Double Jeopardy

ashley-juddI haven’t seen Ashley Judd in a number of years now, but I’ll readily admit I’ve had a secret crush on her for a long time. In 1999, she starred in a movie titled, Double Jeopardy. According to the IMDB Web site the plot line says “a woman framed for her husband’s murder suspects he is still alive; as she has already been tried for the crime, she can’t be re-prosecuted if she finds and kills him.”

I think that’s what we all think about double jeopardy; that no one can be tried for the same crime twice. So what’s with the Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 for Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause filed by Casey Anthony?

First, we’ll have to take a look at the motions filed by the state. There’s no doubt that law enforcement and prosecutors like to throw the book at people to make some of it stick., and Casey Anthony made herself a perfect target for not only the check fraud charges, but the first-degree murder charge in the death of her daughter. It would seem like fraud convictions would be a walk in the park compared to facing execution, but there are reasons why this particular motion was filed by the defense.

Here are the three charges filed for each forged check written:

1. Fraudulent Use Of Personal Identification Information

2. Forgery Of A Check

3. Uttering A Forged Check

x4=12

Another charge was thrown in for good measure:

13. Grand Theft Third Degree

The motion to dismiss states that Casey is guaranteed double jeopardy protection under the United States Constitution as well as the Florida Constitution on the grounds of duplicative charges. Her defense claims that the additional grand theft third degree charge would be tantamount to punishing her for the same crime covered in the other 12 counts. In essence, Casey’s defense team points out that under law, she should be charged for one crime by one count. The defense also claims that charging her with multiple counts for the same act prejudices her, therefore the counts should be dismissed. In other words, she should be charged once each for all three charges and it shouldn’t matter how many bad checks she wrote. That means she should have only been charged with one count of fraudulent use of personal identification information, one count of forgery of a check and one count of uttering a forged check. No matter how many checks she wrote, they should all fall under the same umbrella of charges.

According to the motion, “Miss Anthony is guaranteed double jeopardy protection by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 9 and 17 of the Florida Constitution for duplicative charges.” Let’s take a look at what the law says:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Florida Constitution – Article 1, Sections 9 and 17

SECTION 9.  Due process.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

SECTION 17.  Excessive punishments.

Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the legislature. The prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, shall be construed in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court which interpret the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. This section shall apply retroactively.

The double jeopardy rule of the Fifth Amendment is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in agreement with the common law concept ofres judicata which prevents courts from relitigating issues which have already been the subject of a final judgment. There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are:

  • being retried for the same crime after an acquittal
  • retrial after a conviction
  • being punished multiple times for the same offense

Does the defense motion to dismiss those extra charges, something it sees as ancillary in nature, hold any merit? In Solem v. Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277, a split court found that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony was unconstitutional. In Solem, a bare majority of the court held a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

In Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, a life sentence without possibility of parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine was upheld. The case produced five separate opinions. While seven justices supported a proportionality review under the Eighth Amendment, only four favored application of all three factors cited in Solem. As one court has concluded, disproportionality survives; Solem does not. (McGruder v. Puckett (5th Cir.’92) 954 F.2d 313, 316.) In Harmelin, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, determined Solem was wrongly decided and the Eighth Amendment contained no proportionality guarantee. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices O’Connor and Souter, found the Eighth Amendment encompassed a narrow proportionality principle. In other words, the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. Moreover, in Solem v. Helm, the court focused on the nonviolent nature of both the defendant’s current offense of uttering a ‘no account’ check (one of the most passive felonies a person could commit) and his prior offenses. The majority acknowledged a life sentence for fourth-time heroin dealers and other violent criminals would pass constitutional muster.

What all of this legalese means, in my interpretation of law, is that Casey should be tried once for each of the three charges. If she is acquitted of the first 3 charges, the case should not be allowed to proceed. On the other hand, if she is convicted of the first 3 charges, the additional charges should no longer be relevant and she should be sentenced for just those 3. I understand the logic, but is it really constitutional? Suppose she is convicted on all 13 charges. She faces a long time in prison on each separate conviction. In essence, she could be sentenced to spend her remaining years behind bars. Also, as 13 separate convictions, she would be considered an habitual offender. Could she be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as such? I believe she could. What we have to consider is not just this case, but prior cases and the issue of extreme sentences for others beyond the State of Florida v. Casey Marie Anthony. As much as many may want the book thrown at her, in its wisdom, the court does not see prejudice. It sees a defendant and the charges against her. She has the law on her side as much as it may or may not help her.

The defense motion cited Florida Statute Section 775.021 (4), which states that, “Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.”

I read that as meaning the offenses are separate from each other. In other words, each of Amy’s forged checks are really the same crime on different dates. As such, they should be charged as one crime because the Fifth Amendment forbids multiple punishments for the same offense. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if ‘each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.’ Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. Are they the same offenses? According to Florida law (Florida Statute Section 775.021 [4][b]), the intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are:

1.  Offenses which require identical elements of proof.

2.  Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute.

3.  Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.

I think it’s very clear why the defense filed this motion and it’s a very good one. Let’s move on and take a look at Casey’s grand jury indictment last October.

On October 14, 2008, Casey Marie Anthony was indicted by the State of Florida on these separate charges:

1) FIRST DEGREE MURDER (CAPITAL)

2) AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE (F1-L9)

3) AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD (F1-L10)

4) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

5) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

6) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

7) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Yes, she was charged with premeditated first-degree murder under Florida Statute 782.04:

Murder.

(1)(a)  The unlawful killing of a human being:

1.  When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being

While we ponder the legality of the latest double jeopardy motion, take a look at the above indictment charges. How can a person be charged with murder and manslaughter*? Why are there four separate charges pertaining to providing false information to a law enforcement officer? Mark my words, when the murder case heats up more, we are going to see a slew of motions filed to throw out some of the charges. What will happen? It certainly is within the realm of possibility, but on the other hand, allow me to look at the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks. I don’t need to go into any detail of what transpired. This is purely about the charges, the trial, and the conviction.

On August 10, 1995, Timothy McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and 8 counts of first-degree murder. On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on all 11 counts of the federal indictment. He was executed by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. on June 11, 2001, at the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

You may wonder why I chose this particular crime. To be honest, the double jeopardy motion has nothing to do with Caylee’s murder at this time. This is an entirely separate case, but I am looking at legal comparisons and how they could influence each trial, fraud and murder.

My Opinion

Despite killing 168 people, McVeigh was only charged with 8 murders. In my opinion, Casey Anthony will lose her Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 for Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause. Why? If Timothy McVeigh’s attorneys used the same logic and prevailed in a similar motion to dismiss the counts by reducing the eight murder charges to one, that means out of 168 deaths he was responsible for, he would have been tried for one single murder and the entire weight of those deaths would have been reduced from 8 to 1. Would he have been sentenced to death for one murder? With Casey, it’s the same thing in my book, although the charges are not similar. I am merely making an analogy. Each forged check is a separate crime. The only charge I would consider dropping is the Grand Theft Third Degree. I think it’s extra icing on a 12-layer cake. One thing the judge may consider, and only if Casey is convicted on all counts, is to follow maximum sentencing guidelines allowed by the state, but to condense those 12 charges into 3 at sentencing. In other words, allow all of the convictions to stand, but don’t sentence each one individually. Of course, the judge should use his own discretion when deciding the imposition of concurrent or consecutive sentences and I am not concerned with that particular aspect. Regardless of what he decides, Casey will be locked away for a long time if she is convicted of these charges alone. I realize how unpopular my view will be with readers, but we must remember, when Casey stands trial on the fraud charges, she will not be convicted of anything yet and the court will not take Caylee’s death into consideration. Who else, other than Casey, would you want to spend a life in prison over stolen checks that amounted to less than $1,000?

tommy lee jonesOn a final note, I think we’re all Jonesing for the fraud trial to begin. Any trial, actually, and speaking of Jonesing, wasn’t Tommy Lee Jones Ashley Judd’s costar in Double Jeopardy? Yup, he was. Too bad justice doesn’t always work the same way as it does in Hollywood. Casey Anthony’s role would have been written out of the script right after the opening credits. In the real world, that’s not the way it works.

