STRATEGIES?

WFTV legal expert Bill Sheaffer

Several items of interest have surfaced in the past few week,  in the Casey Anthony case. Two relating to trial strategy (my favorite topic), I believe, are significant enough to warrant a brief discussion.

Judge Perry entered his order denying the Defense’s request to question Roy  Kronk at trial regarding allegations of past indiscretions.  The Defense’s primary motive in seeking permission for this avenue of questioning was a clear attempt to suggest to the jury that  Kronk, not Casey, is the real killer of baby Caylee.  At the time the Defense filed this motion,  there were  individuals in the legal community that lauded this sordid  attempt as a sound and legitimate  defense strategy.  I, however, did not believe that and said so. First, it is neither a logical, practical, nor legitimate strategy, to engage in wholesale character assassination of anyone.  Certainly not on a national stage, much less, in this case, Roy Kronk, whose persistence led to the discovery of Baby Caylee‘s remains.  This secondary motive was clearly an attempt to gain some advantage in the court of public opinion, prior to Casey‘s trial.  However, there is not one scintilla of evidence to support the outlandish and salacious, and by now, well publicized allegations, the Defense has brought against Mr. Kronk.   Further, Kronk’s past  is totally irrelevant to the issue of Casey’s guilt or innocence. Even if the intent was solely to raise doubt in the minds of the jury by casting suspicion upon someone, anyone else, you don’t tip your hand before trial.   It serves no useful or legitimate purpose other than perhaps, to gain for the lawyer filing the motion, more face-time on television.   And, didn’t this clumsy move give the Prosecution plenty of time and a clear shot to neutralize this “strategy?”

The mistake made herein by the Defense was actually though, a basic one, as implied in Judge Perry’s order.   In his ruling, the judge has left the door open for the Defense to implicate Mr. Kronk through the presentation of  circumstantial evidence at trial, of either the facts surrounding his finding of Caylee’s body, and/or any possible involvement by Mr. Kronk in Caylee’s death.  More simply put, the Defense gave away its strategy by utilizing the Rule Criminal of Procedure that requires not only disclosure of its intent to attack Kronk but, which also mandates disclosure of the specific facts to be relied upon .  It would have been far more stealthy and effective  to attack Kronk at trial, by way of circumstantial evidence and to then bring it home during final arguments, that either he was involved directly in Caylee’s death or had engaged in some impropriety during the discovery of her body, thereby tainting the crime scene, and rendering the evidence found there suspect and unreliable.

Don’t misunderstand me, it is certainly a legitimate  and oft-used  defense trial tactic to attempt to raise a reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds that it was not the defendant, who was the actual killer,  but some other person.  The prevailing wisdom however, is it is better to spread that suspicion among several people, both named and unnamed, as opposed to targeting a lone individual.  The more suspects the Defense can argue to the jury that may be responsible for Caylee’s disappearance and/or death the greater the possibility the jury can find a reasonable doubt, and possibly acquit, or at least, find that they are unable to come to a unanimous verdict. That strategy tends to put the prosecutors on the defensive and  serves as a distraction from the planned presentation of  their case at trial.   It results in  the expenditure of  the prosecutors’ time, energy, resources and focus.  I suspect that had Cheney Mason been involved from the beginning of the case, the issue of Mr. Kronk  may have been handled much differently.   Depending upon the level of his involvement during trial, we may yet see a different approach to the “some other dude did it” defense.  We’ll wait and see.

So many of you have asked me about “that Laura Buchanan woman .”  Laura Buchanan, a defense witness, had signed a sworn statement that in early September of 2008, she had personally searched the area where Caylee’s remains were ultimately found in December of 2008.  Buchanan stated, “It is my opinion that the remains of Caylee Anthony were not there during the time of our search.” Buchanan further asserted that “I personally searched near the privacy fence and worked my way towards and then beyond the spot where the body was found.  I did not notice anything unusual.”  Buchanan, it appeared, was to be a major witness for the Defense.  If she was to be believed, it opened the door for the Defense to argue that Caylee’s remains were placed at the location where they were ultimately discovered in December, after Casey was arrested and incarcerated the Orange County Correctional Facility.   Therefore, someone other than Casey had to have killed Caylee and discarded her body.  We know however, that Buchanan’s statement was refuted by a host of Texas EquuSearch volunteers who had searched the area around that location wherein Caylee’s remains were finally discovered, and had said that  exact location was not, and could not, have been searched, because it was under water.

Despite these contradictory witnesses however, the Defense could still use Buchanan to advance their theory that someone other than Casey had killed and discarded the child’s body  at the discovery location.  But alas, it is not meant to be.   The State Attorneys Office and  law enforcement investigators were relentless in their investigation of Ms. Buchanan’s assertions.   Ultimately, she folded and reversed course. Now, when asked during her deposition by Prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick whether she searched near the area where Caylee’s remains were found, Buchanan said, “I can’t say that to be true because I still to this day don’t [know] where she was found, what area or what she was near.” Later in her deposition, Buchanan stated, “I didn’t know where the remains of the child were, period.  I didn’t know. I was…I was shown something, pointed to it.”

Setting aside all of Ms. Buchanan’s considerable, other baggage (claiming to have seen Baby Caylee on a Disney monorail; retaining Texas EquuSearch documents and later “adding notes“ thereto before handing them over to the Defense; sending Jose Baez e-mails with photos of herself attached, among other things), her deposition statements, under oath, render her utterly worthless to the Defense now.

In reading her depositions you might wonder why Baez had asked Buchanan if she was aware that she “was the target of a criminal investigation.”  Because, surprisingly, he may, even in the face of her latest admissions, still try to use her at trial, arguing that her earlier statements were true and that she only changed her statements at deposition, out of fear of displeasing the State, together with being afraid that she, herself, could be charged with a crime.   Again, I would suspect that  a seasoned lawyer like Mr. Mason would disagree with such a foolish and risky maneuver. But again, we will see.

From my vantage point, like so many of you, I still view the State’s case as strong.  The Defense has still much work to do with little time left to accomplish it.  And, in the meantime, the noose is growing ever tighter around the neck of Miss Anthony.

For all of you who participate in the on-going lively, Casey case discussions on my blog site, even when I am absent, thank you.  I read what you write and enjoy your perspectives, wit and repartee.  I anticipate being free to write more often now, especially as Casey Anthony’s trial date rapidly approaches.

WJS

Advertisement