Saying Thanks to a Local Hero

This is the time of year when we see a number of television specials which give recognition to unsung heros, who, through their selfless efforts and personal sacrifice, enrich the lives of others.  It is in that vein that we would pay recognition to Central Florida’s every day working heros, Ninth Judicial Circuit Public Defender Robert (Bob) Wesley, and, to his lawyers and staff.   These hard-working, and, I will tell you, underpaid and underappreciated lawyers are truly liberty’s last champions.  For those who are unfamiliar with the duties of the Public Defender’s Office, (at least in Central Florida’s Ninth Judicial circuit which covers Orange and Osceola Counties), Mr. Wesley’s public defenders represent   indigent, or poor, citizens charged with  crimes,  children in delinquency cases, and  people who are facing involuntary commitment for mental health problems or addictions.

In 1963, a  United States Supreme Court case from Florida held that state courts must, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution provide lawyers for indigent defendants in criminal cases.  It was this U.S. Supreme Court case then, that led to the establishment of Public Defender offices in Florida, thereby ensuring the right to a fair trial to the poor in this state.  In 1964,  the Florida Legislature,  established  the Ninth Judicial Circuit Public Defender’s Office, making this year the 45th anniversary of our public defender’s office.  This office has had a rich history of public service under the  exemplary 20 year leadership of our former multi-award winning Public Defender turned writer/college professor, Joe DuRocher.

It was under Mr. DuRocher that Bob Wesley first served in that office, as an assistant public defender, leaving after many years of service to establish his own criminal defense practice.  In the year  2000, Mr. Wesley, by then a consummate and successful  Board Certified criminal trial lawyer, sacrificed  a successful and lucrative law practice to run for the office of  The Public Defender of the Ninth Judicial Circuit. In my humble opinion it has been  during Mr. Wesley’s stewardship these past nine years, that our Public Defender’s Office has reached its zenith.   Through his leadership by example, Mr. Wesley has attracted some of the best and the brightest young lawyers to join him in his quest for equal justice for all.  He and they are what is right about our system of  justice.

So, if the measure of the quality of our system of jurisprudence is the justice that is extended to the least of us, then ours, in the Ninth Judicial Circuit, thanks to Mr. Wesley and his assistant public defenders, sets the standard by which all others ought to be measured. To Mr. Wesley and your band of warriors for the indigent, thank you for your sacrifice, dedication and contribution, not only for the furtherance of justice for all, but, for the quiet example of public service you set for the young.

To learn more about Bob Wesley and the Public Defender’s Office and what they are doing in our community, check his website at: http://www.pd.circuit9.org.

WJS

P.S.  It is Christmas time and many folks clear their closets of seldom, or never worn, clothing.  Here is a good charitable use for some of  those items:   Bob Wesley’s Office of the Public Defender gratefully accepts donations of gently used professional clothing at the Orange County Courthouse Public Defender’s Office.  Project Community Clothes Closet provides people with proper attire for their court appearances.   “Our clients often don’t have anything better than jeans and t-shirts…and that’s not acceptable dress for the courtroom.  We want to be sure our clients’ cases aren’t adversely affected by what they are wearing.  It is also important to show the Court respect,” explains Bob Wesley.  A donation of  “courtroom suitable” clothing is a kind and generous but cost-free way to share the spirit of the Christmas season.  Thank you in advance for any clothing donations to The Public Defender’s Clothing Drive.

Witness for the Prosecution or Fall Guy for the Defense?

For Scotswoman and other contributors who have asked about Andrea Lyon, and what is behind her shenanigans and pre-trial publicity seeking escapades:  To look behind the curtain, or, to see how sausage is made, as some call it, is often not very pleasant and sometimes downright ugly.  Such is the case with the recent release of the “teaching” tape made of Chicago law school instructor and attorney, Andrea Lyon’s lecture to Central Florida lawyers on the topic of defending death penalty cases during the penalty phase.

At this juncture, we will not address her distasteful and offensive remarks pertaining to judges, female prosecutors or jurors, but, instead, limit our discussion to a particular statement made by her that cornerstones the latest defense strategy that can only be described as a scorched earth approach.  Ms. Lyon’s approach, which has been adopted by Baez, Baden and company, disregards any consideration other than win at ANY cost, regardless of the truth, or consequence to  justice, the fair trial process or any innocent party ground under their boots.

Accordingly, let us now examine her statement as follows: “I understand that a lot of times our theory of the case isn’t a real theory.  Okay, it’s a way of us getting to the penalty phase.”  And contained in her words lies the fate of witness Roy Kronk.  He is only the latest victim of this scorched earth approach by the Casey defense team, but I suspect, not the last.

