Posted on 09/15/2011 1:28:43 PM PDT by Red Badger
I didn’t think you could charge a defendant for costs if they were not convicted........
But she WAS found guilty of lying to the police. It was apparently the only part of the entire case the idiot jury “got.”
At twenty bucks a throw and five “clients” a night, she can knock this out in under three years. Orange Blossom Trail, get ready!
Her lies sent the police on a wild goose chase using up resources and man hours. She knew where Caylee was the enitre time. She absolutely should pay those costs.
Yes, but they knew that from the beginning. Why continue looking for a person that you pretty well know doesn’t exist.
This looks like to me that the Sheriff’s office is trying to save face somehow. Must be an election coming up........
She was acquitted of the murder, but was convicted of lying to the prosecutors.
I agree with Spacebar, this sets a very dangerous precedent. This adds yet another layer of double jeapardy along with the civil wrongful death suits.
People are going to get to where they won't talk to an investigator at all.
Yes, this sets a very bad precedent..........
Scooter Libby found out the hard way...........
No, she was convicted of lying to police during the initial investigation. Not the same thing.
As a result of her lies, the county incurred a lot of expenses. Sounds like criminal restitution which cannot be BK'd.
One small slice of justice, IMHO.
All comments about Kasee Anthony aside, I would think Freepers of all people would see that it is inherently wrong to charge criminal defendants with the cost of their prosecution. It’s like China where the bill the family the cost of the bullet.
Cost and profit motives are incompatible with the criminal justice system; it makes justice into a commodity where one gets as much as one can afford.
True, this sets a very bad precedent:
Prosecution for fun and profit..............
ML/NJ
naw on all fours she is going to get it doggy style so hard the next day she will be out chasing motorcycles
I think they are charging her for the blind alleys that she established with her lies.
She was convicted of false information or something like that. I think the backcharge is only for the blind alleys she created by lying.
I think you guys are missing a relevant point. The judge is ordering her to pay because she misled the investigators, causing them to waste the taxpayers’ money chasing false leads. She is not simply being made to pay because there was an investigation.
“It’s like this judge and court system are trying to find one thing after another to ‘punish’ someone who was declared not guilty.”
She was not simply “declared not guilty”! She was found guilty of making false statements to the police, which led to wasted money on the investigation of those statements, which she is now being order to pay compensation for.
“Yes, but they knew that from the beginning. Why continue looking for a person that you pretty well know doesn’t exist.”
Well, they were trying to prosecute someone for murder, and that someone told them a story that could constitute reasonable doubt in a trial. Even though they might have known it was a lie, they had to investigate it so that they could debunk it in court.
“People are going to get to where they won’t talk to an investigator at all.”
Hmm... wouldn’t just not lying to the police be the simpler solution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.