Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Live Coverage of Casey Anthony Sentencing on Misdemeanor Charges; DSK Attorney, No Plea Deal; Royals to Attend Military Job Fair
Aired July 07, 2011 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR, "CNN NEWSROOM": Thanks, guys. It's 9:00 a.m. on the East Coast; 6:00 a.m. out West. I'm Kyra Phillips.
We're following the latest on the Casey Anthony case this morning. You're looking at live pictures from the Orange County courthouse right there in Orlando. Casey's sentencing hearing on four misdemeanor counts of lying to police about to get under way. She could do more time. She could walk out of there a free woman.
We got David Mattingly in Orlando for us; senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin in New York and here in the studio; criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Holly Hughes.
David, let's go ahead start with you. Let's talk about what we could expect to see starting right now into the next 20 minutes or so.
MATTINGLY: Well, Kyra, we know that defense attorney Jose Baez will be asking the judge to let his client Casey Anthony go.
And we talk about these misdemeanors. They carry a maximum penalty each of one year in jail and $1,000 fine. And these counts were all based on pretty elaborate deception that she concocted for investigators as they were investigating the apparent disappearance and then the murder of Caylee Anthony.
So right now, we're -- there has been a lot of speculation that because she's been in jail for a few years already, that the judge might reduce this to time served and that she could walk out a free woman today.
Again, that raising even more questions about where will she go and what will she do. We know that the state of Florida has already indicated that their intention to get her to pay the county back for all of the expenses that were incurred in the investigation, to pay back the Orange County Sheriff's Department for all of the man hours and time and resources they had to put in to this investigation.
So when she comes out, she could be looking at quite of a big bill. In fact, nobody knows exactly how much it will be right now. They are going to have to have a hearing sometime in the future for that. So perhaps her time in court will not be done after this session today -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: And, Holly, we were talking, and David mentioned this as well, her safety. I mean, this whole murder trial was centered around a 2-year-old little girl who turned up dead.
You know, with regard to the fact that she could walk free, it's not going to be easy for her.
HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No.
PHILLIPS: Guilty or not, everything that has been out there about this crime, there's a lot of concern about her safety.
HUGHES: There's different levels of freedom. Technically, is she locked in a jail cell? Maybe not, after half an hour from now, Kyra. But then there is the freedom to move about and not be accosted, and not be approached by people in the street. That's a freedom she's not going to experience.
This particular case just got to everybody. You've got a gorgeous baby girl, you've got grieving grandparents, and then you have a not guilty verdict. So no one is held responsible for this baby's death when, clearly, somebody killed her.
So her safety is going to be in her own hands. The Orange County Sheriff released a statement yesterday letting us know we will be sure that while she is in our custody, she is safe and we will take her because of all the high profile nature of this case. We're going to release her safely into the community, whatever that means.
But then their job is done. They are not personal bodyguards. They're not a security force. She's going to hire somebody to be with her at all times because people are so incensed over this verdict that she is probably in danger of folks trying to get at her physically.
We don't encourage it. We hope it doesn't happen because the jury spoke and that's their verdict. We have to move on. However, it's a very real danger and she will definitely need to have someone on staff to ensure her physical safety.
PHILLIPS: And on that note, physical safety, we're going to go to live pictures now from the helicopter just outside the courtroom where you can see protesters actually there via our affiliate WFTV.
Jeffrey Toobin, you know, life may get even more difficult for her as she walks free versus going to prison for the rest of her life. I mean, you just -- she doesn't have -- she will not have any type of protective circle and there's a lot of people that have actually no sympathy for her right now.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I think she should start with the idea that there are 49 other states besides Florida and she ought to pick one to live in.
I mean, it just seems to me, that given the intensity of the interest, particularly in the Orlando area, that she ought to just get out of that area and try to start her life anew somewhere else.
You know, as for the civil litigation, the possibility of the county suing her and various companies suing her, you know, civil litigation is very different from criminal cases. Criminal cases have to be resolved relatively quickly, particularly when you have a defendant who's being held in prison.
These civil cases are likely to kick --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIPS: Jeff, here we go. The judge is walking up. Let's all listen in. And Jeff, I'll -- of course, get you to continue to weigh in. Let's go ahead and listen.
CHIEF JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, CIRCUIT JUDGE, ORANGE COUNTY: You may be seated. OK. Madame clerk, you may call the case.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Case number 2008-CF15606, State of Florida versus Casey Marie Anthony.
PERRY: OK. Let the record reflect that the defendant is present, along with counsel for the defendant's state attorneys.
Both sides ready to proceed?
CHENEY MASON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, sir.