*Amended by Maura on 2009/11/13 at 12:40 pm: According to a lawyer who comments over on Blink’s site, Florida law requires the inclusion of a lesser crime when a person is indicted for a capital offense. That’s why Casey was charged with aggravated manslaughter of a child in addition to first degree murder.

On the surface, it appears that the jurors will be allowed to convict Casey of both first degree murder (homicide with premeditation) and manslaughter (homicide without premeditation), which can’t logically both be true relative to the same homicide.

The resolution to that contradiction will be in the instructions to the jurors.


PLEASE VOTE FOR ME!

mobbies

212 thoughts on “Double Jeopardy

  1. Bravo! Very concise and brilliantly accurate!

    Each “shopping” adventure was a separate occurrence and therefore a separate crime inmo.

  2. Great article-I understand it now, I think. Simply, the defense argues that it would be convicting and sentencing Casey twice for the same crime if the grand theft charge stays. Now, the other charges they want dropped they say is duplicitous since they are similar (but not the same). Those would, in your opinion, be the ones that will not get dropped since these counts are for each seperate check, right?
    On that list of counts with 4 saying, Providing False Information to Law Enforcement, how is that okay to do? I have an idea but would like to hear what you say to see if I got that right. (2 are for each investigator she lied to and two are for each time they interviewed her? or, one for each time she swore she was telling the truth?)

  3. That’s pretty much it, Sherry. To each law enforcement agent/agency she lied to on separate occasions came separate charges. In my opinion, if I robbed a bank, which is tantamount to what Casey did, and robbed a different bank later in the day or the next morning, why shouldn’t I be charged separately for each bank that I robbed. 2 banks = 2 charges.

  4. Dave, I sent this article to my Attorney/Pro-Tem Judge by email. He congratulates you on your concise and well written article. He found nothing in it that he could repudiate. He was surprised that you were a journalist and not an attorney. Good job friend.

    Now, would you please answer my last two emails.😉

  5. Thank you Dave, I believe even I understand now! LOL

    There are 2 dates filed for hearings on these charges, 12/18 and 12/11. Is there any way to find out when we will be seeing this issue addressed?

  6. Well, thank you, Shadow, and please thank your friend for me. Every once in a while, I pull a good one out of my hat. Where did this one come from? I sometimes surprise myself.

    I will answer your e-mail, but at the moment, there are 6 ahead of you. Not that I’m all that popular or anything, but my Internet connection was off all morning.

  7. Olive – I hope you understand! But if you have questions, by all means, fire away. I’m pretty sure the 18th is the preliminary for the fraud trial. I don’t know about the 11th. I’m looking, but so far I haven’t found anything. When I do, I’ll let you know.

  8. Dave, great job on this article. That’s why we come here to read.

    Olive says that the dates filed are in December for hearings. Do they make a decision on a hearing or does this have to go to a Jury trial too—just wondering on that. thanks

  9. Shadow, I am so glad you conveyed your attorneys comment, yet not surprized he has such complimentary
    words for Dave. Dave is a Whiz-Whig-Whizzard🙂
    A bit tempermental, but aren’t all artistic geniuses?
    Shadow, did you know he types all with two fingers?
    Amazing!!

  10. Hearings are just that. They are motions for the judge to decide on. A good defense files a slew of motions. While some people in the public complain, there are reasons why they are filed. One of the things a motion deals with is what can and cannot be presented at trial. The motions are designed to explore areas like that and to siphon out what will be allowed and disallowed. A lot of people don’t understand that and they incorrectly assume defense motions are frivolous. Only in this case, for some odd reason.

  11. First time commenting, I just wanted to say THANK YOU for sticking to the facts. You do have the best blog on the block.

  12. BTW, very good explaining on the whole Double Jeapordy thing.

    RE: Your comment, Dave at 1:11 pm. Yousaid:
    .. A lot of people don’t understand that and they incorrectly assume defense motions are frivolous. Only in this case, for some odd reason…

    Since this is probably the most widely blogged about/spoken about murder case in history, in the age of the internet, I don’t that is a fair statement. I for one and probably many others have said in other cases that a lot of defense motions were frivolous. (Scott Peterson, Pam Smart, OJ Simpson or any other high profile case). We have only disussed the Casey case here.

  13. Hi there, New Puppy. Yes, I can be moody at times, but calling me an artistic genius is really going to fuel the fires of dissent. Good, I’m glad. Thank you, and yes, I m a 2-finger typist. Pretty fast these days, I might add.

  14. My point, Linda From New York, is that a lot of people don’t take into consideration why a defense would file so many motions.

    TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE “MOTIONS CONUNDRUM:” In a serious felony prosecution, to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial, the defense must “set the record” by filing a series of motions pertaining to defense allegations, so that the court rules on them prior to trial. The conundrum is that filing these motions will substantially delay the beginning of the trial, yet, not filing the motions can prohibit the defense from bringing up those allegations at trial or appealing a conviction based upon them. This process takes a long time and, although it is a common and necessary procedure leading up to trial, prosecutors will always point to such delays as “defense generated,” implying the defendant is delaying going to trial, ostensibly because of his or her guilt.

    Are many people aware of that fact or is it nothing more than prejudice against this particular defendant and a lack of understanding of law? This particular case is precisely what I’m talking about, not Scott Peterson, Pam Smart, OJ Simpson or any other high profile case.

  15. Hi all, Dave very nice analogy of double jeopardy . This took some hard thinking and alot of time to put together . I hope all appreciate what you do . Now that said, Vote for Marinade Dave in the Orbies please! Help give Caylee a stronger voice! OH and TY for taking your free time to bring us all you do!

  16. Well, thank you, Fostermom2. I don’t think any of those pigs read anything I write. They slander me by making up stories about not shooting the videos, not talking to the judge, and now they malign people who contribute here. It’s a shame that this case has sunk to such a level.

  17. Aloha, Dave

    After reading this article, I am so glad I didnt go to law school. I could never keep any of this straight, I think my brain would explode if I even tried.

  18. Great post, this is the way to learn folks! I mean even I can understand. Oh, how I wish I could look like Ashley, butterfly and all and start all over at about 20, sigh!
    What I wouldn’t do with the last 30 years. I would never
    miss the newspaper again. 🙂

  19. Hi Dave, What I was trying to say it is not ONLY in this case that people may think the/a defense’s motions are frivilous.

    You had said ….people don’t understand that and…assume defense motions are frivolous. “Only in THIS case, for some odd reason”.

  20. Hi, Ray. It was a piece of cake. 12-layered, I might add. I hope things have been well with you. By the way, I want to e-mail you about a project I am working on… ancient Indian burial mounds.

  21. Only in THIS case, Linda From New York, because this seems to be the ONLY case on some people’s minds and it has mutated into a whole new society of Anthony lovers and haters, which is totally wrong. It’s tantamount to a civil war, and that is something I find to be very, very odd. People seem to be willing to fight tooth and nail to get nowhere. I didn’t see this sort of anomaly occur during the Scott Peterson case, even when his mother gave him full support.

  22. Nah. It’s not only THIS case. When there has been a high profile murder case like this, people most certainly pooh-pooh the defense motions and say “Oh they are trying to get their client “off”. But this IS the ONLY case being talked about incessantly on line and otherwise.

    BTW, was there blogging about the Scott Peterson case? I just started blogging when the Casey Anthony case surfaced for ovious reasons (31 days, all of her lying and yes, her parents).

