Since when does someone that is prosecuted forced to pay costs of a trial??

[LiberalFighter]

I thought at best it was just for their legal defense and a standard fee if a jury trial is requested.

They want this Casey to pay for the prosecutor's cost too?

[brooklynite]

1. I don't believe it's "the cost of the trial"...

It's costs related to the police investigation into the death of her child; the argument being that by misleading the police, unneccessary expense was incurred.

[catabryna]

2. I think they want to tag it to the four charges she

was convicted of. I envision a whole lot of creative accounting.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. See my post below for an estimate

:-)

[Horse with no Name]

3. Well, if she was found guilty I could *almost* see it

but since the prosecution didn't do their job and she was found "not guilty"...then I can't imagine why she would be responsible?

When you opt for a jury trial...there is a filing fee that you pay for the paperwork and that is all. The rest of the cost is borne by the state.

It is unconstitutional to require extraordinary payment to prove your innocence...and is one of the reasons that death penalty cases are so expensive to the state.

[pipi_k]

7. The things they want to collect money for...

are in relation to the guilty verdicts she got for lying.

She was found guilty on four of those counts.

[Horse with no Name]

11. Well lets be honest here

if the prosecutors spent longer than 4 hours proving those charges...then no wonder they lost the case. They had the wrong focus.

But even still--we don't charge people for guilty convictions. It just isn't done. Everybody in this country is entitled to a fair trial and everyone in this country is entitled to be judged by their peers and not just a judge if they so desire. Guilt or innocence notwithstanding. If you pay the appropriate filing fees and fill out the appropriate paperwork, the fee for this is the same for everyone.

It is just one more way for someone to try to extricate their pound of flesh from that family.

[pipi_k]

27. The prosecution didn't spend ANY amount of time

proving those charges because the defense admitted them right up front.

And it wasn't the guilty conviction that spurs the attempt to recoup.

Something similar happened in my area a year or two ago, where two young women, out walking along a local river, found themselves lost. They came out into a field peppered with "No trespassing" signs. Fearing the consequences of having done that, they then concocted this big lie about how they had been kidnapped by a man, then forced to march at gunpoint to the location where they ended up.

This spurred a big manhunt. Lots of people spent lots of time and money looking for this guy. Upon questioning, the story these two young women were telling fell apart.

They were charged with lying to police, and before they were even convicted, they were also slapped with the costs of the manhunt.

As they should have been, and I'm glad.

You tell lies that take the police or fire/rescue personnel away from legitimate cases, and you deserve whatever penalties they want to throw at you.

[montanacowboy]

4. When you continually lie and mislead the

law enforcement agency that is looking for your child who you already know is dead. Even the people who came out to search, left their jobs and took time off to search were mislead and lied to. That wild goose chase of a search for extended periods led by her lies cost taxpayers big bucks and now they want it back.

[PATRICK]

5. Since those

routinely prosecuted for high money stakes have political clout to get legislation, law. They are naturally organized. The only other clout group organized is the legal profession that loses money and fears taking cases under this system.
Hence those lawyers try to influence Dems while the GOP can be easily just outright bought or depended upon with rigid "ideology".

Didn't these laws take place in large scale to protect creditors based in Florida and Texas? Not sure of the breadth and origin of localities doing the same to citizen actions.

[Drale]

6. Well people are ordered to pay court costs all the time

usually that means lawyer fees and such though.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. She was already ordered to pay court costs in the amount of $600

This is a separate issue.

[librechik]

13. for civil court cases, yes. I don't believe I've ever heard of having to pay 4 criminal proceedings

strange

[Johonny]

33. god know I've seen divorced people

have to pay court costs over and over. Your ex wife sues you, you pay the court, your lawyer and her lawyer. If you win... you lose. Why do people want to be married :)

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. The Ridiculous "Lawsuits" and other Punitive action against Casey Anthony

Lawsuit #1: Defamation Suit by Zenaida Fernandez Gonzales - This is laughable. It's clear that Ms. Anthony brought up THAT name, and it's clear that Ms. Anthony's lie had detectives question THIS person. But it is also clear that this specific person was not defamed in any way whatsoever. There's no tort here. A ridiculous contrivance.

(Potential) Lawsuit #2: Equusearch Suit to Recover Costs of Search - Gimme a break. This jag-off spent $112,000 essentially advertising his firm by getting involved unsolicited. Now he wants that money back because Ms. Anthony lied about the girl being missing. What? I mean, WHAT?!? You know how you could have saved your money, Equusearch? By staying the fuck in Texas rather than voluntarily involving yourself in this search. A moronic lawsuit.

State Action on Investigative Costs - I would agree for her to be billed out for a few days of the detectives' time and for the gas money they spent bringing her to Universal and driving to interview Ms. Gonzales. As far as I can tell, those are the only "investigative" costs that issue from the lies to law enforcement Ms. Anthony was convicted on. Maybe $10,000 total. Any attempt to extract costs over and above that is simply an attempt to punish her on the crimes she was acquitted of, which is obscene and, quite frankly, piddling. Dear State of Florida: You lost. Get over it.

