countervailing thought that Casey Anthony is getting what she deserves . . .

I don't much like child murderers. Especially those who celebrate the death for the next month.

When her story of Zanny the Nanny first came out, I was wondering how she could afford a nanny? I have two young children and childcare is expensive!

I would agree that, assuming all the facts are proven as they're basically alleged, she qualifies for death under Florida and federal constitutional law. I don't agree that any defendant should be sentenced to death under such incompetent legal representation. The system should be tested to its extreme limits by the most zealous and skilled representation available, before it is allowed to deprive a human being of life.

Yes, but she hired this guy. He was paid about $200K by the family before the Defendant was declared indigent. You're not suggesting the court should step in and provide what it thinks is the right attorney, are you?

Yes, but she hired this guy. He was paid about $200K by the family before the Defendant was declared indigent. You're not suggesting the court should step in and provide what it thinks is the right attorney, are you?

When Huizenga [Casey's ex-best friend and roommate whom Casey stole checks from]took the stand, prosecutor Frank George asked her to describe the relationship between Casey and Cindy.

"It was strained. It was hard. Her mom was continuously agitated with her," Huizenga said.

"Did she tell you why her mother was continuously agitated with her?" asked George.

"I remember, there was a time when she told me that her mom told her that she was an unfit mother. She was extremely upset about that," Huizenga stated.

Prosecutors allege that Caylee was last seen several weeks earlier and that Casey waited a month before reporting the girl missing. Prosecutors contend the odor in the car came from human decomposition, but defense attorneys claim it was from rotting garbage.

Lawyers, do you think the prosecution should mention the 6 felony convictions?

Someone actually deliberately hired this Lionel Hutz caricature?

There are 13 separate crimes or offenses because of 4 stolen checks.

snip.....

Judge Strickland rules: 6 adjudicated felonies. Multiple counts are proper, but multiple punishments are not.

Four felony convictions for forgery.

1 felony conviction for fraudulent use of personal information.

Convicted on the felony for Grand Larceny in count 1.

I noticed, as Cindy struggled to compose herself, that one juror held his hand over his mouth ... Other female jurors were looking sad and horrified.

Anthony placed the call the day after daughter Caylee was reported missing – but after the child had not been seen for a month.

Several jurors winced every time Casey used the F-word, the biggest reaction coming when Casey was hearing saying, "Nobody in my family is on my side. … That's all they care about right now, finding Caylee."

The entire jury stared at Casey; a couple of them seemed to scowl. Casey stared straight forward, not looking at anyone and showing no emotion.

As she listened to the recording, Cindy began shaking and sobbing, and doubled over. When it was done, she asked the judge for a five-minute break.

The recording also sent shock waves through the hushed courtroom. Several onlookers in the balcony wiped their eyes with tissues. Riveted jurors read the transcript of the call as it played, periodically looking up to watch the distraught grandmother weeping. Several of them looked over at Casey Anthony, who sat emotionless by her attorneys.

I notice today during the testimony of the brother that all defense objections are being done by a woman with a really bad perm, not Baez.

I am beginning to think Baez is Apuzzo's doppelganger. Competent lawyers work late into the night during trial, preparing for the next day (and beyond). Like Mario, I think Baez spends a great deal of time reading comments at media sites and blogs. Maybe, for once, he took some of the general public's advice.