Richard Hornsby at InSession

03-10-2010, 12:50 AM

rhornsby

The sentinel has an incorrect explanation of the law. If Casey was requesting a public defender, then the determination of whether someone is "indigent" or not is a purely ministerial determination that is made by the Clerk of Court based upon the Affidavit for Indigent Status that a defendant executes. See Fla. Stat. 27.52(2).

However, when a person represented by a private attorney seeks a determination that they are indigent for costs and therefore eligible for the State to pay for their due process costs, the judge makes the determination based on the affidavit for indigent status AND other statutorily mandated factors - one of which is amount of fees paid to the private attorney. See Fla. Stat. 27.52(5).

Practically speaking, there is no question Strickland would declare her indigent for costs (if he did not it would guaranty a reversal on appeal and everyone knows this).

With that said, now that Baez and Co. have requested the State to pay the defense costs, there no longer exists a legal basis to withhold the source of funding for Casey's defense team. More to the point, the very reason that Judge Strickland will (or should in my humble opinion) order Casey to disclose where she got the money, how much TOTAL she got, and what was paid is one of public policy.

Here we have a women who has been incarcerated for over a year, who was unemployed before hand, who has no family that has paid any of her legal bills, who has been convicted of fraud, who is represented by an attorney with a history of financial troubles, trying to "claim" that she (Casey Anthony) is the source of her defense funding.

Not only is this a lie, it is intellectually dishonest. The statute requires full disclosure of all fees paid AND the source precisely in situations like this - so defendant's of actual means do not "game" the system.

How do we know she did not get $250K as widely reported. If she did, where is the rest. Who brokered the deal (Baez?), who managed the funds while she was in jail (Baez?), who would have a financial conflict if he paid himself more than he was worth and skimped on experts or investigators early on - Baez?

See, Casey Anthony will be declared indigent and as a tax payer, I am glad she will be. It is one less major appellate issue that can be raised and it will likely result in the case finally moving forward.

On the other hand, if Baez's handling of the money she obtained created a financial conflict or could create one - it needs to be addressed how. And this is why the statute specifically requires:

"The amount of any attorney's fees and who is paying the fees" to be revealed. See Fla. Stat. 25.52(5)(b)(6).

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=13937118&posted=1#post13937118