Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[mydailyopinions]

What the heck could this be about?
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4645564&postcount=3"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4645564&postcount=3[/ame]
Thanks Angel Who Cares for posting in the news section!

 

[Tulessa]

What the heck could this be about?
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4645564&postcount=3
Thanks Angel Who Cares for posting in the news section!

LOL! Themis just explained it all rather well I thought.

 

[mydailyopinions]

LOL! Themis just explained it all rather well I thought.

LOL no doubt! I completely skipped right over it! My apologies for having a serious brain fart! It is too cold down here in Georgia...my brain isn't used to it..:banghead:

 

[AZlawyer]

I was pretty sure you did know it was from KC to JS. I don't have a poll, but it would probably be unusual. Her attorney should have something really significant to say to her in their next visit if they didn't authorize it. If they did authorize it, the State may have some issues with ex-parte communications and professional responsibility. There are a very few things that are allowed with ex-parte communications but notice must first be given to the other side in advance of the ex-parte communication. Therefore, I doubt that the defense attorneys knew in advance. No defense attorney is going to risk the ire of a state bar investigation for something so trivial. However, now that you mention it, if the defense team didn't know and KC did communicate directly with the Judge, then it might say something about KC's willingness to cooperate with her counsel or strike out on her own. This, of course, would be important in the lack of family visits issue. More than likely, this was just a copy of the previous motion with KC's handwriting where she states the prosecutor is angry with her for refusing to plead guilty to a crime she didn't commit. That may be considered "correspondence" by a clerk's office.

Themis, thanks for being on top of all these new questions. I think the document with KC's handwriting was already entered into the docket long ago, so I'm thinking (hoping) this is something new. You know..."Dear Judge, my lawyer Jose has not come to visit me for a bunch of weeks. Instead he sends people who are girls and I can't really have any fun with them. Can you make him visit me and bring some licorice plz? Thx! XOXO Caseyomarie"

 

[Kentjbkent]

I should clarify. There's nothing wrong with talking about legal issues generally that are also present in this case, but there is a risk in doing so. The client's right to attorney-client confidentiality and the confidentiality of the attorney work product in doing that client's case must be protected. As to their mentioning the book when being interviewed about the case; well, it isn't a crime.
Before someone suggests that we ought to make a law, just remember that adding all this legislation costs more and more taxpayer money to enforce, prosecute, litigate and incarcerate. At what point should people say it is not harmful to society so we will not criminalize it? Of course, there are other ways to modify behavior; like adding prohibitions in ethical rules. However, those need to be balanced against property rights and the like. The topic could become complex very quickly.

No answer to your question as to whether or not I agree with Mr. Hornsby. That is not saying I do or do not. It is just a professional courtesy to Mr. Hornsby, AZlawyer or any of the other attorneys here that I don't have to opine on their opinions. If I agree, I may so comment. If I disagree, I may say that too, but not in response to a question as to whether or not I agree. It would be sua sponte. My silence on a particular quote or topic doesn't mean disagreement. It may be that I'm busy or that I simply choose not to elaborate on their comment.

:clap::clap::clap:

Thank you!

 

[skygirl]

Pardon if this has been addressed before.

AD and MM both stated in their interviews that KC came to them and said she was going crazy and felt she needed to be commited. Now that being said.

In part 7 of CA's FBI interview, she is asked about KC's mental state, and then asked if she had ever received any counseling for said issue. CA spins a bit and makes it about herself and then in doing this admits she did in fact go to a counselor through work for family issues, KC's lies, GA's issues blah blah...

My question is...Will this counselor/therapist be called at trial as a witness? And what information will she be able to talk about on the stand? Is this considered private medical information and therefore not admissable?

I'm just too curious what this counselor has to say about her brief visits with CA.

Thanks for your time.

http://www.wftv.com/video/18050784/index.html

 

[AZlawyer]

Pardon if this has been addressed before.

AD and MM both stated in their interviews that KC came to them and said she was going crazy and felt she needed to be commited. Now that being said.

In part 7 of CA's FBI interview, she is asked about KC's mental state, and then asked if she had ever received any counseling for said issue. CA spins a bit and makes it about herself and then in doing this admits she did in fact go to a counselor through work for family issues, KC's lies, GA's issues blah blah...

My question is...Will this counselor/therapist be called at trial as a witness? And what information will she be able to talk about on the stand? Is this considered private medical information and therefore not admissable?

I'm just too curious what this counselor has to say about her brief visits with CA.

Thanks for your time.

http://www.wftv.com/video/18050784/index.html

I don't think anyone has suggested that CA's counselor should testify, and I don't think it would be permitted anyway (due to irrelevance, prejudice, etc.).

 

[skygirl]

I don't think anyone has suggested that CA's counselor should testify, and I don't think it would be permitted anyway (due to irrelevance, prejudice, etc.).

Thank You!

REALLY though? I was under the impression that this counselor told CA to send KC packing? And that would have been the catalyst for the infamous June 15th fight/argument that didn't happen. IYKWIM.

Just seems LE and FBI were really digging for that family dynamic hard. Thought she/he (counselor) could shed a little light on it as well.