Looking behind the curtain to what this means:  Andrea Lyon has a job.  That  job, as she sees it, is to save her from the death penalty, should Casey Anthony get convicted in the guilt phase of her trial, and, to do whatever is necessary to accomplish this, regardless.  To comprehend this philosophy one must understand that there are lawyers that are so opposed to the death penalty, just as many non-lawyers are, that the ends justify the means.  Period.

I must ask that you not judge all criminal defense lawyers by the conduct of Ms. Lyons.  Most are competent, hardworking and passionate defenders who do not share this view of win at any cost, but still represent their clients with vigor, creativity and compassion, while preserving the integrity of our judicial system and not creating fall guys and ruining the lives of innocent everyday people.

But back to what this all means:  quite simply, the defense would sacrifice Roy Kronk, the meter reader, during the penalty phase when they argue that a compelling reason not to impose the death penalty is the reasonable doubt created by the implication that he is the killer of little girl Caylee.  A horrifying thought for anyone caught up in the criminal justice system as a witness or search volunteer.  And, will it end with a verdict in this trial?  Well, if I were Mr. Baez, I might be asking myself, when his job is done and all appeals have been exhausted, will I be next?

WJS

P.S.  To the many who have asked for the certification dates on the defense’s recently filed motion in limine and memorandum of law in support,  the motion and memorandum were certified to have been furnished by Jose A. Baez, to the Office of the State Attorney by U.S. Mail and/or  facsimile on November 18, 2009. But, both the motion AND the memorandum were signed as submitted by Jose A. Baez and Andrea D. Lyon, again, on November 18, 2009.

Does Casey’s Defense Have No Sense Of Decency?

WFTV legal expert Bill Sheaffer

Filing and publicizing the  latest  so-called ”Motion in Limine”  by the Anthony defense team, which would now seem to include Brad Conway, lawyer for George and Cindy Anthony, is an all-time low on a grand scale, even for this crew.  This so-called defense tactic, designed to shift the focus of blame away from their client Casey Anthony, is neither new nor unusual in this case.  It seems to have begun with allegations against Zenaida Gonzales, then, Jesse Grund, a former Casey boyfriend, to now a very vicious and public attack on an innocent citizen, former Orange County employee, Roy Kronk, the poor soul who had the misfortune to discover Casey Anthony’s handiwork of her little girl’s body dumped like garbage in the woods.

Casey’s defense lawyers would have us believe that Mr. Kronk killed the child and dumped her body in the woods so that he could later claim to “discover” the body for some financial gain, all the while risking becoming a lead suspect in her death,  subjecting himself to prosecution therefor, and the possibility of the death penalty.  Of all the allegations contained in the subject defense motion, there is not one scintilla of evidence connecting Mr. Kronk to the Anthony family, or little Caylee, prior to her death.  Instead, the motion contains nothing but a series of nasty attacks and allegations from individuals, all of whom have clear and obvious motives to fabricate and spin their recollections, regarding Mr. Kronk’s past.

I find it very telling that not one of these allegations levied against Roy Kronk had been made to either a law enforcement or other governmental agency, prior to the defense investigator’s inquisition.  Before we proceed further however, I think it important to address this so-called “Motion in Limine” for what it is.  A proper motion in limine, as the title suggests, is a request to the court made pretrial to exclude certain matters from being introduced, or even referred to, at trial. What a motion in limine is NOT is a request to INCLUDE certain matters at trial, which is exactly what the defense has done here.  Now, either these lawyers don’t know proper pleading mechanics, the Florida Rules of Evidence, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, do not possess a Black’s Law Dictionary, or they have another agenda in filing this. Well, let’s just call it an in appropriate motion.  I believe it may well be the latter, although, it could well be the former, based upon their earlier filings.

This motion is nothing more than a blatant attempt to deflect and misdirect the court of public opinion from the stack of evidence against Casey Anthony, to the vilification of an otherwise innocent, but perhaps less than perfect, former public employee, by dragging up alleged garbage from his past.  By filing this motion and immediately traveling to New York to hype it  on the national morning show(s) might cause one to wonder just how easily lead they think the rest of us are.

Kronk’s past is totally irrelevant to the issue of who killed Caylee Anthony.  Ironically for the defense team, this attempt has fallen flat.  People are angry that these lawyers would drag this man through the mud and find this tactic appalling in its manner and approach.  One expects a vigorous defense from an attorney, but not at the expense of an innocent witness in the case.  It is yet to be seen what affect this out of court attack upon a State’s witness will have in the future upon the willingness of others to come forward to do the right thing. Hopefully our compassion for, and sense of responsibility to our fellow-man is greater than the effects of the outrageous conduct on the part of the Casey defense team.

