`Your honor, I move for a bad court thingy..`
Lionel Hutz - Proud Graduate of the Nancy Grace School of Law
Well.
A few more thoughts on the Casey Anthony trial.
If there was a silver lining in this whole sordid affair, it had to be watching the utter shock and humiliation of pseudo-legal "expert" Nancy Grace and her harpie side-kick, Jane Velez Mitchell.
Of course, this is nothing new to Nancy.
She's been humiliated for her antics before, in fact, while she was a prosecuting attorney, in 1997, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a murder-arson conviction of businessman W. W. Carr in the death of his wife. While the court said its reversal was not due to these transgressions, it nevertheless concluded "the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable," wrote then Chief Justice Robert Benham. (Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701 (1997)).
In a separate case, despite upholding the conviction she sought, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a 2005 opinion that Grace "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties and failed to "fulfill her responsibilities" as a prosecutor in the 1990 triple murder trial of Herbert Connell Stephens. The court agreed that it was "difficult to conclude that Grace did not knowingly use ... [apparently false] testimony" from a detective that there were no other suspects, despite the existence of outstanding arrest warrants for other men.
So, then.
How sweet was it, really, to see Nancy choking on her words, finally, ALMOST speechless at the verdict in the trial.
And then, to see her whine and moan about the Defence team celebrating the verdict.. HOW DARE THEY!
Look.
They lived and and breathed this trial for three years.
They endured endless days of Nancy pretending that she had even the slightest clue what was going on, giving her ``expert`` opinion of what was going on - always from the point of view of a tired, sad, and pathetic former prosecutor who often speaks as if she has never been to law school, let alone actually practiced law in an open court.
So then.
The Defence - I`m sure convinced of the innocence of their client just as Nancy was convinced of her guilt - found their client acquitted of all felony charges, give them their day. Of course they celebrated. Of course they popped corks off of champagne bottles - let`s be real. They were jubilant and they should have been - they saved a women from being killed by the state.
Imagine that.
Imagine you believe your client is innocent (call them biased, or naive, or whatever), and that everyone is telling you every time you turn on the t.v., that she is going to be convicted and will be looking at the death penalty.
And then you win.
Your client is saved.
You don`t think you might do a "fist pump" or two?
Seriously?
Time, maybe for CNN and HLN to consider someone serious and competent to cover legal issues.
Nancy should, perhaps, go work for a victims rights organization or some such thing - because her antics have gone from annoying, to just sad and pathetic.
Nancy, you`re just no longer a law talking guy.
4 comments:
The media circus was hard to avoid - Nancy Grace was the lead prosecutor in this trial. The state did not prove its case - but there was also the matter of child neglect - those charges should have been part of the indictments from the beginning. Glad its over - unfortunately a child is dead - and the narcissistic mother will go on to make millions from her ordeal. Yeetch!!!
I think you're correct, fern.. my own experience (although no longer as a criminal lawyer) is that the prosecution has become much too politicized, and responds inordinately to pressure to "convict at all costs" and to up-charge constantly.
I think, in reality, they would be more successful if they:
a) Acknowledged weaknesses and took pleas to lesser charges where appropriate;
b) Sought convictions for charges they COULD PROVE;
c) Understood that their job was not to convict, but to assure that the bset available evidence is called.
As is obvious from Nancy grace and her ilk - when they get too personally committed to seeking conviction, they lose credibility, and in fact, become LESS likely to secure convictions.
Oh.
And I also think, doing a little "arm chair quarterbacking" that high profile media cases tend to encourage the prosecution to over-complicate the case.
And juries are simple.
They want simple stories.
Mother had the care of a little girl.
The little girl died.
There is no rational reason that a little girl dies and ends up in a bag in a field unless someone has caused her death by some act of their own.
Mother had care of her.
Mother lied about her being missing for 30 days and didn't tell anyone - and when people found out about it, she lied and said her Nanny kidnapped the child.
What possible conclusion can you draw from that?
Mother either killed her child, or caused her death through neglect or some other act of culpability.
The charge is manslaughter - not murder - backed up by a separate indictment for felony child neglect.
Case takes four days.
Mother's convicted.
'nuf said.
Yes... replace her with melon-cat.
http://socialtuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/melon-cat-or-nancy-grace.jpg
Everyone knows CNN (Cat News Network) is just that. A good channel to leave on for your cats to look at while you are away.
http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson319.html
Good article on the jury in this case.
Nancy Grace is another of those American media personalities we could do without. In Nancy's world, a person arrested and charged is guilty,period.
She has also lied about the death of her fiance in 1979,which she uses to justify her perpetual outrage at the justice system.
Wonder how she would have judged the David Milgaard case?
Post a Comment