    In regards to Scott Peterson’s mother, she just did the “my son is innocent mantra”, like all other family members in these cases. BUT BUT BUT, before you say anything, Casey’s mother and father have told unbelievable, ridiculous, contadictory “stories” regarding everything and absolutely have told numerous lies. And again, because of the sunshine law, have those lies and stories and have seen with our own eyes the lies told during their released interview with LE, FBI and prosecutors. So this is a very different way THIS case is being looked at and presented to the public.

    Scott Peterson’s mother said the usual “I stand by my son, he would never do this, he had that $10,000 in his car because I gave it to him for …(whatever, I can’t remember), his hair DOES turn blonde from chlorine LOL!
    If the Anthony’s just said the usual, we would not really be talking about THEM as far as this case is concerned. But don’t say (Bothe C&G) that the car smells like a dead body, smells like decomp and then say it was pizza. That has not and never will be forgotten along with all the rest.

    I’m not trying to ger you riled up, Dave!

  23. anyone, just had a question, i guess the defense wants to run thru all the motions it can present and these have to be accepted or dismissed before they would want to ask for a plea deal—dont know if this is how it is done. do y’all think they are just covering the bases until they CAN plea or do you think there will actually be a trial? I change my mind daily on this.

    also, the news is saying that Mallory was NEVER questioned by LE—–true?

  24. Man, did you and Snoopy get slammed…I think you should let persons coming to your blog vent more about the Anthonys.

  25. Martha, we have not seen any interviews released with Mallory and LE, so maybe this is her first time to speak, with the State’s deposition.

  26. Thanks for explaining double jeapordy *Dave
    But here’s what I thought it meant…….In the very beginning when LE offered Casey a plea deal, if she would have taken that deal, maybe plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter, recieved 7 years, and THEN they found the body, she could not be tried again, even knowing that she intentionally murdered Caylee.

  27. I’m not riled, Linda From New York. I just think that people are taking this way too far. They’ve gone beyond “Justice for Caylee.” They want blood from other bloggers who don’t agree with them. They started this crap over at Bill Sheaffer’s blog. I am now putting a stop to any combative words on my blog, including myself. Let them make fools of themselves. If they wish to attack me here, I can handle it, but my words can be a lot more biting than theirs. Heck, they can’t write, let alone spell.

  28. Martha – A plea deal is not necessarily in the cards. That’s not why a defense files motions. Just like the prosecution doesn’t always charge a person with more crimes hoping for a plea bargain, the defense throws things at the judge hoping that something sticks. However, these motions are not without merit. Even the motion to dismiss that was turned down when I was there had to do with filing wrong. The judge heard it and told them they could file it again, but get it right next time. He never said it was a stupid motion. As a matter of fact, the judge could reprimand a defense for NOT filing appropriate motions. My problem with some of these bloggers and commenters is that they have no concept whatsoever of law. Also, just because one TV pundit disagrees does not mean the competing station’s pundit will think the same way. Look at one station jumping on the syringe. Another station said it was meaningless. What we need to understand is that all of these TV people, and I mean ALL of the, are very interested in ratings. Will someone tell me they believe EVERYTHING TV personalities say, even when they disagree with each other?

  29. Great Post Dave! I believe most of my questions have been answered.

    The above and past posts are the reasons you have been nominated for the Orbie and the reason I will continue to support whether you win or not. I have actually taken the time to look at the blogs of your competition and although most are well done, my review still places you in the top blogger position. I must add – by and large the comments on your blog are pretty much the most colorful. LOL

    I have one question remaining, but need to think about how to frame it without sounding as dumb as I feel. When I get there, I’ll ask.

  30. Dave~~excellent post. Alot of indepth work went into it. I am going to withhold my comments re the double jeopardy as I want to do a more thorough read..

    Many distractions here in the boondocks.

  31. I will see if I can make some sense out of this double jeopardy. I understand what the defense wants, nine of the 13 charges dismissed, leaving 4.

    We have Amy H, The Bank of America, Target and Winn Dixie.

    Does the state file the charges against Casey on behalf of these victims of her crime?

  32. Dave re: your comment at 6:20 pm:

    Whenever I come across a post on ANY blog where I read things like “Sindy” “Bozo” “Georgette” I don’t even read. It smacks of immaturity ….. do adults really speak like that?

  33. Marinade Dave // November 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    Renee – I will not allow people to call them Bozo and Scamthonys, etc., etc., because it will attract nothing but the dregs of commenters
    ____

    That is not what I meant. I mean opinions about their actions or non-actions, not calling them names.

  34. The charges were pursuant to Amy’s wishes. The charges stem from the checks.

    1. Fraudulent Use Of Personal Identification Information

    2. Forgery Of A Check

    3. Uttering A Forged Check

    In each case, she gave false ID information, she forged each check and she used a forged check to make a purchase or for cash. It’s what she did that counts, not where she did it. The charges stem from each act. The bank chose not to press charges, but they were not going to stop anyone from pressing charges. It was crucial that Amy pursue it, but not absolutely necessary. What it did was make the charges stick. She can’t get out of this one, but lawyers will plead their client innocent in many cases just in case a technicality arises or a witness fails to show or something. Casey is already at the mercy of the court going into it and I don’t think pleading out would matter upon sentencing.

  35. ..venting about what they have and have not done that pertains to this case…..that would make people feel better about bloging on this case..and therefore prevent venomous comments to each other.

  36. Renee – I let people say what’s on their mind. Somehow a rumor started about me being an Anthony lover and it’s been perpetuated over on Sheaffer’s blog. What set it off originally was my policy of no name calling. Those people are blowing things way out of proportion and thriving on it. You’ll notice I haven’t said anything there in retribution. I don’t care because the silly geese don’t realize they are sending new people here in droves. Plus, if you study those people over there, it’s only about a half dozen of them who are doing their best to make it seem like it’s the entire Internet against me and a few of the many commenters who come here. They are twisting it. Meanwhile, some of your friends are jumping into the free-for-all frenzy. It’s turning into a small mob mentality. Think about it, have any of them discussed the case at all or has it all been bashing me? You would call any of them your friends? I wouldn’t. If they had digital torches, they’d burn the Internet down.

  37. No Dave, I don’t call them friends as I don’t know any of them…what could I call them? I have no clue actually bec I am here on day and gone the next. Wow, they’ll burn the internet down..(or would do do) reminds me of a street riot in Chicago it was I think…burning cars and streets..lol. Well, it’s really not funny, but what can you do? Nothing really but what you are doing which is writing about this case.

  38. Thank you, Kim. It’s true.

    I think the best thing to do would be to stay away from that blog until it has some semblance of sanity. Maybe, the children will get tired. No doubt, they will continue making up names and comments and blaming us for all of them, but WFTV may want to place trackers on them for disrupting the blog. I’d avoid it if I were you. It’s hot right now. Very hot, and lighting up, if you get my drift.

  39. I only posted once, a welcome to Bill – I have peeked in a few times but it got ugly very fast and you know me, Dave – I avoid a fight😉

  40. OK here goes, re: The merit of the grand theft charge.
    It seems to me, that each of the other charges reflect actions taken by Casey in an attempt to obtain material gain. Once she was successful, and was in possession of her ill-gotten gains, is she not then guilty of theft? In other words don’t the first three charges reflect the actions of Casey while the felony theft charge reflects the result of her actions?

    I agree that the theft of $1,000 should not result in a life sentence. But, I am fairly certain that if found guilty on all counts, Judge Strickland will take that into account while handing down a sentence.

  41. Another thing that never ceased to amaze me is how people’s opinions changed regarding some of the players in this case based on their association with the family …. for instance, when Mark Nejame first became the attorney for G&C, I saw some horrible things said about him. I even saw someone on a blog dig up a photo of him and his family and open it up to ridicule. Then, suddenly, when he stepped down as their attorney, he was a hero …. a God. LOL …. how about if we just base our opinions on facts and perhaps his credentials??? Noooooooooo … that would make sense. Same thing with Leonard Padilla, Tim Miller, etc etc etc.
    All that this type of mentality showed, is that certain people were not capable of forming opinions based on facts and research …. just what the mob told them to think. Bizarre.