LINDA DRANE BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: I believe so, your honor.
PERRY: Mr. Mason, before we proceed to sentencing, Mr. Baez, you had asked me to reserve ruling on your motion for mistrial.
MASON: We can go ahead, your honor.
PERRY: OK. OK. That takes care of that. The defendant Casey Anthony is before the court for sentencing on counts 4, 5, and 6, providing false information to a law enforcement officer.
Mr. Baez, do you know of any legal calls why we should not proceed to sentencing at this time, sir?
MASON: Yes, 4, 5, 6 and 7, your honor.
PERRY: And 7.
MASON: And only legal calls that we have is previously filed motions attacking -- no legal calls like you can't proceed to sentencing with the subsequent remedies that she takes.
PERRY: Would the state care, at this time, to present any matters relative to aggravation?
BURDICK: Not on that issue, your honor, no.
PERRY: State care to present any issues at this time concerning any other matter?
BURDICK: Your honor, yesterday, I filed a motion to tax special cost of investigation and prosecution and to reserve jurisdiction. The only reason that I would bring this up prior to the actual sentencing has to do with the jurisdiction of the court, once sentence is imposed.
If defense counsel intends to appeal the misdemeanor convictions, then this court would not be able to entertain a later hearing until that matter is resolved as it relates to costs of investigation.
If, in fact, that is their intent, what we would ask is that the court bifurcate the sentencing hearing, proceeding to the matters of punishment. First, the issue of costs of investigation is not intended to be punitive and I believe can be handled at a later point in time in a bifurcated type of proceeding that would not divest the court of immediate jurisdiction to handle this matter so that this can be closed as expeditiously as possible. That is the only thing I want to bring up at this time.
PERRY: Mr. Baez?
JOSE BAEZ, CASEY ANTHONY'S ATTORNEY: Mr. Mason, your honor, will be handling this.
PERRY: Mr. Mason?
MASON: I do not object to the bifurcation process, your honor. But they have not presented invoices to us and any accounting as of yet, which we will reviewing and then challenge as appropriate. So she asked for 60 days and I have no problem with that.
PERRY: OK. The court will retain jurisdiction to deal with the issue of cost of prosecution and other costs, I guess, pursuant to Chapter 938. That's the statute that you're seeking those costs under?
BURDICK: It is, your honor. Thank you.
PERRY: OK. Mr. Mason, mitigation. You may proceed, sir.
MASON: We have, however, the argument, legal argument (INAUDIBLE).
PERRY: Go ahead. All right.
LISABETH FRYER, CASEY ANTHONY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: May it please the court?
PERRY: Good morning.
FRYER: Good morning, your honor.
Your honor, before sentencing we respectfully request that the court address the violation of double-jeopardy at issue with respect to counts 5, 6, and 7. Because all four statements in the indictment arose during the July 16th interview between Detective Melich and Miss Anthony.
All four counts to providing false information to a law enforcement officer where one continuous criminal act with a single intent. As such each false statement separately charged violates double jeopardy and must be reduced to one conviction based on one occurrence in the course of conduct.
In Hammel V. State which we provided to the court, that's 934 Southern 2nd, 634, that's a Florida 2nd DCA case from 2006, the defendant was convicted of 15 counts of using a computer to seduce a child. At issue was whether counts 5 and 6, among other things, arose from a single criminal episode.
In Hammel, the court articulated the test to determine whether offenses arrive from a single criminal episode. In that test, the court articulated that --
PERRY: Miss Fryer, let me stop you for a second.
FRYER: Yes, your honor.
PERRY: I don't seem to have benefited of what you said you provided the court.
FRYER: I apologize, your honor. I gave that to the clerk and I should have instructed that you needed to have that.
PERRY: OK. OK. Go ahead.
FRYER: Thank you, your honor.
This test requires a court to look to whether there was a separation of time, place, or circumstances between the crimes because those factors are objective criteria utilized to determine whether there are distinct and independent criminal acts or whether there was one continuous criminal act with a single criminal intent.
The court went on to say that the spatial and (INAUDIBLE) aspects of the crimes looking at that criteria, a court can ascertain whether the defendant had time to pause, reflect and form a new criminal intent between the occurrences.
Your honor, in finding that counts 5 and 6 in the Hammel case were a violation of double jeopardy, the court pointed to the fact that there was no temporal break in the conversation or change in circumstances to warrant separate charges with a conversation in question spans several hours.
Similarly, your honor, the false statements Miss Anthony made to Detective Yuri Melich occurred during the course of a single interview on July 16th, 2008. The interview was one continuous conversation and similarly, there were no temporal breaks or other objective criteria that would suggest that the defendant had time to pause, reflect and form a new criminal intent as required so as not to run afoul of double jeopardy.
