Continue reading »]]> Casey Anthony trial: Her father spoke of ‘accident,’ alleged mistress says

Testifying before the defense rested in the Casey Anthony trial, George Anthony’s alleged mistress says he tearfully described Caylee’s death as ‘an accident that snowballed out of control.’

Casey Anthony listens to testimony during her murder trial at the Orange County Courthouse on Thursday, June 30, in Orlando, Fla.

Red Huber/AP
.Enlarge

——————————————————————————–

0Share16 and 10

By Warren Richey, Staff writer / June 30, 2011

Several weeks before police found the skeletal remains of two-year-old Caylee Anthony, the toddler’s grandfather told his alleged mistress that Caylee’s death was “an accident that snowballed out of control,” the alleged mistress testified on Thursday.
Skip to next paragraph

Krystal Holloway, also known as River Cruz, reacts while testifying during Casey Anthony’s murder trial at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, Florida, on June 30.

Red Huber/Reuters
.
Enlarge

Related stories
Casey Anthony murder trial: Has the defendant displayed grief?
Casey Anthony trial: In blow to defense, father changes statement on car odor
Casey Anthony trial: Should investigators have found Caylee four months sooner?
Casey Anthony case: Did a psychic predict where Caylee would be found?

Topics
Trials •
Criminal Trials •
Crime and Law •
Law Enforcement •
Sex Scandals •
Scandals •
Crime
.
The testimony came on the 13th and final day of the defense case in the month-long murder trial of Casey Anthony, the Florida mother accused of killing her daughter.

Shortly after that testimony the defense rested after announcing that Ms. Anthony would not take the stand.

The alleged mistress, Krystal Holloway, who volunteered to help search for Caylee, said she and George Anthony – Casey’s father and Caylee’s grandfather – had an intimate relationship in 2008.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony trial

She said she was surprised when Mr. Anthony made the statement concerning an accident. At the time, George and his wife, Cindy, were leading a national effort and making media appearances based on an assumption that Caylee had been kidnapped and was still alive.

Ms. Holloway said George Anthony’s comment was made during a quiet conversation at her home around Thanksgiving 2008. “We were talking about his daughter and I mentioned that I didn’t think he could raise somebody that was capable of harming her child,” Ms. Holloway told the jury. “That’s when he said it was an accident that snowballed out of control.”

She said the comment shocked her. “I was caught off guard by it, and when I looked up he had tears in his eyes,” she said.

In an effort to verify the relationship, Defense Attorney Jose Baez introduced as evidence a copy of a text message apparently sent by George Anthony to Holloway. It said: “Just thinking about you. I need you in my life.”

The message was sent on Dec. 16, five days after Caylee’s remains were found in the wooded area.

In testimony on Tuesday, George Anthony repeatedly denied ever having an affair with Holloway. In addition he denied making any statement about Caylee’s death.

“Did you tell Krystal Holloway that Caylee’s death is an accident that snowballed out of control,” Defense Attorney Baez asked George Anthony on Tuesday.

“That conversation was never there. I never confided in any volunteers,” he said.

“You never told Krystal Holloway while the two of you were being romantic that this was an accident that snowballed out of control,” Mr. Baez asked.

“I never did.”

Continue reading »]]> Decoy Swarm Could Overload Enemy Defenses

Like nuclear
submarines and heavy artillery, it’s one of those weapon systems you don’t
read much about during peacetime — but which, during a major war, could prove
decisive. It doesn’t help that this particular gadget, unlike Seawolf-class subs and Paladin artillery pieces, has an
utterly forgettable name.
The Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, or “MALD,” is a cross
between a cruise missile and an aerial drone, able to distract or confuse enemy
air defenses to protect attacking U.S. jets. It was already on its way to
becoming one of America’s most important unsung weapons when this happened:
MALD-maker Raytheon figured out a way to “deliver hundreds of MALDs during a
single combat sortie,” company vice president Harry Schulte announced in a
recent statement.
Raytheon recently tested the MALD Cargo Air-Launched System, a complex of racks attached
to the cargo ramp of an airlifter, on a borrowed C-130. The racks could allow
the Air Force to deploy cloud-like swarms of the smart, man-size missiles. In
doing so, the MALD (pictured above) would become America’s first true swarming drone, and a potentially powerful
countermeasure against ever-more-sophisticated enemy air defenses.
The original MALD began as a Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency experiment, aimed at producing a relatively cheap flying robot,
able to mimic the flight characteristics of American warplanes. The idea was for
MALD decoys, launched by F-16s, F/A-18s or B-52s, to fly ahead of the bombers
during an air campaign. The enemy would turn on all its radars and waste its
Surface-to-Air Missiles on the decoys. Meanwhile, the Navy’s Prowler and Growler
jets would jam or destroy the radars busily tracking the MALDs.
 
