Friday, July 08, 2011

3302 If I lose at the casino, can I sue?

Friday, July 8, 2011

On "image": It may not get the job done, but it makes it possible to get the job done.
-- Paul Levine, Night Vision --


Meetup crazies have started. Just had a guy drop out of the dinner group. He said he didn't realize it was a singles group and suggests that I put "singles" in the description. His reason for coming to that conclusion? He noticed that all the other people who had joined were single.



I don't care what you think of the Casey Anthony thing. The fact remains that the prosecution was unable to prove any kind of murder charges to the jury. Period. That means over, done, finis on those counts.

At least I thought that's what it was supposed to mean.

Florida, however, has decided to sue Anthony for the cost of the investigation and trial.


Don't let your opinion of her guilt or innocence sway you while thinking about what that means. Instead, think about a truly honestly innocent person whom the police have decided to go after, and the prosecutor's office has decided to convict on circumstantial evidence.

Pretend it's you, and an entirely different case. Let's say you and your significant other had an argument and then he/she went missing. You thought he/she had left you, and being hurt and depressed, you said and did some stupid things, and then even started dating again. Then some weeks later he/she is found dead, shot by your gun, which you assume he/she must have taken with him/her and you had never noticed it was missing. The only prints on the gun are yours, and the death happened weeks before and you have no idea what you were doing at the time. We have cause, opportunity, prints, and no alibi. Also no guilt. You really didn't do it - but the state decides to prosecute. You spend two years in jail waiting for trial.

Your attorney manages to get you off on reasonable doubt (the "some other dude dooed it" defense), but the state is so pissed that they lost, so sure that they were right, so angry that they were "cheated", they sue you for the costs of the investigation and trial. Of course, having been in jail for the past two years, you have no money and no savings.

So, is this right and fair? THEY decided to investigate, they decided to prosecute, they bought the ticket and placed their bets, and they lost.

I think the only time it should be ok for the state to recoup investigation/prosecution costs is from someone who reports a crime that simply didn't happen. Like people who claim to have been kidnapped, or like the Tawana Brawley thing (that stands out for me because I was living there at the time). And even then, the state should be required to prove that the claims were bogus, not just be pissed.


the queen said...

The innocent scenario: your lover leaves, says "I'm going to live with X" and then in 48 hours you call the police and set them on a manhunt? The guilty scenario: Susan Smith had the police looking for minoroties while she'd actually drowned her kids in the car.

If you lie to the police' you know you are lying; and you know the lie is wasting their time, you should compensate them.

"My baby is with this person who doesn't exist. Go find her!"

The police should sue. The private company was also defrauded, but they weren't as obligated to help.

the queen said...

I think they might even have a confession from Casey that she lied about the nanny that doesn't exist. So that'll be easy to prove.

~~Silk said...

Your innocent scenario could result in charges of filing a false report, since you have no reason to suspect foul play. Classic Catch-22.

If she lied under oath, then they can get her for perjury. If she lied during investigation while not under oath (like the nanny thing) then they can get her for obstruction of justice. There are prescribed penalties for that, like fines and jail time, and a record with all the fooforah that involves. Making you pay for the investigation too, especially when you have been found not guilty is excessive and sheer emotional sour grapes.

the queen said...

They thought they might get her on murder one, so they went with lying to police instead of obstruction. Then she got the maximum penalty for the four lying counts. She is guilty of the lying, not the murder. She isn't paying for the investigation of her crime, she's paying for the search for her child who was supposedly in the hands of the Nanny Who Didn't Exist.

~~Silk said...

There are many different stories about what Florida wants. Some stories are saying they want her to pay for the investigation of the crime, court costs, her lawyers' fees (paid for by the state since she was indigent), AND the $320,000 it cost to sequester the jury. The whole smash. Others say it's only this part, or that part.

We won't know for sure until they file. The WSJ Law Blog is being very quiet about it, except for a story on Texas Equusearch, a non-profit organization who organized the search for the "missing" child, and now wants their money back. WSJ Law Blog says they have no case, since they were contacted by the grandparents, volunteered their services, and had no relationship or contract with Casey.