  42. Dave~~Why did you change the format? I posted a question twice and both times you didn’t see it or ignored it. I will check back later.

  43. That’s a very good question, Vicky, and I gave that some serious thought. I believe the weight of the 12 charges will be enough. In fact, they are all felony charges and conceivably, she could be a repeat offender by the time the dust settles on that particular trial if she is convicted on all counts. In my opinion, the grand theft is to top off the other charges. It looks better overall, because it does make Casey look very, very bad, so in that regard, the defense may have a point. The state threw the book at her and they should have, but the defense must do whatever it takes to reduce some of the charges and Judge Strickland is very reasonable. That was only my take on it. Nothing is set in stone and it may play out completely different. I just looked at it through my mind and my interpretation of law and case studies.

  44. Thanks Dave. Your interpretation made a lot of sense to me. I was just letting a few questions bounce around in my head and one of them escaped and landed on your blog. LOL

    I decided to take a stab at what the SAO’s response to the motion might entail and wanted to see if you thought I was way out in left field.

  45. Very, very bizarre, Northern Light. You’re so right. I also remember when Kronk was called a pedophile. Unfortunately, it has turned into a slugfest. The dumb are looking at everyone who is against the Anthonys as heroes and everyone who is neutral or friendly as enemies worthy of nothing but death. I cannot believe people are willing to battle to the death over someone they no longer care about; Caylee. Their motto is “Justice for Caylee, Death to her grandparents!”

  46. Justice for Caylee, Death to her grandparents!”

    sounds like something an angry suicide bomber would say🙂

    ‘nite all.

  47. Hi Dave

    I just recently found your website and your style of writing is superb.

    Thank you for all the informative posts regarding this horrible case. I hope justice prevails.

    Nay

    PS I also LOVE “Double Jeopardy” and Ashley Judd/Tommy Jones and have watched it many times after I 1st watched. It seems to get better each time!

  48. Good morning, Nay. I’m glad you like my writing style. I shall do my best to continue bringing you informative posts, too. Ultimately, I believe justice will prevail.

    Like you, I still enjoy that movie. Tommie Lee Jones is one of my favorite actors, along with Morgan Freeman, but Ashley… she’s in a league of her own.

    Thank you very much and I hope to see you again.

  49. While your piece was quite informative, I dont understand exactly why this all matters? The judge is the final arbiter of what the appropriate charges are and he will rule on the motions. The State piled
    the charges on, I get your point but so what? Ms Anthony will get her due process and so far from the proceedings I think all the judges involved have been very fair to the defense. The civil case is pretty much a slam dunk and I understand that the less she is charged with, the less her “sentence” can be. I say sentence in quotes because she obviously isnt going anywhere. Is it possible that with only one count each that it would be a misdemeanor
    rather than felony charges? Now that I could see could make a difference.

  50. A lot of people asked me what the motion was all about and I decided to write a piece on it. Sure, the judge has the final say, but in the meantime, what should the defense do? I tried to weigh both sides. I wrote from both sides, and in the end, I proffered my opinion on how I think it will resolve. For sure, the defense attorneys feel that they were correct in filing the motion, and they were. I just don’t think it will work out in their favor. As for any charges in this particular case being reduced to misdemeanors? Nope, ain’t gonna happen.

    By the way, I’d never look at the civil case as being a slam dunk. There are very strong arguments on both sides of the fence and as a matter of law and not prejudice against Ms. Anthony, the defamation lawsuit could go either way.

    Thanks, artgall16.

  51. Grand theft and the repeat offender, or the “incorrigible felon” how does that play in light of moving to dismiss? I use the term felon because I don’t think there is a word for “Miss Demeaner.” (lol)

    As for your quote: “…sending new people here in droves.” Yes, the overall civility of your blogsite which provides a nice protective feeling of safety from the gang-like attacks upon those of us who remain objective in this and other matters is what moved me to board the Marinade Train. I vote to put your photo next to the word Integrity in the dictionary.

    Your literary principles and values are very much appreciated.

  52. Myrtle Beach;
    Your compliments about Dave and his Blog couldn’t have come at a better time. The swashbuckling from yesterday has left all of us hungry for some real food. Dave would never leave any of us in the lurch and he proved his fatherly traits by standing up to them and protecting us.
    Dave thanks. We won’t be leaving the ship

  53. Why, thank you very much, Myrt. It’s nice to read something positive after the past couple of days.

    There is no way the judge is going to dismiss this case or any case against Casey. There are no “technicality” issues, for one thing. The only thing the defense can do is to continue chipping away at the charges in hopes that some of the pitches turn into strikes. The motions are also a method to establish areas that may or may not be brought up at trial. Personally, I think one of the problems with this defense team is that they spend more time conferencing via phone than person to person and through that detachment, they lose some of the dynamics a team might otherwise have. I see it through motions, like not filing them properly.

    Unfortunately for the nutbags over yonder, their tactics failed. Fortunately, there are more people like you, and that is very much appreciated by me and all of the other people here and on other sites that maintain peace and honor. I want to address this case as objectively as I can and I guess everyone has their detractors. Thanks, Myrt.

  54. I saw that movie! Anthony Hopkins is a brilliant actor, one of the finest in the world. He was great in Fractured. It’s also interesting to note that his Hannibal Lechter character is the most feared monster in all of movieland.

  55. Said perfectly, Myrtle Beach! Thank you for making me all the more glad that Dave’s site is my “home” for intelligent articles on this case.

  56. Good morning all, Dave… Anyone that is new here and us old folks this is just a reminder that the ORBIES did not go away we still need to get our votes in.Please just take a minute of your time to sign up and Vote . Click the Orbie award attached to Daves page , If anyone needs assistance please just ask someone will help you. Dave takes hours of his free time everyday to bring us great journalism we can take a minute everyday to show our appreciation.TYVM

  57. Hi Dave, Hope you are feeling well today. I don’t want you to think I just did a hit and run on you yesterday. Having bad back problems and having trouble sitting at the computer.

    One thing. On all these blogs about Casey Anthony, people give their opinions. So it is ridiculous that you or anyone else are attcked for your opinion. A sensible back and forth is one thing, but the attacking and bashing are ridiculous. I’ve stayed away from blogs where there is that type of thing going on, including the ones who’s commenters use the words “Sindy, Scamthony’s etc.” and did not bash. I, and many other’s who are not “Anthony Lovers” don’t use those 3rd grade words when speaking (not bashing) about them.These people doing that to you really do need to grow up and stop acting like 3rd graders. Calling you an “Anthony Lover” is absolutely 3rd grade mentality. Please just laugh at it. The words themselves are funny. If people don’t agree with you or your commenters, they should just stay away like I have at blogs where that is the mentality. I would love to point out those blogs and bash them, but of course I would not do that here. What happened at Bill’s blog made me cringe.
    And I would hope that in the future there will be rules there and anywhere else to not knock other bloggers and their opinions in such deragatory ways.

    You and I don’t agree on the Anthony part of this case, but I would never bash you for your opinion. I may “argue” it with you, but people are just taking this too far…and for what? There are plenty more things in life to get upset about.

    Sorry this is so long. Time to vote!

  58. Hi, Linda From New York. Yes, it’s very childish. One thing I want to make clear to new readers who those twits sent over without knowing it, thank you very much, is that no one has to agree with me to comment here. You are solid proof of that and we get along just fine. The main reason is that we left 3rd grade and went on to graduate. Civilized people can disagree and still be friends, in other words. For sure, Snoopy and I had our share of major differences and we are fine. That’s what I would expect from intelligent people and most of my posts are purposely left open for discussion from all sides. I just don’t think it makes sense for someone to come in for nothing more than to just insult. They add no depth. I screen them like picking weeds out of a garden and the I’m accused of taking away their freedom of speech. Boo hoo.