[catabryna]

14. Nice post... I agree.

:)

eta: I didn't follow the case, so I couldn't get into specifics.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. I'm not sure I get what you are saying about #1

How can accusing someone of kidnapping NOT be defamation?

Or are you saying she picked a name out of a hat and it matched a stranger? Zenaida Fernandez Gonzales seems pretty specific - but I haven't followed this at all so I'm curious as to your logic. Thx

[Horse with no Name]

16. IMHO, Zenaida Gonzales was harmed

she lost her home, her job and was ostracized for the kidnapping of Caylee Anthony.

Her name wasn't chosen randomly. Apparently, she signed in to look at an apartment, and Casey Anthony was visiting someone and had access to that sign-in log.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. Sounds like an iron clad case to me if those are the facts.

[RebelOne]

18. I am on the side of Gonzales.

If I were her, I would sue the hell of Casey Anthony. Seems that Jerry Springer offered her $1 million to appear on his show. That should cover most of her court costs, fines and law suits.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Ludicrous

I don't doubt that she lost her home and job, but there's no evidence that any of that was as a result of Ms. Anthony's claims, particularly when Ms. Anthony, even early on, said that she wasn't talking about THIS person. This is a gold-digger with a gold-digging lawyer seeking to cash in. It's vomit-inducing.

[OHdem10]

12. This is the Prosecutors being very small and vindictive..

Saw this explanation on CNN I believe.

[lpbk2713]

19. Everyone wants to get their claims in first.

They expect her to make a lot of money with, books, TV, movies, etc.
They all want to get as close to the top of the pecking order as they can.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

20. Court Costs Are Standard Sentencing In ANY Case Where There Is A Conviction

I haven't seen the announcement of the sentence on the misdemeanor cases she was found guilty of, but I'm guessing it probably includes the standard "fine and court costs." This happens in pretty much every case in which there's a conviction (whether by verdict or by guilty plea). The court costs can ONLY include the costs incurred for the four misdemeanors, though, and NOT the case for which she was found Not Guilty. So in a technical sense, she's NOT being asked to pay the cost of her trial; just the portion of it that pertained to the four misdemeanors.

Court costs are generally nominal. In most cases, they're less than $100.00. They usually just include the money the Court system had to spend on your case (i.e. the cost of the file, the paper they used, the time for the Clerks to enter the information into the computer, the journalization of the rulings, etc.) It does NOT include the amount of money the State spent to prosecute her. The State must bear its own costs.

[Politicalboi]

22. Because she is a liar

I hope they sue her for hundreds of thousands of dollars. She deserves EVERY bit of it. Playing games with the police, the search teams. I hope she has a miserable life.

[dmr]

23. Isn't time served her payment of debt to society?

I've never heard of anyone having to repay prosecutable court costs.

There's a reason why we have double jeopardy. Imagine an asshole prosecutor going after you until he got a conviction? I can't imagine a prosecutor/police department going after court/investigative costs. They lost their big case. They won on the smaller charges. She paid her debt to society with the time she served incarcerated.

I sure wouldn't want that to happen to me.

So what if she lied, that's nothing new in any society.

Disclaimer: I know very little about this case.

[suston96]

24. There should be a "No Verdict" choice for the jury.......

"Guilty" "Not Guilty" "No Verdict". The latter requires a re-trial.

As it stands now, Casey Anthony can stand on a street corner, hold up her middle finger and screech: I killed the meddlesome brat - now I am free - on to my "bella vita"!

Being forced to make a Guilty or Not Guilty choice can be difficult and may result in an undeserved and exculpatory Not Guilty - innocent, any way you look at it.

As one of the jurors in this case said: she is not innocent. But we did not have that choice.

A "No Verdict" with retrial would be a fair choice and hold forth some justice for the victim.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Oh fer fuck's sake

Yeesh.

:eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

26. Are you fucking serious??? In essence you would abolish Double Jeopardy??

You do realize that a disproportionate number of minorities would be affected by your blood lust.

Not to mention people who are actually INNOCENT would have this shit hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives.

The prosecutor should NEVER have taken this case to trial...yet.

He didn't have the evidence to convict and planned solely on emotion to get his sorry ass through it.

The fault lies with him and him alone.

[suston96]

28. Double jeopardy?

Is retrying a case that ended in a hung jury double jeopardy?

Some hung jury cases have been tried 2, 3 or more times until a not guilty or a guilty result has been achieved.

This case already has jurors coming out that felt the defendant was certainly not innocent but couldn't vote guilty because of flawed testimony.

No verdict? Hung jury? Deadlocked jury? The defendant can be tried again and again until found guilty or not guilty.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. If you gave twelve people the option of voting No Verdict, they'd do it all the time

Your little idea not only flies in the face of a thousand years of English common law, it also violates basic human behavior.