We've also provided the court with two other cases. Hoag case that is 511 Southern 2nd 401 and that was out of the Fifth DCA, that's a 1987 case. And we also provided the court with Burke V. State, that's 475 Southern 2nd 252, that's 1985 case.
It's our assertion that that the Hammel case is similar in that it touches on the temporal aspects that are present in this case as well but the Hoag decision, the double jeopardy was invoked when the defendant was convicted of five incidences of leaving one scene because there were five people in particular who were left at the scene of an accident.
Burke, on the other hand, is a case that's invoked the double jeopardy where there were three convictions of the defendant based on one transaction of three altered bills and these convictions were charged separately. However, because they were found to be one act, double jeopardy was violated in this case.
Your honor, in order to avoid a legal sentence, we respectfully request that the court sentence Miss Anthony only for one occurrence, one count of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.
Further, we reassert that there is at issue of materiality in these charges and should be read into the statute as legislative intent.
Thank you very much.
PERRY: Just a second.
FRYER: Yes, sir?
PERRY: Let's look at count 4.
FRYER: Yes, your honor.
PERRY: Of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.
FRYER: Yes, sir.
PERRY: Specifically, what is alleged in count 4?
FRYER: Count 4 alleges specifically that on the 16th day of July, 2008, that in violation of the statute 837.055, there was a knowing and willful violation giving false information to Yuri Melich, a law enforcement officer. So that specific allegation was that Casey Marie Anthony suggested that she was employed at Universal Studios.
However, it arose during the July 16th, 2008 interview, as did every other charge, your honor.
PERRY: As a result of her telling the police that she was employed at Universal Studios, did the police after taking the resulting action with their investigation?
FRYER: They certainly did, your honor. However, if we are to charge her, we have to charge her for the crime and the crime here arose out of all four incidences were a part of the same continuous act, even though there were several false statements.
PERRY: Count five alleges she violated that statute by doing what?
FRYER: That during that same interview on the 16th of July, that Miss Anthony identified a person as Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez and suggested to Detective Melich she left her child with this woman.
PERRY: And did that require a separate and distinct on behalf of law enforcement to investigate?
FRYER: It did, Your Honor. However, I would assert that the reaction based on the violation isn't how we measure this. How we measure whether one instance, one particular criminal act that wasn't broken up temporally, we look at not the resulting conduct of the police department. What we look at is the conduct of Miss Anthony and the temporal aspects of her statements, as required under this Hamel decision.
PERRY: And count six?
FRYER: Yes, Your Honor?
PERRY: What was she alleged to have done in count six?
FRYER: During the same interview on the 16th, with Detective Melich on the 16th day of July in 2008, the allegation and the conviction is based on Miss Anthony informing Detective Melich she identified a Jeffrey Michael Hopkins and a Juliette Lewis, that she had told them of a disappearance of her child.
However, we reassert that there is a materiality issue related to this particular charge and, again, assert that this is out of the same instance of conduct.
PERRY: OK. And count seven?
FRYER: Count seven, Your Honor, this is the same interview that we have been discussing to Detective Melich and this allegation is based on Miss Anthony asserting that she received a phone call from Caylee Marie Anthony.
PERRY: Just a second, since you just provided these cases to me.
FRYER: Yes, sir.
PERRY: Let me read them right quick. See if I have any additional questions --
FRYER: Yes, sir.
PERRY: -- before I hear from the state of Florida.
(END COVERAGE)
PHILLIPS: As he we follow the live pictures out of Orlando, Florida, the sentencing of Casey Anthony.
Holly Hughes, why don't you just go ahead and bring our viewers up-to- date with what's happening here? I'm seeing the defense talking about a violation of double jeopardy based on temporal breaks. Let's put that in laymen terms, not legal terms if you don't mind, for the viewer. HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Basically, what the defense is arguing she didn't commit four separate crimes. This isn't four instances of lying to the police.
They are trying to say because it's one continuous flowing act, when you're talking about -- think about a river, just flowing down and the water is going and going and going. You're not going to say, that is one gallon of water, that's two gallons and three gallons of water -- whether you're going to look at the thing as a whole.
What the defense is arguing right now is, Judge, if you charge her four times for what we contend is the same crime -- it's one big, long statement.
PHILLIPS: And four times mean four years?
HUGHES: Well, four different counts, four different years, absolutely.
PHILLIPS: OK.
HUGHES: And that's what they're trying to fight against. They don't want that four-year sentence imposed. They don't one year stacked on top of one year and stacked on top, stacked on top.