    I hope you are feeling better today. I am, and thanks for asking. Take care of your back. I won’t let those commenters bother me. They have nothing to offer.

  59. I would agree in many cases there can be compelling evidence on both sides. However, there are very few cases where we actually have video of the crimes being perpetrated. I find it very difficult to believe a judge or a jury is going to find her innocent after seeing in moving pictures if you will, her calmly cashing Amys’ checks and buying beer and other essentials for herself and Tony and their friends. And of course, not one thing for little
    Caylee. This to me is indisputable “hand in the cookie jar” evidence and the defense knows it.
    They could try to say that Amy gave her permission but it wont wash. Amy seemed to me to be a responsible girl and a good friend to Casey.
    Sometimes you can mount a defense, but not in this civil case. I cannot understand Casey – is she the smartest- stupidest girl we have ever seen or just thinks of herself as most sociopaths do, as invincible and able to get out of anything she does. I think its the latter as up to that point in time, she DID get out of everything she had done in the past.

  60. I noticed a slogan posted on the bench where Judge Stickland was presiding on 10/16/09 (actually when he had the Bailiff call you forward) “Professionalism Demands Civility” and for me, those are words to live by.

  61. Keep in mind, artgal16, that the civil case is the defamation lawsuit only. The fraud case is in criminal court. Regardless of what we may personally think of Casey as a person, it has nothing to do with the fraud trial. The court will not look at whether she bought anything for her daughter or not with the stolen money. The court will determine whether she broke any laws consistent with Florida State Statutes as they pertain to this case. It is a matter of law that every defendant who enters a courtroom is innocent and it is up to the state to prove otherwise. That is the law of the land. Of course, there are videos. Of course, there are missing checks forged by Casey. Allegedly. If the state handles the charges in a sloppy manner, she could walk. The state won’t do that, but it is within the realm of possibility. Remember, OJ was as guilty as sin (in my opinion) and he walked. That was over the murder of 2 people, not something like stolen checks. I hate to have to say it, but I’ve got to look at this as pragmatically as possible and guilty people walk out of a courtroom every day.

  62. That was the motion I went to, Myrt, yupperee. It was moved from a hearing room to a courtroom to accommodate more people. That wasn’t his usual place. He made a funny comment about the other judge’s fondness for hand lotion because it was all over the bench. I don’t know whether that was his sign and slogan, but it certainly are great words to live by.

  63. I was aware that he was in a surrogate room that day. Moreover, I was concerned about you being summoned forward by the Judge. That is until you shared the commendation by Hizzonor the following week which served to endorse my opinion of you 100 fold.

    Marinadedave, the man, the myth, the legend.

  64. OJ walked because of jury nullification. He was found guilty in a Santa Monica court albeit civily only. The OJ case was one of the biggest miscarriages of justice I have ever seen. I made an error, I was writing about the criminal fraud charges not the civil case per Casey. If the tapes are admissible of her at the bank and at the stores she went to, I think sloppy presentation or not, she will be convicted. As to what she bought as being relevent, I believe it is, not in the case of her murdering Caylee but regarding the fraud charges.
    There could have been mitigating circumstances as to what she used the money for, so I believe there is relevence there and it will be brought into the fraud trial.

  65. What’s interesting, Myrt, is that there are people out in the blogging world who have convinced themselves that he called me forward to give me a verbal reprimand and that, subsequently, everything I wrote was a lie. I find that to be truly stupid. If His Honor reads my blog, why would I make up a story like that? To get a reprimand? At the same time those idiots have no idea why he “probably” reprimanded me. For being bald? They just make up silly stories as they go. If they had their way, I’d be hanging from a tree, right next to George, Cindy and Jose. Wow, such intelligence and common sense.

  66. This may seem cliche, but I’ve heard that attention paid to detractors takes away from our efforts to do well.

  67. I think if the prosecution says Casey spent the money on this and this and that and not one dime on her daughter, it will be laughed out of court. She will not stand trial on what she bought and who she didn’t buy for. Who she didn’t buy for is irrelevant. All that matters is what laws she broke. Now, on the other hand, if the state wants to bring that up at the murder trial, that’s altogether different. She went to Target. She went to Winn Dixie. She paid her car insurance. What’s that got to do with Caylee? And besides, the state has no idea what she bought at Winn Dixie. Even if it had a copy of the receipt, without knowledge of Caylee being dead at the time, how could prosecutors prove that Casey didn’t share her macaroni & cheese with someone else, like her daughter? Remember, this is a fraud trial, not murder.

  68. And what I find of importance is that he not only let he know he appreciates your integrity, but also that he reads blogs. Not every person in elevated positions such as that would be that forthcoming.

    I think that those who also have posted some ignorant and ugly things about a Judge should really check themselves. The volatility involved in this case (in cyberspace alone) could have some unusual and far-reaching effects.

  69. I see no reason why the judge should not read blogs and forums related to this case. He can still watch the news and read the paper, right? If he is going to consider blogs as a reason to change the venue or not, where else but online is he going to see it for himself? Besides, the defense named blogs in motions. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to read things for himself?

    Some people are so closed-minded on this case. Good thing for judges like Stan Strickland to keep things on the level. Imagine if he felt the same way as the idiots. There would be no trial and Casey’s carcass would be rotting from a tree somewhere. Next to her parents, Jose Baez and me. Gee, I almost feel like I’m in an exclusive club. But I’m not.

  70. Hi, Dave.

    I haven’t read the comments, so this may have been mentioned, but according to a lawyer who comments over on Blink’s site, Florida law requires the inclusion of a lesser crime when a person is indicted for a capital offense. That’s why Casey was charged with aggravated manslaughter of a child in addition to first degree murder.

    On the surface, it appears that the jurors will be allowed to convict Casey of both first degree murder (homicide with premeditation) and manslaughter (homicide without premeditation), which can’t logically both be true relative to the same homicide.

    The resolution to that contradiction will be in the instructions to the jurors.

  71. So, is the defense saying they did/do not want the check fraud charges being brought before the murder case is because the reason for Casey stealing from Amy was because she needed the money to find her “kidnapped” daughter ?

    So what Artgal said about what she bought with the stolen Amy money being relevent, if the fraud charges go after the murder case, her defense would be she stole to help her find her daughter. And if it goes to trail before the murder, she has no defense? Or can’t state what her defense is, BEFORE the murder trial? If you are charged with stealing money, does it ever come into play as to WHY? In a murder trial it has been said, the prosecutor’s don’t have to present a motive/why.

    I hope I made some sense as to what my question is. LOL!

  72. Hey! Snoopy, Laura, and me will be hangin’ right with you Dave!

    You said that it is irrelevant what Casey bought with the stolen checks-I’m glad you said that because that has been my thought on it all along, I just wasn’t sure about it. Having worked in stores I have witnessed many moms, with kids in tow at that, come through and buy things with not one thing for their child. It happens. Now, grandparents are a different story-they buy out the store for their grandchildren.

  73. Of course the players in most cases read the blogs. Many of them are not open or generous with their impressions.

    Richard Nixon caused some furor in the Manson case when he made a declaratory statement about it and it hit the papers. However, we all knew he was following that case way back then. I know, similar but different.

  74. Well that one appeared! It is absolutely relevent in the fraud charges with what she did with the money. The defense could say they were mitigating circumstances for her using that money. Of course,
    in actuality I cannot see any mitigating circumstances, but I believe absolutely that what she spent the money on is relevent. Also with the tape of her at the store, that would actually show them exactly what she did with the money, wouldnt it?

  75. Hi, Maura, what a pleasant surprise.

    That’s very interesting and I wasn’t aware of that. Gee, now I wonder if I should amend my post. I think what I’ll do is amend it with a correction from you. Thank you for the clarification.

