The Anthony Defense: A Scorched Earth Approach

This is Bill Sheaffer latest blog regarding the offensive remarks made by
Andrea Lyon at a teaching seminar. Those remarks have been taken down by the way, due, I believe to great pressure put on the station by the attorney that runs
the seminars.
Source:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
For Scotswoman and other contributors who have asked about Andrea Lyon, and what is behind her shenanigans and pre-trial publicity seeking escapades: To look behind the curtain, or, to see how sausage is made, as some call it, is often not very pleasant and sometimes downright ugly. Such is the case with the recent release of the “teaching” tape made of Chicago law school instructor and attorney, Andrea Lyon’s lecture to Central Florida lawyers on the topic of defending death penalty cases during the penalty phase.

At this juncture, we will not address her distasteful and offensive remarks pertaining to judges, female prosecutors or jurors, but, instead, limit our discussion to a particular statement made by her that cornerstones the latest defense strategy that can only be described as a scorched earth approach. Ms. Lyon’s approach, which has been adopted by Baez, Baden and company, disregards any consideration other than win at ANY cost, regardless of the truth, or consequence to justice, the fair trial process or any innocent party ground under their boots.

Accordingly, let us now examine her statement as follows: “I understand that a lot of times our theory of the case isn’t a real theory. Okay, it’s a way of us getting to the penalty phase.” And contained in her words lies the fate of witness Roy Kronk. He is only the latest victim of this scorched earth approach by the Casey defense team, but I suspect, not the last.

Looking behind the curtain to what this means: Andrea Lyon has a job. That job, as she sees it, is to save her from the death penalty, should Casey Anthony get convicted in the guilt phase of her trial, and, to do whatever is necessary to accomplish this, regardless. To comprehend this philosophy one must understand that there are lawyers that are so opposed to the death penalty, just as many non-lawyers are, that the ends justify the means. Period.

I must ask that you not judge all criminal defense lawyers by the conduct of Ms. Lyons. Most are competent, hardworking and passionate defenders who do not share this view of win at any cost, but still represent their clients with vigor, creativity and compassion, while preserving the integrity of our judicial system and not creating fall guys and ruining the lives of innocent everyday people.

But back to what this all means: quite simply, the defense would sacrifice Roy Kronk, the meter reader, during the penalty phase when they argue that a compelling reason not to impose the death penalty is the reasonable doubt created by the implication that he is the killer of little girl Caylee. A horrifying thought for anyone caught up in the criminal justice system as a witness or search volunteer. And, will it end with a verdict in this trial? Well, if I were Mr. Baez, I might be asking myself, when his job is done and all appeals have been exhausted, will I be next?

WJS

P.S. To the many who have asked for the certification dates on the defense’s recently filed motion in limine and memorandum of law in support, the motion and memorandum were certified to have been furnished by Jose A. Baez, to the Office of the State Attorney by U.S. Mail and/or facsimile on November 18, 2009. But, both the motion AND the memorandum were signed as submitted by Jose A. Baez and Andrea D. Lyon, again, on November 18, 2009.