So, what they are trying to do is convince the judge, using case law, that this is one continuous act. If you charge her more than once for the same crime, that is double jeopardy. Our Constitution prohibits it.
You know, you and I know, we have been getting tons of e-mails from viewers saying, hey, can't they know go back and charge her with violating a corpse and desecrating?
No, because everything happened to do with that one action. The death the disposal, everything surrounding poor little Caylee Marie's death is off the table. That would be double jeopardy.
That's what the attorneys are saying here. Hey, she made one statement. She told a big pack of lies within that one statement.
PHILLIPS: All at once.
HUGHES: But we don't want you to punish her that way.
PHILLIPS: Jeff -- all right, let's go ahead and listen in. The judge is starting to talk again.
(BEING COVERAGE)
PERRY: Miss Anthony did not have time to pause, reflect and form a new criminal intent for each one of those four separate acts?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, your honor. As the tests articulated, under the Hamel decision, there has to be some separation of time, place, or circumstances. In the situation that we are dealing with today, there was one single interview. It can't be said that there was a break in either time, place, or circumstance, as required not to invoke double jeopardy.
PERRY: Thank you, Miss Frank.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Your Honor.
PERRY: Response from the state of Florida.
LINDA DRANE BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: Like the court, I was only provided with this motion this morning. However, I believe even under their case law, as well as case law from the Florida Supreme Court, specifically Valdes, which I did not bring copies of, unfortunately, found that three southern 3rd, 1067, the Florida Supreme Court case from 2009 --
PERRY: Three-seven --
BURDICK: I'm sorry -- three southern 3rd, correct, 1067, Florida Supreme Court 2009. In Anderson at 697 southern 2nd 309, the Florida Supreme Court case from 1997, these are not the -- these are not single acts. This is different core conduct.
It is our position that there is a temporal break between each of the lies and there are several - not just the ones charged -- but that these lies occurred over the course of three separate statement statements. The fact they all occurred on July 16th of 2008 should be of no consequence.
The court, through the course of pretrial hearings, as well as the trial, knows that Miss Anthony gave statements at approximately 1:00 a.m., 4:00 a.m. and then 1:00 p.m. on July 16th of 2008.
Each of the lies are material to the issues that were investigated by the sheriff's office. As a result of the lies, each were intended to mislead law enforcement and to send them, as Miss Anthony, herself, at the end of the final statement, indicated on a wild goose chase. They are not degree variance of the same crime and are not a single criminal act.
Most of the time when we are not dealing with multiple punishments for a single act, what we are dealing with are whether or not a single act can be broken up into episodes. We typically see this in sexual battery cases, where there are multiple sex acts performed on a single victim at the same time. And then the issue is, whether or not there is a break between the various types of penetrations in those cases sufficient to convict for separate acts and, indeed, the case law suggests that there is a sufficient break where an individual does have the time to pause and reflect, as the court has already inquired.
Given the fact that there were multiple statements over the course of 12 hours, it is the position of the state of Florida that these separate acts, as separately alleged, do not violate double jeopardy.
PERRY: Their cite was three southern, 3rd edition, what page?
BURDICK: Ten-sixty-seven.
PERRY: Ten-sixty-seven?
BURDICK: Ten-sixty-seven. I do have a copy. This is the situation where an individual was charged with two different counts for one act of shooting. Would the court like my copy?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just a second.
(END COVERAGE)
PHILLIPS: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, we heard what Holly Hughes had to say about what the defense is coming forward with here with regard to violation of double jeopardy, hoping that they can lessen the sentencing here for their client from four years to one year.
Yet, the prosecution coming back with its argument, saying that no temporal breaks doesn't hold. This is where the four counts of lying to authorities comes into play.
Who's got the stronger argument here? What's your take?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I think it's a tough question. I think the defense is right to raise this issue. These are the kind of issues that get generally resolved in favor of the prosecution.
But I think this is all likely to be a moot point anyway. At least how I understand how Florida general works, she is very likely to get time served whether it's one misdemeanor or four misdemeanors.
So, I think this is an interesting technical argument, but I don't think it's likely to have any impact on the -- on the actual sentence. And -- but I do think it's right for the defense to raise it. This is a point, if they ever have to appeal, it will be important for them to have raised it at the trial level because appeals courts don't like to hear arguments that haven't been raised first at the trial level.
But as I say, I think, given the very strong likelihood of a sentence of time served, whether it's one misdemeanor or four, won't make any difference.
PHILLIPS: You bring up the trial level. Let's go to trial attorney Debra Opri in Los Angeles.
Deb, what do you think?