  76. Sherry – To me, it would be better to get the fraud trial over before the murder one because she only stands accused of murder and that cuts significantly into what can be brought up at trial. And you’re right, just because parents don’t buy something for their children when the go shopping doesn’t make them lesser parents, and it’s not against the law. Grandparents… that’s a different story, and by the looks of the Anthony household, Caylee was anything but neglected.

  77. Artgal16 – There’s nothing stuck in spam at the moment and if it does show up there, I will promptly let it out. I don’t always have control over what it decides to snatch away from me.

  78. Oh Lordy! I hope the only contact you will ever have with a tree will be sitting on a swing attached to that tree’s branch. 🙂

  79. Artgal16 – What I am saying is that there is no law that can charge her with not spending any of the stolen money on her daughter. Tell me, why is that so relevant? What is important is that she stole checks. Of course, the state can enter into evidence where and what she spent it on because they are part of the action, but that’s it.

  80. My guess is the defense is going to argue that

    -since Amy had lent Casey $80 in May for a car tow and hadn’t demanded immediate repayment,

    -since Amy and Casey had planned to share a house or apartment together, and

    -since Amy had allowed Casey to borrow her car for the week

    that Casey perceived a high degree of trust between herself and Amy so she cashed the checks without asking permission because she didn’t have any reason to believe Amy would have refused and because she intended to repay Amy.

    That may not be the exact defense, but it’s the only way I can see Casey trying to get away with a not guilty plea, especially since the defense reimbursed the bank for the money the bank had repaid Amy.

    Casey’s lawyers can’t allow her to claim she took the checks to help her find Caylee because of the nature of the items Casey bought.

    However, I don’t believe the jury would accept Casey’s hypothetical claim of not believing she needed to ask Amy’s permission to cash Amy’s checks. Casey was in contact with Amy when Amy was in PR, and apparently Casey never warned Amy that she was burning through Amy’s bank account. She wrote checks in excess of what Amy had in the checking account, and since Casey hacked into the account electronically to attempt another $574 transfer to pay her cell phone bill after Amy had returned from PR, Casey can’t claim to be ignorant of the amount of money in Amy’s checking account. Casey admitted on the night of July 15 (in the presence of deputies) that she had taken Amy’s checks (this was after Cindy – who was on the phone with Amy – asked Casey if she had taken Amy’s checks).

    My opinion is that Casey should have entered a guilty plea on the check charges from the beginning. Owning up to something she quite obviously did do would have helped her to appear less desperate and delusional in claiming to be innocent in the matter of Caylee’s disappearance and death.

  81. I meant to add that even if Casey claims she believed, because of her friendship with Amy, that she didn’t need to ask permission, she’s still on the hook for the false ID, forging, and uttering.

    And that would bring up the question of whether Amy would have given Casey the green light to break those laws.

  82. They all sound like viable defense strategies. I’ve wondered why Casey didn’t just plead out, too, and I have tossed around the notion of the defense taking a chance that the state may screw up.

    What’s she got to lose? No matter whether she pleaded guilty or not, she’s going to be found guilty and will be facing prison time. That’s almost a given, except for one thing; if the state messes up.

  83. Maybe Baez instructed Casey to plead not guilty, in hopes of the murder case coming to the trial before the check fraud case, so that she would have a clean record, which, from what I hear, could help prevent her from getting the DP. And of course there was no body found yet as well. Just a thought….

  84. Lol. I hope everything has calmed down. I noticed comments here about another blog. I am new to this, but I do know a blog ran by the newspaper and news station are public so you can have your computer hacked. I stay away from public sites. Could Casey plead no contest and just get it over with? Not that I think she would do that, just curious.

  85. Olive ,I think she should plea out if it comes before the murder because of the hard evidence . That way at the murder trial the defense would say if my client did it she would of took a plea like in the other trial.Thats if I were her attorney gives a little backbone not much just a lil.I dont think Baez is the attorney for that case.

  86. Yes, Baez is the attorney for the check fraud case and I believe Lyon has aked for permission to join the team as well. No ruling on that as of yet, though.

    Kassen is Casey’s attorney for the civil case, the one with Zenaida.

  87. Yes, #1, Casey could plead no contest, but she won’t. As a matter of fact, she could change her plea at the trial, too, and during, but not after the judge makes a decision, assuming it’s not a jury trial.

  88. Yes, Fostermom2, Baez is. This, actually, is a case he’s better suited to handle, because he is an attorney who’s tried these kinds of cases before. Baez &Co. have absolutely nothing to do with the defamation lawsuit. That is being handled by Jonathan Kasen, an attorney out of Ft. Lauderdale. I spoke to him about the case, over the phone, of course.

  89. Good afternoon Dave…..Just popped by to say.. I VOTED for you again today!….Great article & a Great Movie!……A quick question…..Since Casey bought merchandise with stolen money, is that classified as theft also? Hello to everyone else.

  90. Do you think that Judge Strickland was doing his homework by checking out WordPress? Attached to the Change of Venue motion were several pages of blog comments. Judge Strickland’s name was mentioned in many of those comments. Do you think, possibly, that the judge happened to read some of Dave’s posts and realized the articles showed that Marinade was not biased and fair. Just maybe the judge complimented Dave for this.

    Maybe the judge told Dave who shot JR who really knows?

    I posted the above at Bill’s in response to a commenter who said Dave lied about what the judge said. I checked and there was no backlash to my comment.

  91. I am wondering if there will be protestors at the trial . How people are acting on blogs shows the anger I am sure it is comming to the street. I hope Dave gets a seat on Caylees side.hint hint…Dave if you dont get in the court can you video outside for us?

  92. Hi, Nancy Drew – I guess the answer depends on who you are asking. I mean, if we look at it from one perspective, from a technical standpoint, she did cover the purchases so the stores weren’t out a thing. The checks didn’t bounce and the bank covered the checks. That’s why Target and Winn Dixie aren’t really involved in the suit. The bank even chose not to press charges after Baez anted up, but it doesn’t clear Casey. She still stole the checks, forged Amy’s name and cashed them. Three charges right there times four checks and grand theft to boot. If I stole $20 out of your purse and bought a nice dinner, the restaurant isn’t out anything, but you are. That’s pretty much the way it works.

  93. I’m sure there will be protesters outside the courthouse, but it’s a very, very large building and it could be held 19 floors up. The area where Casey will be brought into the building (and exit) is not open to the public. There will probably be a section near where the media trucks park. That would be my guess.

    I hope I can get to the trial, Fostermom2. With my video camera.

  94. Thank you Dave!….but when did the Bank backed down from the charges I could have sworn I read that the Bank did not except Baez’s restitution,because it was a act of crime?

  95. Also if there was a plea of guilty or no contest,would the court consider the punishment “as time served” because she has been in jail for a year +?

  96. If the 13 counts in the check/fraud are still on the table at the time of trial, I believe the sentence will be longer than Casey’s time served.

    Dave?

  97. Charged with Theft in Florida?
    Free Legal Defense Consultation on Theft / Shoplifting Charges in FL
    Under Florida law, theft is a charge that includes a variety of offenses, such as larceny, shoplifting, stealing, and unlawful taking. Penalties for theft range from felonies to misdemeanors depending on the value of the items allegedly stolen (see penalties below).

    Any criminal charge can have serious consequences to your life. Do not plead guilty to a theft charge before you understand all of the legal defense options you may have.

    Even if you admit you stole something and made a mistake, and are now prepared to own up to it, that doesn’t mean your punishment should be needlessly harsh. An experienced criminal defense lawyer may be able to get charges dropped in exchange for restitution, or other considerations.

    Call to speak with one of our attorneys to find out exactly what you can do to protect yourself and your future. Call (877) 394-6959 to arrange your consultation.

