The Casey Anthony trial is winding down. The evidence is in, all that is left to do before the jury starts deliberating are closing arguments. That is scheduled to happen Sunday morning.
The prosecutions job is a seemingly easy one. All they have to do is tweak their opening comments and they are done. Although much of the case against Casey Anthony is circumstantial, it has been presented in a logical and methodical manner.
They have proved to be very nimble in anticipating and avoiding any defense ambushes.The entire prosecution team were exactly that, a team. Each had a job to do, and they did it! I had heard of Jeff Ashton prior to this case,but this was the first time I had seen him in action. This guy is so well prepared and so sharp that he can go toe to toe with some of the countries finest scientific ‘experts’ and win. In fact if you analyze what happened you discover that half the time he was able to turn a Defense Expert into a Prosecution Expert.
Jeff Ashton is a gentleman that one day I would enjoy talking to. He does however have one failing, a fiery temper. This weakness was exploited on a number of occasions by Jose Baez and to a lesser degree Cheney Mason. But in my opinion they did not use that secret weapon in a strategic fashion. Rather than goading Jeff Ashton into taking a wrong turn, the jury heard material that would otherwise have been deemed inadmissible.
Judge Perry would step in, and admonish both Ashton and Baez, but the harm had been done. That Genie was out of the bottle. I am sure that the Jury picked up on these golden nuggets.
Lead prosecutor Linda Drain Burdick was equally lethal. Her style was the very antithesis of the Ashton freight train, she preferred to play the part of the Black Widow spider. With a monotone voice, almost reflecting boredom with the whole event, the victim was lured into her spiders web. The death blow was quick and efficient. As I am sure her closing statement will be.
Now, lets take a look at the defense. Closing statements represent a real problem for them. There is very little from their opening statement that can be recycled. Opening and closing statements in a legal context are very different animals. An opening statement has no evedentury value. The attorney is free to claim that ‘pigs can fly’, or that his client has mastered ‘Cold Fusion’ in her bathroom. Closing statements are a different deal. The attorney must only speak about the evidence presented.
This is a problem for the defense team. Casey Anthony faces a total of seven charges, They really fall into two groups, the first is merely serious, and the second potentially deadly.
The defense has offered no evidence to refute the serious charges of telling lies to the police. in fact the Prosecution played a masterful stroke by placing Casey Anthony vicariously on the stand by playing the recorded interview made by Yuri Melich at Universal Studios. So there is little wriggle room for the defense to talk about this in closing.
Moving on to the ‘big three’ charges, the Defense is also stuck behind the eight ball.
The accidental drowning gig is up! The pool ladder, open back gate theory was debunked through the phone records. Did Cindy tell a lie?
Cindy Anthony falling on the sword with the computer searches is also off the table. There is no doubt that Cindy Anthony was indeed at work, rather than goofing off searching for Chloroform or Neck Breaking.
The sexual abuse allegations are also off the table. Jose Baez tried to bring them into evidence, but failed.
That leaves the ‘Morally Corrupt’ meter reader Roy Kronk. Once again Jose Baez managed to get exactly nowhere with his theory that Mr Kronk somehow stole the body and hid it for months.
In simple terms, the Defense have very little to discuss in closing. I imagine that the focus will be on the ‘science’, however, that has without doubt been a very problematic evidential area, and I find it hard to believe that he can make any mud balls stick to the wall at this late stage.
Of course it is not over till the ‘fat lady sings’. But try as I might, I cannot see any light at the end of this tunnel.
The bigger question is if the death penalty will be recommended. I vacillate on that one. It is impossible for us trial watchers to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jury. The jury has only seen a subset of the information. It is unknown if they picked up on many or any of the minefields that both Jose Baez and Cheney Mason seemed bound and determined to stomp around in. Quite frankly I had my fingers in my ears, I was waiting for the KABOOM. Time and time again Judge Perry intervened, gently explaining to Baez the problems with opening doors.
So we are back to the basic question. What can Jose Baez tell the jury in the morning?