MALD had its share of development problems. The first
edition lacked the range to be truly useful, so the Pentagon scrapped it and
started over. But a new version with a 500-mile range that debuted in 2009 was a
huge hit. The Navy said it would buy some. And the Air Force, after announcing plans
to buy potentially thousands of the decoys, ordered up a version of MALD with its own tiny radar jammer fitted inside the
missile-shaped body. That way, a mixed formation of MALDs could do more than
just soak up enemy missiles; it could electronically fight back.
Now, with the airlifter mass-deployment system, the Air
Force could put so many MALDs into the air, so fast, that any real warplanes
would be safely hidden against any surviving air defenses able to see through
the MALD-generated jamming. It’s a high-tech version of the swarm tactics that
pirates and poor countries have devised to overpower U.S. forces’ own
defenses.
And as if that weren’t enough, Raytheon is also offering to
put sensors or warheads inside future MALD versions, adding “eyes” and explosive
potential to the swarm.
The Air Force hasn’t decided yet whether to buy the
mass-launching racks or the warhead- or sensor-equipped MALDs.
All the same, with every new development, MALD and similar
weapons gradually erode the privileged position that radar-evading stealth
occupies in the American military-industrial mindset. Stealth exists to thwart
enemy defenses. But there’s more than one way to defeat radars: as MALD proves,
you can distract, confuse and overwhelm them, too — and potentially at much
lower cost than trying to appear invisible.

Continue reading »]]> Defenses to Criminal Charges

Here are some of the common defenses that criminal defendants can raise to
defend against criminal charges.

To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of this process, the defendant is
given an opportunity to present a defense. There are many types of defenses,
from “I didn’t do it” to “I did it, but I was too drunk to know what I was
doing.” Here are some of the most common defenses that criminal defendants can
raise.

The Defendant Didn’t Do It

Most often defendants try to avoid punishment by claiming they did not commit
the act in question.

The Presumption of Innocence

All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they
are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This
presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the
defendant’s guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in
his own defense. A defendant may simply remain silent, not present any
witnesses, and argue that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. If the
prosecutor can’t convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant
goes free.

Reasonable Doubt

The prosecutor must convince a judge or jury of a defendant’s guilt “beyond a
reasonable doubt.” This heavy burden of proof in criminal cases means that
judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all reasonable doubts about the
defendant’s guilt in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed
on the prosecutor, a defendant’s most common defense is to argue that reasonable
doubt of guilt exists.

The Alibi Defense

An alibi defense consists of evidence that a defendant was somewhere other
than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, assume
that Freddie is accused of committing a burglary on Elm Street at midnight on
Friday, September 13. Freddie’s alibi defense might consist of testimony that at
the time of the burglary, Freddie was watching Casablanca at the Maple Street
Cinema.

The Defendant Did It, But…

Sometimes a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that
that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.

Self-Defense

Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime
of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon,
or murder. The defendant admits that he or she did in fact commit the crime, but
claims that it was justified by the other person’s threatening actions. The core
issues in most self-defense cases are:

• Who was the aggressor?
• Was the defendant’s belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable
  one?
• If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?

Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect
themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait
until he or she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable
person in the same circumstances would think that he or she is about to be
physically attacked, that person has the right to strike first and prevent the
attack. However, an act of self-defense cannot use more force than is reasonable
– someone who uses too much force may be guilty of a crime.

The Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified
only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and
understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people
suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right
from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally
punished.

The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are
devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of
interest:

• Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas
  of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” When they do, judges and jurors rarely
  uphold it.
• Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system
  nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law
  context. The most popular definition is the “McNaghten rule,” which defines
  insanity as “the inability to distinguish right from wrong.” Another common test
  is known as “irresistible impulse”: a person may know that an act is wrong, but
  because of mental illness he or she cannot control his or her actions (this
  person is described as acting out of an “irresistible impulse”).
• Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set
  free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is
  established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than
  they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
• An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who
  testifies after examining the defendant, his or her history, and the facts of
  the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor
  defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
• Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must
  submit to psychological tests conducted at the behest of the prosecution. This
  can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants
  choose to forgo rather than rely on the insanity defense.

Under the Influence

Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol
sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot
be held accountable for their actions. Generally, however, voluntary
intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. Defendants know (or should know)
that alcohol and drugs affect mental functioning, and thus they should be held
legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary
use.

Some states allow an exception to this general rule. If the defendant is
accused of committing a crime that requires “specific intent”
(intending the precise consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act
that leads up to the consequences), the defendant can argue that he was too
drunk or high to have formed that intent. This is only a partial defense,
however, because it doesn’t entirely excuse the defendant’s actions. In this
situation, the defendant will usually be convicted of another crime that doesn’t
require proof of a specific intent. For example, a defendant may be prosecuted
for the crime of assault with specific intent to kill but only convicted of
assault with a deadly weapon, which doesn’t require specific intent.

Entrapment

Entrapment occurs when the government induces a person to commit a crime and
then tries to punish the person for committing it. However, if a judge or jury
believes that a suspect was predisposed to commit the crime anyway, the suspect
may be found guilty even if a government agent suggested the crime and helped
the defendant to commit it. Entrapment defenses are therefore especially
difficult for defendants with prior convictions for the same type of crime.

Want More Information?

To learn more about criminal defenses and all other aspects of a criminal
trial, get The Criminal Law
Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman and
Sara Berman (Nolo). If you need a lawyer, check out Nolo’s trusted Lawyer Directory for a criminal defense
attorney in your area.