DEBRA OPRI, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, initially, I would say why wasn't this raised at the pretrial and pretrial motions to have these counts either reduced or combined into one? That's the first thought I have.
The second thought I have is this -- this is very late in the game motion for reduction. I favor what Jeff said. I think Judge Perry will go in lieu prosecution case. But he's got to digest the Hamel case and he can't do it in five minutes in court. He may take a recess and then issue a ruling. If I were laying wagers, I think the counts are going to stand.
PHILLIPS: Holly, with that said, what's your gut and how long do you think this could take? Because the more you try to introduce new arguments, right?
HUGHES: Right.
PHILLIPS: -- the longer this goes.
HUGHES: Exactly. I agree with Deb Opri 100 percent, because my first thought why are we hearing about this now and why not a motion to quash the indictment or at least take those counts out, merge them into one. So, it is late in the game. It's what we have seen from the defense repeatedly what has been alleged.
Now, Judge Perry might still hold a contempt hearing because allegations that the defense team gave the prosecution things at the last minute. That's what we're seeing here.
Ultimately, though, I think the judge is going to rule in favor of the state. He'll probably not take more than about, you know, 10-minute break, let everybody stretch, walk around. He's a real sharp jurist.
And the one thing he has done in this trial I have noticed every time he makes a ruling, he backs it up with law. He puts that case law right in the record. He says this is why I'm making this ruling. It's not a knee-jerk reaction.
So, while the defense wants to say one big flowing river, the prosecution has gotten up and said no, a few different little ponds and she had the time to walk from this one and tell a lie, a couple of hours later, we're a different one told a lie, different one told lie.
So, it is a fabulous argument on the behalf of the defense. It's one of the most cohesive legal arguments I've seen them raise. But I don't think they're going to succeed. I think Perry is going to let them stand.
Jeff Toobin is right. She's probably still walking out, no matter what.
PHILLIPS: You mentioned the judge -- so, Jeff Toobin -- OK, let's go ahead and listen in to court and then we'll come back to you, Jeff.
(BEGIN COVERAGE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, sir.
PERRY: Does your client wish to say anything prior to the court imposing sentence?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, Your Honor.
PERRY: The court will make the following finding concerning the defense motion., to bar imposition of sentence on these four distinct counts as violating double jeopardy.
Count four of the indictment alleging providing false information to a law enforcement office officer basically dealt with the following conduct. It is alleged that the defendant was employed at Universal Studios during the year 2008. This information was given pursuant to an investigation for missing persons report. That information caused law enforcement in following up on that statement to go to Universal Studios to expend law enforcement resources to determine that, in fact, Miss Anthony did not, in fact, work at Universal Studios.
Count five, Miss Anthony informed the authorities that she had left her child, Caylee Marie Anthony, at the Sawgrass Apartments with a babysitter, which caused law enforcement again, as a result of a missing persons report, to develop and follow various leads, trying to locate this babysitter, commonly known as Zanny.
Count six, again, dealt with the fact that she had informed two, quote, "employees Universal Studios, Jeff Hopkins and Juliette Lewis of the disappearance of Caylee Marie Anthony."
Miss Anthony, in count seven indicated to law enforcement that she had received a call and spoke to Caylee Marie Anthony on July 15th, 2008 at approximately 12:00 p.m., thus causing law enforcement to devote extensive resources.
As a result of those four separate and distinct lies, law enforcement expended a great deal of time, energy, and manpower looking for young Caylee Marie Anthony. This search for her went on from July through December, over several months trying to find Caylee Marie Anthony, four distinct, separate lies.
Just as the jury spoke loud and clear on counts one, two and three by their verdict, they also spoke loud and clear as to the remaining counts four, five, six and seven. There being no legal cause shown why this court should not impose sentence and the court having previously adjudged you to be guilty of the crimes contained in counts four, five, six and seven, I will sentence you to one year in the Orange County Jail imposing a $1,000 fine on each count, all four counts to run consecutive to each other, giving you credit for the time that you have previously served.
Mr. Baez, Mr. Mason, we're going to spend some time this morning figuring out her credit for time served and it's going to take us probably about an hour to sort of sort it out because of the previous sentences that she has been given. But with the good time and game time, depending on preliminary figures, sometime early August, maybe late July, but I can't say that until after I first determine time served, and then the jail has to apply, according to their figures, their good time and game time that she has gained in this.
So if you want to wait around, or we can communicate that with you and if you have a different figure, then we can get that taken care of.
I will reserve jurisdiction for 60 days to determine the cost of prosecution and investigation.
Tell me when you'll be ready.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would advise a minimum of 30, so any time after that would be acceptable.