Luckily, it is so remarkably ridiculous that it will be restricted in its effects to you and your little posts on message boards, and nobody other than a few people who listen to you will ever take it seriously.

[suston96]

31. Try this.......

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=72+U.+Chi.+L.+Rev.+1299&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=54b8a670fbf277a0994fb1879eafaa5d

"In 1807 at the trial of Aaron Burr for treason, the jury was not content to return one of the usual verdicts, guilty or not guilty. The evidence at trial failed to prove Burr's guilt, but the jury was too suspicious of the scoundrel to declare him not guilty. Instead the jury offered this grudging acquittal: "We of the jury say that Aaron Burr is not proved to be guilty under this indictment by any evidence submitted to us." 1

Almost two hundred years later, a United States senator echoed the Burr acquittal in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Disliking both of the traditional verdicts, Senator Arlen Specter offered a verdict drawn from Scottish law: not proven. 2 His vote was recorded, however, as not guilty. 3

Verdicts other than guilty and not guilty are exceptional in American criminal law, 4 yet some legal systems routinely use more than two verdicts. In Scotland, judges and juries in criminal trials choose from three verdicts: guilty, not proven, and not guilty. Not proven and not guilty are both acquittals, indistinguishable in legal consequence but different in connotation. Not guilty is for a defendant the jury thinks is innocent; 5 not proven, for a case with insufficient evidence of guilt. One verdict announces "legally innocent" and thus exonerates. The other says "inconclusive evidence" and fails to exonerate or even stigmatizes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. What part of

"indistinguishable in legal consequence" is difficult for you?

Your version would make the two VERY DIFFERENT in legal consequence, which is, after all, the point. What you want the jury to do is punt. Even the Scottish version doesn't allow that, precisely because it is a violation of the very bedrock principles of jury systems, and contrary to human behavior. Most people would punt rather than agonize over difficult decision. A hung jury is a failed jury, period. What you want is a successful jury that has failed to decide on the case, a laughable and contradictory contrivance not even contemplated in your example.

[suston96]

34. What I want the jury to do is stop listening to the.....

...."if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" bullshit, and its ilk, when instead of justice at a jury trial there is a contest for winning and losing.

A hung jury is a failure, a failure in picking a winner! It sure is. To me a hung jury is a "no verdict" jury.

You know, I made that up - "no verdict", I didn't know there was a movement for a third verdict or even the Scottish "not proven".

In the absence of the courage to hang that Casey Anthony jury so she could be tried again under different or modified charges, a third verdict of "No Verdict" would have been appropriate.

Remarkable, in all these discussions people are more interested in justice for Casey Anthony than for that little child found in a swamp among so much trash.

The heinous murder or negligent homicide of that child cries out not for revenge but simply for justice!

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. "heinous murder or negligent homicide of that child"

Oh, you're not sure which it is?

:wow:

Join the fucking club.

:rofl:

"Not guilty" in our system means "not proven." That's all it's ever meant. "No verdict" has never been a jury option in any of our traditions of jurisprudence, quite simply because it disincentivizes thoughtful deliberation of the evidence presented.

[suston96]

37. Personally I believe it was a negligent homicide.....

I said that a long time ago. I am on record on another board as precisely predicting the outcome of this jury's deliberations, a month in advance.

But a juror who acquits even though she felt the defendant was "not innocent" doesn't or didn't have enough choices.

".....simply because it disincentivizes thoughtful deliberation of the evidence presented."

LOL. Yeah, our juries deliberate thoughtfully and with no incentive but the administration of justice.

Caylee Anthony surely received justice when her mother was freed.

[Horse with no Name]

30. But this wasn't a hung jury. The prosecution failed to prove its case.

The jurors could NOT convict because they didn't have the evidence to do so. Had they convicted, it would have been overturned on appeal. IF the judge felt that the jury didn't arrive at the correct verdict or overlooked pertinent facts, he had the power to overturn the verdict and enter his own...but there was no basis in law to do that.

The burden of proof is on the state...not on the defendant. That is the bedrock of our legal system.

A worthy prosecutor would have waited on this case. There is no statute of limitations on murder.
The prosecutor in the Diane Downs case knew she killed her kid and attempted to kill the other two.
He also knew he didn't have a case right away and had to let her out of jail until he could find enough evidence to convict her. And he did.

The state gets ONE bite out of the apple. A prudent prosecutor knows when to wait and when to proceed. They also know what the burden of proof consists of. This case was very sloppy and anticipated using prejudice and innuendo to convict. That is piss poor lawyering.

[COLGATE4]

36. There is a "no verdict" choice - it's called a hung jury.

[suston96]

38. The difference is there....

A hung jury isn't a choice. A "no verdict" is a choice.

That juror that said she had to vote to acquit even though she felt Casey Anthony was not innocent was limited in her choices. Very limited.

I would like to see jurors have better choices than just guilty or not guilty or let's get the rope and hang ourselves.

[JuniperLea]

39. I believe it's the cost of the investigation...

And the hours wasted due to her lies.