    What is Theft under Florida’s criminal statutes?
    A person commits “theft” is he or she “knowingly obtains or uses the property…of another with the intent to, either temporarily or permanently: deprive the person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property, OR appropriates the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to use of the property.

    Can I beat a Theft / Shoplifting Charge?
    Yes, we can challenge the witnesses statements, or challenge the “intent” clause of the statute and argue that it was an accident or a misunderstanding.

    We can also argue for a dismissal for restitution, or other favorable results that avoid a criminal record, or the harshest penalties.

    The defense tactics we use vary greatly depending on the facts of the case, so we will go over all your best options in a free legal consultation.

    Florida Theft / Shoplifting Penalties
    Theft penalties are sorted by degrees according to the value of the items taken.

    First (1st) Degree Grand Theft
    If the stolen property is valued at $100,000 or more, then the defendant will be charged with 1st Degree Grand Theft, which is a 1st Degree Felony. First degree felonies have a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and fines of up to $10,000.

    2nd Degree Grand Theft
    If the stolen property is valued between $20,000 and $99,999, then the defendant will be charged with 2nd Degree Grand Theft, which is a 2nd Degree Felony. Second degree felonies have a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and fines of up to $10,000.

    3rd Degree Grand Theft
    If the stolen property is valued between $300 and $19,999, then the defendant will be charged with 3rd Degree Grand Theft, which is a 3rd Degree Felony. A charge of third degree grand theft also applies if the property take is a firearm, a motor vehicle, a commercially farmed animal, a fire extinguisher, any amount of fruit consisting of 2,000 or more individual pieces, any stop sign, construction signs, or anhydrous ammonia.

    The penalty for a third degree felony is a maximum of 5 years in jail and a $5,000 fine.

    1st Degree Petit Theft (First Degree Petty Theft)
    If the property stolen is valued between $100 and $299, then the defendant will be charged with a 1st Degree Misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail and a $1000 fine.

    However, if the defendant has been convicted twice of any theft crime, then he/she will be charged with a 3rd Degree Felony (5 yrs/$5000 max penalty)

    2nd Degree Petit Theft (Second Degree Petty Theft)
    If the property stolen is valued at less than $100 or not specified in any other theft statute, then the defendant will be charged with a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor, with a maximum sentence of 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.

    What is the Finger-Print Rule ?
    In every case in which the Defendant is found guilty of petit theft, the defendant’s finger prints shall be taken, in the presence of the judge, and affixed to the written judgment.
    FL Statutes §812.014

    Free Consultation on any Florida Theft or Shoplifting Charge
    Call us now for legal advice on a theft charge in Florida. We will evaluate the facts of your case, and offer you defense options and suggestions.

    Whether you made a mistake, or are being unfairly charged, we can help.

    Call (877

  98. I have not read all the comments but I have a question. Casey is jail right now because she was charged with Murder. So how much time has she actually sat in jail because of the check fraud charges? If only a few days and if all the charges stick she could have to do time right? I mean she is not being held for check fraud right now so they can’t say time served because of how long she has been there right? Two different charges, hope that makes sense.

  99. WOW…….Better think twice about lifting that 20 bucks Dave,lol….Thanks Fostermom…..Watching Casey in the store videos was so unnerving,especially in the bank,it was amazing that store clerks didn’t even look at her ID closely. She displays that much confidence in her actions.

  100. Sorry, I wasnt clear – I only meant that to me its relevent what she spent the money on in the criminal fraud case – nothing to do with Caylee.
    When I mentioned none of the items were for Caylee
    it was just as an aside but nothing to do with her fraud case.

  101. Oh boy, Casey’s sentence will be a lot longer than time served. Those are big house felony charges. Also, if I remember correctly, the bank letter to Baez acknowledged receipt of the money, but it would not help nor hinder any pending charges.

  102. YW, TY Snoop for thatYOU TUBE video…Yipeee it worked Im getting this now..I tried so hard to do links and Snoop came to the rescue and now I can add what I can find..

  103. #1 – I believe Casey would have been out on bond had it not been for the murder charge w/o bail. Time served, in my opinion, would count toward the murder charge, not that she’ll ever have a chance for parole if convicted. Her time served is for murder, not fraud. Whatever she is convicted of, if so, will fall at the mercy of the court. Even if he sentences her to house arrest, her house is 33rd Street now. She’s not going anywhere. What it does mean, though, is that Baez will have less jailhouse visits because where she would be headed is a trek from Orlando.

  104. Poor Honorable Strickland….I wonder if he has had a case as bizarre as this one in his career.If any one was to write a book I would hope it would be him. When do you think he will rule on the Double jeopardy Motions?

  105. She wrote a check to herself and signed Amy’s name. If Casey knew how to forge an identical signature, the bank would have had no reason to suspect anything. Casey showed proof that she was Casey.

  106. Oh, OK, artgal16. I understand now. The checks in question will surely be the focus at trial. So will where she spent them. I am just thinking that if no receipts exist that can trace exactly what she purchased, it still doesn’t mean she didn’t do any of what she was charged with. I guess it’s like the murder charge. She was charged with 1st degree murder before the body was found. If no one can figure out what she bought, she still robbed her friend.

  107. Poor Amy! friends like Casey you sure don’t need enemies…in fact everyone that has had to retain an Attorney,because of Miss Anthony, has probably had take out loans or hock assets. But most of all Poor Caylee!

  108. thanks Dave for helping me understand what motions are for and how they are presented. Hope you and everyone have a good weekend—enjoyed reading and learning from everyones posts. See you Monday, no “puter” at home. Oh, Dave, voted everyday at work though!!!! Keeping that arrow going up

  109. No items were purchased for Caylee at the 2 Target stores or Winn Dixie, purchases occured after June 16th. Also, Casey made a list of food items which was found at the Anthony home, not sure the exact date the list was made. There were no food items on that list for Caylee. I think the list was made just prior to Caylee’s death. All of the things Casey purchased , and are itemized, can be found in the docs.

  110. Yep Double Jeopardy for me today,pulled out of my drive way only to have a black cat run across the road in front of me YIKES lol!….Have a good weekend to you Dave & everyone,I hear my kitchen calling,tomorrow another VOTE FOR DAVE DAY ….SEE YA!

  111. I still don’t think what she purchased is all that important in the fraud trial, which is about stolen checks. The checks constitute the charges, not what she bought, but that’s good snooping, Snoopy. It will probably be brought up, but the defense can object on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the charges. Like I said earlier, if I stole money to eat at a restaurant, is it important to know what I ate or is it more important that I stole the money?

  112. What she purchased is not an issue the amount is. We had credit cards stolen and a check book and you know if its not used its like stealing a piece of paper or plastic. Until it is used with an amount is what counts.

  113. Dave,

    “I don’t know why some people chose to call me a liar.” I think there are so many little-minded people afflicted with a “Perry Mason” syndrome in this case that you are right – they can’t see straight with jealousy.

    Fortune cookie insert I have on my b.board says: “Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.”

    To triumph over the feeble-minded is an exercise in achieving nothing.

  114. Is Amy the only one who filed against Casey? The bank and others are saying they are not filing? So the Prosecutor is acting on Amy’s behalf only?

  115. I agree. I think what she bought might be used during the murder trial, but even so, to claim that none of it was for Caylee is open to a lot of interpretation. If she bought food at Winn Dixie, and it is a grocery store, how can anyone prove that no one else shared that food? The point is, of course, that she never went back to the Anthony house again until mid-July, except for short visits. How would Casey’s grocery list be found in the house and why would she make it a point to drop it off there if she stayed somewhere else every night? It doesn’t jive. The most important factor is that Caylee was never seen again after the 16th of June. Why is what she bought all that important? Better yet, why is hat she didn’t buy all that important? The state contends Caylee was already dead by then and it’s not a key piece of evidence. Who is making her grocery list a big deal? The state? I don’t think so.