Is it possible that he might pull the ‘Dallas’ defense? OK, I should explain that one. The ‘Dallas’ defense has never worked in a court of law (at least to the best of my knowledge). It was an 80’s TV series that started off as being a huge hit. Who shot JR was a question on everyones lips. The problem was that later Dallas ratings tanked. Bad plot lines, bad everything. The show was in tatters. The solution was to explain the entire season of disasters as ‘just a dream’. Viewers had not been watching the real story, rather they had merely been watching one mans recollections of a dream.
It was a curious and also desperate attempt to rescue the TV series.
Could Jose Baez pull the Dallas move? Could he tell the jury that this was all just a dream?
Sure, I am joking, but it might be his best option. The ‘If the shorts don’t fit you must acquit’ is not going to work. And the ‘liar liar pants on fire’ line will result in several cases of spontaneous combustion in the court room. So where can he go?
Simon Barrett
7 users commented in " Casey Anthony- Closing Arguments Set For Sunday "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackSimon, this was the best written articale I have read! Very astute and on the money.You MUST write books someday.
I know this article is about closing arguments. But let’s go back to opening statements for a moment. One legal analyst whom I have a great deal of respect for, was asked a question by his anchor: Could the opening by Baez that many of us see as a major error by making claims he couldn’t prove, actually have been a briliant move?
Under this scenario, Baez never had any intention of having Casey testify and had no other witnesses who could introduce the accidental drowning and sexual abuse theories. So he got them in front of the jury the only way he could – in his opening. He planted the seed, if you will.
The analyst thought about it for a few seconds and then said it is possible Baez was being dumb like a fox. It probably won’t do any good, but at least he gave jurors something to think about.
Any thoughts?
Denny,
That idea is one that I mulled over for a number of days. Yes it holds water. If you know that you will not be able to introduce the evidence during the trial, opening statements make a lot of sense. You can taint the jury and have no backlash. It is a masterful idea. but, here is the problem….
You have sold the jury a ‘bill of goods’. The jury may not like that.
I also do not buy into the smart like fox idea for a very important reason. Baez kept finding land mines to step on. If you have a ‘smart like fox’ plan, you do not stomp around looking for things to explode in your face.
How many times did Judge Perry talk about ‘opening doors’? Smart like fox defense does not leave a door open for the Jeff Ashton Mack Truck demolition company to drive through…..
I believe jose have dugged a hole he is not able to climb out of at opening statement,and throughout the trial he was still trying to digg out of it,and the only way he could of gotten out of it if he would of put casey on the stand but since he didnt he is still in that hole and closing statement that same shovel casey borrowed will b the one that Covers it up.She is sooo Guilty and the state proved it.
Hi Denny, I see the possibility there BUT to me, if that is the case it just proves Bozo is as lacking in morals as KC. If he KNOWS she is as guilty as sin why not plead for mercy or work for a plea deal instead of purposely lie and connive to twist the truth? I guess I have just been naive all my life. I thought defense attorneys were to work hard to see that their client received a “fair” trial. I did NOT know that it was OK for them to lie, get witnesses to lie, and purposely try to destroy innocent people just to say, I won. I did NOT know that it is ok to totally disregard the rights and value of an innocent child just because you are a defense attorney. I am almost as repulsed by this defense team, and some of their “witnesses” as I am KC.
Simon, I love your statement, “Smart like a fox defense does not leave a door open for the Jeff Ashton Mack Truck demolition”………
I think she is guilty. Everything points to her . The big theory is what mother waits 31 days to call the police and tell them her daughter has been missing. Guilty,Guilty,Guilty. That’s the truth and nothing but, the truth.
I think Simon and Treece are spot on!
I too was repulsed to think that Bozo would throw meaningless notions out there to raise doubt, but with no DETAIL! No short description as to how Caylee drowned. No short description as to how George molested Casey. If Bozo could even come close to proving that George molested Casey since the age of 8, he had three years to dig up a witness like a school teacher or old friend of Casey’s that might have described any unusual behavior in Casey or their home to that affect over all those years. But no, the best he could do was come up with a witness to say that George had an affair (and not with some spring chicken I might add)!
Yes, if I were the jury, I’d be mad as hell at Bozo’s tactics! I hope it backfires!
Leave A Reply