Marinade Dave: Team Casey requests fraud trial delay
The prosecution has requested a speedy trial date on the fraud charges against Casey Anthony, under a 2005 Florida law which grants victims the right to a speedy trial.
The accused’s right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, but nowhere does the US Constitution guarantee any such right to victims. The accused may waive their constitutional right to a speedy trial, at their option.
Under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, capital crimes and infamous crimes are specified as superior in nature to typical crimes insofar as defendants’ rights, since those crimes require a Grand Jury indictment. The Fifth Amendment also decrees that no defendant may be compelled to be a witness against their own interest.
Since the verbiage of the Fifth Amendment is “be”, not “testify”, it can be interpreted to mean actions other than testifying. It could be interpreted as being forced to defend oneself against a separate but related offense, especially if the defense against the lesser crime would negatively impact the defendant in an infamous capital crime in which the defendant has waived speedy trial as a matter of necessity due to the complexity of the case. While I am a proponent of victims’ rights, the fact remains that states simply do not have the right to override constitutional protections.
An argument on appeal could reasonably be made that, if the fraud trial proceeds first, Casey would be compelled to be a witness, by virtue of simply defending herself, regarding issues directly affecting the capital murder case. After all, the fraud goes to motive in the murder, according to Casey’s own statements to police as well as the prosecution’s theory of both crimes. Furthermore, the fraud charges are clearly inferior to the murder charges, and the alleged fraud took place after the alleged date of the murder.
For those reasons, if the state’s motion for speedy trial is granted against the wishes of the defense, I would fully expect the defense to file an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the new Florida law. I would not be at all surprised if, as a result of the Casey Anthony case, the Florida law granting speedy trial rights to the victim is found to be unconstitutional.
Of course, that is a double-edged sword in a case as infamous as this one, where the nation is watching carefully. An appeal of that nature would undoubtedly cause many to react even more viciously against Casey Anthony. However, it should not have that effect, given that the right of the accused versus the right of the victim is a question of constitutional importance which should and must be clarified.
Constitutional rights are intended to protect everyone, but are particularly important when someone’s life is at stake. The truth is, our constitutional rights are the only thing protecting any of us against the full force and power of the state, especially when one is innocent of the charges against them.
We therefore must zealously protect the constitutional rights of all, regardless of our personal feelings about their guilt. A law which overrides constitutional protections today, and thus helps satisfy the public’s bloodlust against Casey Anthony, could just as easily be used to convict an innocent person tomorrow. That, my friends, is not justice.
Hi Elf’s Mom and Dave. I understand the double edged sword with the two cases but disagree.
The cases should then be tried in sequence of when they happened. The fraud/ theft cases all happened before Caylee was murdered. The money from Cindy’s credit card, then Grandma’s check, then Grandpa’s saving account money, then Amy’s checks. When Casey stole the check from Grandma, she bought Caylee’s birthday cake and decorations. When shopping at Target, she did not buy anything for Caylee, still alive, even though she said she was in a tight spot and desperate then. So, where were the diapers and baby shampoo and soap?
It really doesn’t matter how you scuffle the lies, stealing and murder, but the time line does matter. She is guilty of all IMO.
Hiya, CP! Casey has only been charged with the thefts from Amy, all of which occurred after the murder; so even by your reasoning, the murder trial should take place first.
Nevertheless, the issue is not which took place first, but whether being forced to defend herself in a relatively minor fraud trial prior to the murder trial, when the two crimes are inextricably related, would be interpreted as being a witness against her interest in a death penalty trial. Personally, I think the US Supreme Court should make that decision, and their decision will not be predicated on public opinion.
Either it is constitutional for states to override the protections guaranteed to criminal defendants in the US Constitution, by granting speedy trial rights to victims over the wishes of the defense, or it is not. I suspect it is not, and it would not be the first time the US Supreme Court had stricken a state law granting rights to victims, when those rights materially affect the accused’s constitutional rights.
The question at this point, however, is whether her defense will make the effort necessary to file the appeal immediately after the judge issues a ruling in favor of the prosecution (assuming he does so), or whether they will wait and include it in their postconviction relief appeals. If they wait, and if the appellate courts determine that it is indeed a violation of her constitutional rights, both convictions (assuming she is convicted at both trials) may be overturned. Obviously, that is in no one’s best interest, including that of those who believe she is guilty.
I agree that the judge would be wise to not allow the fraud case to precede the criminal case. Casey has already spent more time in prison than she would have received if she had first been charged with the theft and fraud. There
must not be even the remotest possibility that she could
not be punished for her killing of Caylee due to a tainting
of the jury pool that could occur if she were made to stand trial on the theft charges first. We have to be patient
and let the criminal trial proceed. Casey must pay for Caylees death.
Hi Elfsmom~~I feel Judge Strickland will allow the check/fraud trial to go ahead. I think it comes under the ‘First things first’. I would think that Casey’s defense will plead ‘no contest’ and Casey will not have to take the stand. Pleading, not guilty, and trying to prove ‘ugly coping’ would, IMO opinion be ludicrous. Baez has already admitted Casey’s guilt. See the following:
The Bank of America acknowledges the payment of $664.25 from the office of Jose Baez on July 10, 2009.
Customer~~Amy Huizenga
Suspect~~Casey Anthony
The Bank of America did NOT take this payment in lieu of prosecution….
Source…Page 10~~Exhibit ‘D’
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20090214/detail.html
Payment of the funds is standard operating procedure in a case of that nature, in an attempt to mitigate damages. If she plans to claim that it was just a misunderstanding, or that she planned to pay it back, it needs to have already been tendered or else a jury won’t even consider that defense.
Such a sad story – Casey Anthony. Thanks for sharing this with your readers!