• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Linda did give a brief overview of the forensic evidence from the Pontiac, but she did not really feature that in her opening. She discussed finding the body, but she skipped over Kronk, since she we knew we would not be calling him. She did a great job connecting the remains to the house. She closed with the observation that Caylee’s death allowed Casey to live the good life for those thirty-one days and that she, Casey, was guilty of murder in the first degree.

Linda was phenomenal. We had talked a lot about the organization of the argument and different things that she should say the months before the trial, and she did it brilliantly. It was just fantastic. In about two hours and fifteen minutes, she laid out everything we’d talked about. She showed the pattern of Casey’s lies and the facts that led to the lie that they were about to hear.

After Linda’s opening, we broke for lunch. Everyone just raved about Linda. She doesn’t like to be the center of attention on a personal level, but when she is performing as an attorney, she really appreciates the adulation and kind words. At lunch, she felt really good. We all did.

When we came back to the courtroom, it was time for the defense’s opening remarks. Jose Baez was to deliver them. The only word to describe his opening is . . . odd. I have never seen a defense that was so scattered. As we suspected, they brought up Casey’s nuclear lie, but it wasn’t as though they centered on that single counternarrative. It was like they couldn’t decide on one defense, so they were throwing out everything, alleging that it was an accident, blaming George for disposing of the body, blaming Roy Kronk for moving the body, throwing in some nasty attacks on the investigation.

Baez opened the defense’s case by saying that he was going to tell the jury exactly what happened to Caylee Marie Anthony. Generally that is considered a pact, if you will, that exists between the defendant and the jury. The defense is going to produce the evidence to tell the jury what actually happened. It is generally thought that specificity is dangerous because juries expect attorneys to come through on their promises, and when they don’t, jurors may hold that against the attorney or the client.

Baez did a good job trying to separate the evidence from the issue of how Caylee actually died. It’s hard to turn the fact that your client is a habitual liar into evidence helpful to that client. He made it seem plausible, even if superficially so, by arguing passionately that his client’s inappropriate actions had nothing to do with how Caylee actually died.

Baez talked about the incredible dysfunction of the Anthony family. I was sure he left the jury expecting to hear psychological testimony describing a complex family history, which, of course, I knew he could not produce, since the two therapists were off the witness list. At the root, I think Jose was relying on the belief that it is almost impossible for people to believe that a mother could just kill her child. They are willing to accept almost any other explanation, no matter how ridiculous. But wouldn’t the jury actually require him to prove the truth of what he was claiming? I must credit Casey; she came up with an explanation that would blame someone else, George Anthony, and make it look like she was the victim—classic Casey. Would the jurors buy it? We knew Baez couldn’t prove it unless Casey testified, and even then it would be about whether the jury would believe her lie.

I noticed that the defense team had lowered Casey’s adjustable chair more than was normal for a person of Casey’s height. Only her head and shoulders were visible above the table. I was sure it was deliberately staged to make her appear smaller and meeker than she was. But wouldn’t the jury see through those ploys? How smart do you have to be to know you are being played?

When Jose talked about Casey’s supposed molestation, Casey was crying at the defense table. I found myself thinking of something that both therapists had mentioned