PERRY: Well, Mr. Mason?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to have some time whenever they get around to providing and fathering up their invoices so we can check the validity of those and potentially conduct some discovery on it, so at least 30 days, I would assume. Depends on when she gets it to me. If she gets it to me on the 29th day, that's not going to be good.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (OFF MIKE) to Mr. Mason. They have indicated that they believe they can have all of the documentation to me within the timeframe that I've suggested and then that should give Mr. Mason ample time to review the validity of the affidavits of the sheriff's office.
PERRY: Well --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF MIKE) after she gets it to me.
PERRY: I'm trying to give you a date now.
The week of August 15th, I will not be around. The week of the 22nd, I'm involved in evidentiary hearing on a 3851 case that's supposed to last three days.
I have some time on the 25th and the 26th.
Depending on how long you need, I can fit you in on the week of the 29th, but I would have to fit you in because I'm, unfortunately, going to have to take over Judge Adams' division since he's leaving at the end of the month.
I have -- again the week of August 1st, but I have to fit you into that division's regular work.
The week of August 9th with the same proviso, except that Friday.
So when would you like the hearing, folks?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any of those options is acceptable to the state, your honor.
PERRY: You can have the 25th or the 26th. That should give you more than enough time to get the information and get it to Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez and have them digest the information.
So you want to do it Thursday or Friday, the 25th or the 26th, Friday being the 26th?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thursday is fine, the 25th, if that's acceptable to counsel. And I don't know what Miss Anthony's status will be at that point as do they want to waive her appearance at that or have her present? I don't know if you want to address that issue now. PERRY: The 25th, according to the preliminary calculations, without going over, double-checking some things, she won't be there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's why I didn't know if we wanted to address whether the court would require her attendance. It's not a punishment aspect to the sentence.
PERRY: That's entirely left up to her and her counsel as far as I'm concerned. She can waive her appearance or she can come. That's left up to --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It would be our intention to waive her appearance during those proceedings, your honor.
PERRY: OK. I will also impose the statutory court costs.
Miss Anthony, you have a right to appeal the judgment and sentence that I rendered here in your case today, provided you file a notice of appeal within 30 days of today's day. If you cannot afford the services of an attorney to assist you with this appeal, the court will appoint one to represent you.
Bearing those rights in in mind and after consulting with your attorney, do you wish to appeal?
JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: If we can have a moment, your honor.
PERRY: You may.
BAEZ: Your honor, we can't -- we would like to reserve our right to make that decision at a later time.
PERRY: You have 30 days from today's date to file a notice of appeal or you forfeit, give up your right to appeal.
Does she have the financial wherewithal, Mr. Baez, if she decides to appeal to pay for appellate counsel?
BAEZ: No, your honor. But we would --
PERRY: If she decides to do that then please make sure that she fills out an affidavit insolvency with the clerk of the court to timely bring that matter so counsel can be appointed.
BAEZ: Yes, sir.
PERRY: As you know, if she does not file a timely notice of appeal, then she forfeits or gives up her right to appeal. If she decides to appeal and she wants an appointed counsel, but it will be your responsibility to file the necessary appellate paper work, that is the notice of appeal, statement of judicial acts to be reviewed, and designation to the court reporter, it will be your responsibility before you are relieved of your responsibilities as far as this case to have those documents filed.
Are there any other matters on behalf of the state of Florida?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nothing from the state, your honor. Thank you.
PERRY: Are there any other matters on behalf of the defense?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF MIKE)
PERRY: OK. Court will be in recess.
(END PROGRESS)
PHILLIPS: All right. We now know Casey Anthony's fate.
Jeff Toobin, basically the judge just threw out that last-ditch effort by the defense to try to knock down the number of counts here and said, nope, it's going to be one year in jail for every count. She gets three years' credit so really that's about a year, right, and then pays $1,000 for each count.
But here's what was interesting, the issue of appeal. I bet some attorneys are saying, are you kidding me? How much better can it get? Why appeal?
TOOBIN: Yes. Well, I mean, this was a surprise. Most people convicted of misdemeanors do not get prison time in Florida or anywhere else. This judge was clearly appalled at the nature and content of the lies that Casey Anthony told to the police and just hearing them again in court, we are all reminded of just how sinister and awful these comments were to the police. And the judge did the max. He gave her the longest possible sentence he could give, which is four years. Four, one-year sentences to be served consecutively.
Now, there's a bit of legal confusion or complication, I should say, because it's not as simple as a four-year sentence. Because she has served for nearly three years, I believe she has served to about 997 days in prison. She gets credit for what's called good time. When you behave well in prison, you get a certain amount of credit and it varies state-by-state.
