Friday, August 5, 2011

Hearing on Casey's possible probation

When my husband told me last night to write the blog already stating that Casey will not be serving probation, I said no. I have trust in Judge Perry.

Baez started the hearing with a witness talking to the lawyers "telefonically". Yes, that's what I wrote and that's what he said.  Of course, everyone got excited thinking it may be Casey Anthony. Well, no we are disappointed once again. It's Susan Finnegan. Casey's Parole Supervisor. She testified that probation officer Natalie Lewis visited Casey in jail.  Baez made the point through this testimony that Casey was supervised and did probation in jail awaiting trial.  Finnegan said if Perry puts Casey on probation she'll be treated just like any other person.  Baez asked Finnegan if they'd have to take extra security measures. She said it's possible.  And said supervising Casey would be a "unique challenge" She also said Casey's probation was completed 1-24-11. They sent her a letter acknowledging that.

Frank George speaks for the State.  He asked Finnegan what's the purpose of probation. She said to protect community.  Frank George said probation isn't designed to look over people who are already in custody. Baez objects.  George questioned usefulness of probation while someone is still in jail. * I agree* Finnegan explained how often a probation officer would see a person, depending on the level they're on.
Baez done questioning, now Perry had questions for Finnegan. He asked if she ever asked Judge Strickland on his thoughts on issue of tolling.  She responded no. Perry now references case law for attorneys that deal with probation tolling issue.
 Lisabeth Fryer now up for defense. * Ughhh her voice annoys me!* Fryer  argued Casey has actually served probation and order came from previously "disqualified judge." She also argues Strickland was recused. It lacks jurisdiction.   She then reviewed previous cases. Fryer says Strickland's move was a "vindictive" move against Casey. 
Perry has questions for Fryer. He asked if she reviewed the sentencing transcript. She says no, but that she saw the video. Perry has copies of transcript. Hands to Fryer.  Perry looks over transcript, notes it was long before Strickland was recused from the murder case.  Perry confirms Strickland's oral announcement was that she was to serve probation upon release from jail.  Perry asked Fryer what obligation does an attorney have to report probation started if it was in conflict with Strickland's order.
JP: "I will be the first to admit this is not a clear cut issue." Perry asked Fryer for her take on what a judge can do to correct the error.  He asked if the defense knew that Casey began serving probation while in jail even though the Judge determined it should be after her release from jail. She said yes and began stuttering an explanation. He attributes the problem to "scrivener's error"  She says that Strickland is biased. He agrees with her, but says that Strickland said whatever he said before all of these issues came about.  She got very nervous. 
* I still can't believe that thid defense team was able to get Casey free! Again I will say to all who read even those who don't agree with me: THE JURY WAS A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!!! *
Perry again asks if Casey's attorneys had an obligation to notify the court the probation didn't conform with Strickland's oral order.  Perry again said Casey was in jail awaiting trial, not serving a sentence.  Perry said Casey's strongest argument is whether Strickland had jurisdiction to clarify "scrivener's error."  Liz Fryer says this is done. It's over. She (Casey) has served probation. She shouldn't have to do it again.  They then went back and forth on the definition of a "sentence".  Judge Perry says Casey was "erroneously " placed on probation.  Perry says "it is a legal maze."
George then speaks again to the Judge.   He said the State believes that it doesn't make sense for probation to be served while in Jail.  "It defeats the purpose." Said that it was probation in "name only."  George said he thinks there is grounds for Strickland's corrected order to stand.  He said there is no jeopardy issue.  "Strickland didn't change sentence or add. He simply corrected a scrivener's error."  Perry asked  George when did the prosecutors learned written and oral announcements were different, and Casey's probation was in jail.  He said he learned when Strickland filed the latest order clarifying issue.  He never received paperwork saying Casey started or ended probation in jail.
Lisabeth Fryer back up. She argued Casey shouldn't be given what they call second sentence.
Judge Perry says he is well aware of the threats against Casey.  He said he wants to talk with DOC to see what they can do.  Perry says he doesn't know if Administrative probation is the way to go. JP: “If anything could go wrong, it went wrong here.” Judge Perry says if you read court transcripts- it was clear.  Fryer says there was a formal termination of probation from Dept of Corrections.
 Judge Perry said he knows of no other case with circumstances like this.  He called this case "a mess."  We're ending w a sidebar. Feels like old days. Fryer says it's regarding a completely different matter.  No decision today.  Judge Perry gives no indication when he'll rule.


  1. I dont see how she could possibly have done anything wrong doing her probation in jail. after all, she was in 23 hour solitary lockup the whole time. Probation is supposed to prove that you are changing your life around after you get out of jail, and obeying all your are told to do.

    If she does have to do probation and get a job, maybe Jose Biaz and group will pay her to work for them. big LOL on that one.

  2. Perry will follow the "letter of the law" not the "spirit of the law" and Anthony will do probation. I totally disagree with calling the jury idiots. They also followed the letter of the law as set forth by the attorneys and the judge in the instructions they were given. The prosecution simply overcharged the case. If they would have included desecration of a human body, Anthony would have been convicted at least for that and would be in jail right now. I believe that something will be worked out where Anthony does the probation, but not in Orange County. Time will tell.