  116. Dave~~I didn’t say those items would be relevant in the check/fraud. They may be introduced in the murder trial.

  117. Newbie – Casey stole Amy’s checks. She used Amy’s checks in the commission of criminal acts. Suppose Casey never had a daughter and still did this to her friend. Suppose she and Amy were best of friends and Casey weaseled her way out of it. Let’s say G&C settled up and Amy decided to not press charges. None the wiser and no charges would have been forthcoming. Suppose still, that no child figured in and Amy decided to press charges. Would it matter what she bought? No, but it would be Amy pressing charges, not the bank because the bank covered those checks. She would file a complaint with the police and Casey would be arrested and in the end, be ordered to pay restitution. In the meantime, the stores were never out of any money because the bank covered the checks to begin with. Does that make sense?

  118. For sure, Snoopy, I believe they will be useful at the murder trial, but not in the fraud case. At the same time, I still think the defense will object over relevancy and the state will have to say it’s going somewhere with it.

  119. Yes. What Casey bought put aside, if Amy dropped her complaint, would the prosecution continue the fraud case?

  120. If she filled the grocery cart with each item on that list and walked out the store it would matter. Its the amount of money that makes it what the charge the state combined them all for a higher charge. The combined amount of all puts the 3rd degree in.

  121. Cindy was questioning Casey about the store list she found at the house…per jail video. Casey was going to start eating healthy blab blab blab
    There was nothing on the list for Caylee and Cindy was probing for answers why.
    I will stress it has nothing to do with the check/fraud case.

  122. Not now, probably, because the charges have been filed and the state would certainly frown on that sort of behavior. That’s why LE made sure first, that she was going to be a willing partner in this. Had Amy said no, I don’t think there would be a case because the crimes were committed against her and once Baez paid off the bank, the bank pretty much was satisfied.

  123. Dave, could you do a post on all of the experts involved as witnesses? I would bookmark that post and file it if you do. Just a brief synopsis and interesting tidbits about them would be great. Can I pile more on your plate? You are looking a bit thin to me lately…lol

  124. You can pile on anything you want, Sherry. I’m a big boy. If I choose not to finish my plate, I can leave the table and still eat dessert.

    Sure, fire away. I need a few new ideas. I must tell you, I do have a couple of things I’m working on.

  125. See Dave! There’s a start for research on the experts! Thanks, Olive.
    Oh, that was all I was going to suggest-a who’s who of the expert witnesses. I don’t know how many there are or how far to go with it, like LE experts and all, but you can determine that. I think it would be a great resource with the trial getting nearer (hopefully this time next year Casey will be snug in her prison cell).

  126. I’ll start looking, Sherry. That’s a very good idea. Have things simmered down over yonder or are we still getting blamed for all their infighting? I lost interest and haven’t been back.

    Oh, I always finish my plate. I have to be very careful about what I eat.

  127. I have only posted here once and don’t remem ber the name I used so please don’t condemn me for that. It was few months back. I love reading your articles and reading the comments here. Long time lurker I guess just not comfortable posting but love to read you guys. You are all greta but intimadating. Anyway I am posting to let you know Mr Bill has posted his next artcle if anyone is interested. I know there are good people here and would be a good thing to add thier knowledge and insight there. Right side of hies page under The pages it is listed as Back again effort two! Keep up the good work you do!

  128. Dave – It has settled somewhat and hopefully the new post will provide opportunity for a fresh start.

    You are still being blamed for sending people over there to stir things up, but someone finally settled to rumor that you were hacking WFTV’s blog for IP addresses. That was beyond rediculous.

  129. Roxy, it’s a pleasure to have you around and you are more than welcome here. Yes, some of us did read Bill Sheaffer’s new post and it’s an excellent one. I just hope the commenters over there can learn to relax. I stayed away from saying anything at all after my initial greeting. It went downhill fast, but I’m glad he set some things straight. Thank you for acknowledging my blog and all of the fine contributors, of which you are now one. Please feel comfortable.

  130. You know something, Vicky, I didn’t send one person – NO ONE – over there. I think they started to use our names and got themselves all confused and in a tizzy. I know a couple of our people commented, but it was with their avatars to prove who they were. I think it was very unfair to start trouble and blame it on me. Those idiots did it to themselves and they’re too stupid to figure it out. They’d better leave me alone or I will complain to WFTV and I will be loud and clear about it.

  131. After hearing about all of the comments being mad over there, I finally went in last night to check it out for myself. I couldn’t believe what I was reading.

    I know you had nothing what so ever to do with what was going on over there and could not believe that you were being attacked the way you were. And the vile attacks on people who have exercised their choice to comment on your blog was uncalled for. As were the comments that those who comment here have no right to comment there. Even people who I had never seen comment here were blamed for coming from here. I happen to know that the individuals who frequent your blog, would not hide behind a new name to express their opinions.

    I was amused that there has been copying and pasting of your comments regarding the situation, most of the time taken out of context. You have a right to defend yourself on your own blog, and to set the tone for the type of blog you choose to run. I have not made fun of them on your blog out of respect for you. And I hope you will forgive my next comment.

    Just for the record – Although Dave has never called me the B word personally, I would much prefer that over being referred to as a girl as some who have attacked Dave’s supporters. I grew up a long time ago. Now I practice the art of Bitchiness and when called out for it, I know I have achieved my goal. I have stated before and I will state it again. No matter who it comes from, being called the B word is a complement and reassures me that I am coming through loud and clear. Hello – My name is Vicky and I can most definately be a Bitch.

    Sorry for the tirade Dave.

  132. That’s quite alright, Vicky. Those people were beneath human and they made complete asses out of themselves in front of the esteemed Mr. Sheaffer. You know what those idiots did? They probably piqued his curiosity. If he had never been here before, he sure as hell has been here by now because of those worthless slimes. I hope they sit in their own vomit.

  133. Dave – I know you already know this, but please keep in mind that stress can effect your blood pressure. When one really thinks about it, their behavior was extremely childish and should be taken as seriously as the temper tantrum of a three year old.

  134. Thanks for the warm welcome! That makes me feel better. Some places you go to which I do go to many and read but post very seldom they don’t hardly acknowledge you when you do. I guess I am just looking for a place to land and not feel like I am intruding! So Thanks. I am evening worker but up half the night when I do get home so there is not a lot of people to post with one on one so read mostly. Be careful out there it can get nasty in other parts of this world.

  135. Roxy – You might not get an immediate response, but eventually you will. Dave is really good about addressing those who comment here, as are the rest of us, if we see you. Sometimes, we are on the Open Form, so check in there isfyou find yourself alone in one of the other topics on Dave’s blog.
    I hope you decide to comment here often. The people really are great!

  136. Hope you don’t mind if I chime in.

    All our work, our whole life is a matter of semantics, because words are the tools with which we work, the material out of which laws are made, out of which the Constitution was written. Everything depends on our understanding of them.
    Felix Frankfurter

    I have read that the reason the State wants the check fraud trial to go before the murder trial is so at sentencing her felony conviction can be presented as a prior bad act.

    I have a question. The check fraud trial goes first. Casey is convicted. Then she is convicted of murdering Caylee. If the State presumes the date of Caylee death as the 16th AND Casey went on the check spree AFTER Cayle was dead, how is that a PRIOR bad act?

    Or is it just semantics?

  137. Hi there, crash – It’s not that it’s a prior bad act, it’s a prior felony conviction, or convictions in her case. She will have a record before she goes to trial for murder. I think your question is an excellent one and very valid. Semantics is fine in the courtroom when used as ploys by defense and prosecuting attorneys, but as a matter of law, there’s no such thing.

  138. I have lowered my self at the “other site” today replying to stupidity.

    Anyway, just checking in. Still having back problems/stiff neck. Time to vote. Good day to all!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s