So she actually will probably serve considerably less than another year. In fact -- and this is where perhaps the other folks listening can help me out. I thought the judge said her sentence may well be up in August, just a month from now, because of the credit she might get for good time.
So I don't think she's going to serve another full year. I think she is likely to serve very much less than another full year.
PHILLIPS: Holly, what do you think?
HUGHES: Jeff nailed that on the head. There's two different things happening here in the law. There's something called credit for time served and then there's commuted to time served.
And just break it down for our viewers, credit means if you've actually sat in jail, you have to get credit by operational law, we're going to give you that time back. That goes on your account like a credit would back to any charge account. Commuted to time served is when the attorney says to the judge, OK, let's just pretend she served the whole thing and let her out today.
That wasn't asked for here. So what we're looking at is the jail will go back and only the jail can do it. They are an independent authority, independent of the court. So it's not if Judge Perry could say to them we're going to make you keep her for another full year. That is a whole different province.
They're going to look at the numbers, add it up, it's what they call good time. Some jails have a two for one program, where if you behave for every day you serve, you get credit for two, which is why Judge Perry is saying I am estimating, just based on my long knowledge and my experience in this system, that when given credit for all of the time she has already served, she's probably only looking at about another month.
He said to the attorneys, I expect the end of July, maybe toward the end of August. When they sat down the hearing for the expenses that the state is seeking reimbursement for, the Linda Drane Burdick, the prosecutor said, well Judge, I don't know where Miss Anthony's going to be on the 26th of August, and he said it's likely she won't be there, which is, again, a second signal he expects all that good and all that credit to run relatively consecutively.
Now, she won't get out today, which everybody was curious about but she will probably be out within the next six weeks.
PHILLIPS: Wow. The next six weeks.
All right and Deb, you -- you heard the judge when the issue of appeal came up. They have got 30 days to decide whether they are going to do it or not. What -- what do you think is going to happen here?
OPRI: Well, the first thing I said was he wants him to answer now? I usually say, your honor, can I get back to you? We have 30 days. But with this time -- with this time served, I understand that Florida has five days for every one day time served, good time.
In California, it's three days. But I think and I've done the calculation. If she has served, and my calculation came out to 1,030 days of actual time served; two years, ten months. If she served those days, you go into the five days good credit, I'm looking at actual time for her of 86 more days. But the question I have is how much of that time in jail served was for the check fraud charge and are those days still counted? I don't know the answer to that.
But I said early on, I assumed she would be in jail a few more months. And it looks like two or three months to me. I don't think she's going to be in jail much past probably August, September.
But she lucked out. Are they going to appeal? Don't do it. Don't do it. Just leave it alone.
Deb Opri and Holly Hughes and Jeff Toobin, stay with us. If you're just tuning in, the sentencing was just announced there. Judge Belvin Perry, it looks like Casey Anthony could walk free. You heard from all our attorneys here. You're kind of trying to read between the lines. It could happen within 80 something days.
We had thought possibly up to a year. She is getting credit for good time; the three years that she has already been in prison. But you heard it. Four counts for lying to authorities. You're looking at a year for each count. A thousand dollar fine for each count.
But since she has already been in prison for three years, it looks like less than a year that she will actually serve. We'll talk more about this.
Holly Hughes has some impressions on Casey Anthony's mannerisms in court. It's very interesting. Stay with us. We'll continue right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Well, if you're just tuning in, the Casey Anthony sentencing is out. And as it stands, she will be free late July, possibly early August. She will not walk free today, as many people were asking. The decision was made just moments ago live in this Orlando courtroom.
Casey Anthony no longer in court. They have gone into a recess. Judge Belvin Perry coming forward and saying she will serve time for the four counts of lying to authorities. She's already been in prison for three years which means it will be knocked down to one year, it looks like it will be even less than that.
We're going to continue to talk about this with our legal panel -- legal panel coming up.
But first, we just want to bring you up to date on some other top stories happening just before the top of the hour.
Attorney for Dominique Strauss-Kahn says that the former IMF chief will not accept a plea bargain and won't plead guilty. Prosecutors and attorneys met yesterday to discuss the sexual assault case.
The feds have ordered Exxon/Mobil to make safety improvements on a ruptured pipeline in Montana. Up to 42,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River last week.
And two positive signs, just in on the jobs market; private sector employers added 157,000 positions in June, much more than expected. And the number of first-time appliers for jobless benefits fell by 14,000 -- filers rather, 14,000 last week.