Some of you may have read about, or may even remember a time when a United States  jr. senator from Wisconsin (1947-1957),  by the name of Joe McCarthy, was publicly accusing innocent citizens of being Communists.  Through his very public, highly-publicized and nationally-televised attacks, many innocent persons’ lives and careers were damaged or destroyed.  Finally, Joseph Nye Welch, a lawyer of one such victim,  had the guts to stand up at a senate hearing and asked  McCarthy: “You’ve done enough.  Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

As officers of the court, Mr. Baez, Ms. Lyons and Mr. Conway, have you no sense of decency?  Stop these tactics. Our system of justice, its participants and the rest of the citizens observing  this case  deserve better.

WJS

Why Is State Attorney’s Office Not Charging Anthonys With Perjury?

BeesKnees, Cathy,Olivia, Frg, Grownupmom, Jan and many more of you have asked this question in varying forms. Why haven’t George and Cindy Anthony been charged and prosecuted for perjury? Quite simply in order for a person to be charged with perjury, he must make a material contradiction of the facts to which he is testifying, under oath.  In other words, lie from one sworn statement to another.  In the case of George and Cindy Anthony, their statements to the FBI, other law enforcement authorities and of course the media, have not been under oath, or sworn to.  Therefore, even if they have contradicted themselves in their series of statements or outright lied, the Florida statutory requirements have not been met to bring a charge of perjury.  So what about bringing a charge of obstruction of justice for any possible evidence cover up or untruthfulness to law enforcement investigators?  Again, the answer is pretty simple: the people’s prosecution team of Ashton, Burdick and George are highly experienced and have a singleness of purpose.  That is: prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her child.  As a criminal trial lawyer, one of the arrows in my quiver is distraction, another is misdirection.  That is: create a diversion of the jury’s attention away from the main issue (did Casey murder her little girl?) to anything that might allow me as the defense attorney to argue that the case lacks proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Such ploys have actually worked on more than a few occasions.  Unfortunately for the defense in the Casey case, this seasoned prosecution team will keep their eyes on the prize: ultimate justice for little girl Caylee.

We still have a long and winding way to go until trial commences in this case. And, as you saw late yesterday (with the defense motion accusing witness/meter reader Kronk) there seems to be no end to the surprises arising  from either side.  So, again, while I do not foresee perjury or obstruction charges against either of the Anthonys any time soon, anything could  happen, before or even after, Casey’s murder trial.

WJS

What Will The Jury Think If She Doesn’t Take The Stand?

ANSWER:  Many questions on that point…what will a jury think ( what would YOU think)?  The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for the right against self-incrimination.  Simply put, a citizen is not required, and cannot be made to talk to the police, representatives of the state, the prosecution, the judge, or ANYONE  else.  Ideally, any discussion or admissions would be reserved for the lawyer chosen by the person accused, which lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose his client’s conversation with him, to anyone else, without his client’s express permission to do so. We know this as the attorney/client privilege.  This “privilege”  extends also, to the employees of the accused’s attorney.  This Fifth Amendment right also applies to the trial of the accused, in that a defendant cannot be compelled, nor should be expected to, take the witness stand and testify.  Period.  Further, the exercise of that right NOT to testify at trial cannot even be considered by the jury, in deciding its verdict.  This right is SO fundamental to our system of  justice, that during the course of the trial, should the prosecutor even so much as mention, directly, or indirectly, the failure of the accused to take the witness stand to testify in his own behalf, the trial judge, upon a timely objection by the defense lawyer would be required to grant a mistrial, dismiss the jury, and order a new trial.

When questioning potential jurors during the jury selection process (known as voir dire), the judge, as well as the defense attorney, will spend a considerable amount of time discussing that particular right, making sure that it is well understood by prospective jurors.  Should an individual be chosen to serve as a juror, that juror must promise, under oath, when arriving at his verdict,  not to consider the failure of the accused to testify on his own behalf.  Lastly, at the conclusion of the case, before the jurors are allowed to return to the jury room to deliberate,  they are given by the judge a set of  ”jury instructions”‘(legal rules utilized in reaching a lawful verdict).  Contained within those instructions (if applicable) is one which generally states that the defendant has chosen to exercise his fundamental right not to testify in his own behalf, and that the fact that the defendant has so chosen, cannot and must not, be considered in reaching a verdict.  To do so, would be a violation of  the  jurors’ solemn oath to follow the law and  their verdict, a true miscarriage of justice.

Next time, let’s discuss another topic of  considerable interest to many of you:  why is the State Attorney’s Office not charging the Anthonys with perjury?

WJS