So Will and Kate's journey across Canada wraps up today. For the past week we've seen them cooking, racing dragon boats and bringing a lot of smiles to a lot of faces of the locals. Yesterday though, the pictures were pretty heartbreaking. They spent part of the day in Slave Lake, Alberta, a town burned to the ground by wildfires in May; powerful pictures.
And now they're in Calgary for a lighter day, an agenda that includes a parade and a bull-riding demonstration.
Now, Will and Kate will head to the U.S., well, where they're now going ahead to the U.S. rather, where they're going to visit with a certain group of Americans that mean a lot to us. We're talking about our troops.
The royal couple will actually touchdown in Los Angeles and attend a U.S. military hiring fair. Organizers hope that they'll help turn the eye of the world to the needs of our military family.
And Kathy Roth-Douquet is a military family advocate, once worked for the Clinton White House, also the wife of a Marine officer. She founded Blue Star Families.
And Kathy you'll actually be working with the royal couple. So what will they be doing exactly at this hiring fair?
KATHY ROTH-DOUQUET, CO-FOUND, BLUE STAR FAMILIES: We're so excited to have the royal couple come and shine a spotlight on military families and veterans. They're going to be doing a couple things. They're going to be helping bring attention to the needs of vets and military families, both of whom have a high unemployment rate when they return from service.
But they're also going to be getting involved in service events, the kind of service activities that every American can get involved with, too. We're going to be doing care packages with USO and Blue Star Families has a program we're doing with the First Lady's Joining Forces initiative, Operation Honor Cards. And we're so thrilled that William and Kate is going to be doing Operation Honor Cards with Blue Star Families.
PHILLIPS: Well Kathy, let me ask you, how much do you think Prince William's military background impacted the couple's decision to come help our military families?
ROTH-DOUQUET: Oh, I think it's -- I think it's enormous. I think this is a young couple that really understands service. And I think they get pride and pleasure from it. They serve their country just by being a -- by being royals and doing the work that royals do. But I think even more so, his service and his identity as a member of the Armed Services and her identity as a military spouse, which we're so thrilled to claim, is -- is foremost for them.
PHILLIPS: And you're actually going to have some one-on-one time with them. What do you want to ask them? What do you want to say to them? What are you going to ask them to do specifically?
ROTH-DOUQUET: Well, I'm going to tell them that they're an inspiration and role model for us. And it's -- it's wonderful for us to see them as a model for engaged and happy and committed military couple. I'll be talking to them about Honor Card programs, which is a way that people can pledge community service in support of the service of military families.
And they'll be making pledges of service. They do so much already. And we'll be building an honor wall of all the service pledges that everyone participating in the day at Sony will be doing together.
PHILLIPS: Well, please let us know how it goes. Kathy, you do fabulous work, once again, Blue Stars Families is the organization. Go online, check it out and also please grab a pledge card.
Thanks, Kathy.
And ahead next hour, the band U2 makes one fan's dream come true.
And we're going to talk to him and his brush with musical greatness. That's this hour in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Well, the U.S. women lose a World Cup match but they're still in the hunt for that title, right, Jeff Fischel?
JEFF FISCHEL, HLN SPORTS ANCHOR: Yes, that's right. They could have made things a little easier for themselves but at least they're moving on, which is the important thing. They head on to the round or the elimination round. The U.S. will just have to work a little harder for it to win that World Cup.
Sweden scored a goal on a free kick right there. The deflection off Amy LePeilbet. The Swedes win 2-1. And you know, when they win, they don't just take the victory, they celebrate, that's a little like the hokey-pokey, doesn't it?
The U.S. now plays a tough Brazil team in the quarterfinals on Sunday. Brazil advanced after beating Equatorial Guinea. Checkout this goal by Erica she passes to herself in the air like that, the flip and then the goal. That is sweet. And Erica even shows a little a bit, she celebrates big.
One more thing, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Yes.
FISCHEL: Dallas Cowboys' receiver Roy Williams is suing her ex -- his ex-girlfriend to get a $76,000 engagement ring back. Williams says Brooke Daniels told him she lost it. It turns out her dad does have it. He says he'll give it back to avoid a lawsuit but dad also says Williams told the former Miss Texas she could keep it. Oh, by the way, the important thing to note about this, Williams actually never got down on his knees to propose. He sent the ring in the mail.
PHILLIPS: Say what?
FISCHEL: It's very romantic. Wondering why he thinks he deserves to get it back.
PHILLIPS: Hello? OK. (LAUGHTER)
PHILLIPS: We've got an expression for that, all right? What were you thinking, pal? We're going to talk more about it actually later in the hour.
FISCHEL: Oh, good, good.
PHILLIPS: Thanks, Jeff.