Oh well, thanks again for your reply.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I have a question. So all along JB has said “it will come out at trial”, blah, blah, blah. Supposedly very compelling reasons to show that KC did not kill her child. She is up for murder charges, and/or child neglect or endangerment charges. IF she got on the stand and simply said “Caylee drowned in the pool while I was on the phone inside for a minute”....then that confession would not meet any of the requirements of convicting on the charges as brought, right? Yes, she panicked and hid the body. Yes she didn’t let anyone know her child was gone. Yes she lied to the cops, etc. BUT technically she didn’t kill/murder Caylee - it was an accidental drowning.

Would it then be as simple as the jury returning a “not guilty” verdict on the charges brought and she waltzes out of the courthouse?????? That would explain the lack of defensive work, i.e, no depos, no witness list, nada. You know, "keep it simple, stupid". Just simply it was an accident, and the jury buys it. WOULD KC WALK FREE?

 

[logicalgirl]

Can I piggyback, TotallyObsessed on your question please? While the good expert lawyer (s) are answering that can I tag on a further question? Would she still be up on child neglect charges and obstruction of justice charges? Thanks in advance.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

bumping up in case any legal eagles come on board tonite....

 

[21merc7]

I have a question. So all along JB has said “it will come out at trial”, blah, blah, blah. Supposedly very compelling reasons to show that KC did not kill her child. She is up for murder charges, and/or child neglect or endangerment charges. IF she got on the stand and simply said “Caylee drowned in the pool while I was on the phone inside for a minute”....then that confession would not meet any of the requirements of convicting on the charges as brought, right? Yes, she panicked and hid the body. Yes she didn’t let anyone know her child was gone. Yes she lied to the cops, etc. BUT technically she didn’t kill/murder Caylee - it was an accidental drowning.

Would it then be as simple as the jury returning a “not guilty” verdict on the charges brought and she waltzes out of the courthouse?????? That would explain the lack of defensive work, i.e, no depos, no witness list, nada. You know, "keep it simple, stupid". Just simply it was an accident, and the jury buys it. WOULD KC WALK FREE?

I am not a lawyer and could be COMPLETELY wrong, but I think, if that happened it would just bring in the lesser charges. (It most likely will never happen.) The lesser charges already brought in by State before murder, something along child neglect, but maybe not those words, improper abuse of corpse, what have you. One of the lawyers will show up here eventually, but I think there would still be plenty of charges that stand legally. Just not the death penalty, and, besides, no juror will buy it at this point. KC was asked in the beginning by State and LE, it has been how long, year or so she has been quiet in jail, or rather bickering in jail? Nah, jurors will not buy it. Only way out is last minute plea agreement, and don't know if State will give one now.

If you were a juror, had to go through all the evidence whatever it is that may be presented, then KC tries to pull a fast one, you have days to deliberate, what do you think you would come up with as a verdict?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Well anything can and does happen. I live in a city where we had a state court judge on trial for sexually abusing prisoners...would bring them to his chambers from the jail and "spank" them, among other things. Their ummmm...dna....if you know what I mean...was found on the carpet, but the judge got off because the defense lawyer blamed everything on racial bias and "being tried in the media"....

I'm just thinking that at this point, the ONLY thing besides plea that KC and team can do, is throw her on the "mercy" or some sappy juror who will fall for her eye poking tears.

 

[LambChop]

Well anything can and does happen. I live in a city where we had a state court judge on trial for sexually abusing prisoners...would bring them to his chambers from the jail and "spank" them, among other things. Their ummmm...dna....if you know what I mean...was found on the carpet, but the judge got off because the defense lawyer blamed everything on racial bias and "being tried in the media"....

I'm just thinking that at this point, the ONLY thing besides plea that KC and team can do, is throw her on the "mercy" or some sappy juror who will fall for her eye poking tears.

A picture of Caylee skull with the duct tape, one picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can I piggyback, TotallyObsessed on your question please? While the good expert lawyer (s) are answering that can I tag on a further question? Would she still be up on child neglect charges and obstruction of justice charges? Thanks in advance.

I don't have the list of charges in front of me, but I'm sure there's a neglect charge in there somewhere, and an "accident" scenario might very well trigger a conviction for neglect.

The obstruction charges are a slam dunk, I think, regardless of her story at trial.

 

[impatientredhead]

I don't have the list of charges in front of me, but I'm sure there's a neglect charge in there somewhere, and an "accident" scenario might very well trigger a conviction for neglect.

The obstruction charges are a slam dunk, I think, regardless of her story at trial.

The neglect charge was dropped when they filed the grand jury indictment. The indictment includes a manslaughter charge though (want to say it is an aggravated manslaughter based on Caylee's age and Casey's role to her but I can't swear to that at the moment.

I believe if she got on the stand and made a drowning confession (which I cannot see happening) I don't think it would go to the jury would it? Wouldn't it either go to a plea or a mistrial? They can't let it go to the jury, have them come back with a non guilty based on the indictment and then refile a new set of charges that match her confession (you can't be tried multiple times for crimes for the same event?).

Not to mention if she took the stand and made that confession she would still have to go through cross examination where her story would never ever hold up to even a cursory type of scrutiny.

 

[AZlawyer]

The neglect charge was dropped when they filed the grand jury indictment. The indictment includes a manslaughter charge though (want to say it is an aggravated manslaughter based on Caylee's age and Casey's role to her but I can't swear to that at the moment.

I believe if she got on the stand and made a drowning confession (which I cannot see happening) I don't think it would go to the jury would it? Wouldn't it either go to a plea or a mistrial? They can't let it go to the jury, have them come back with a non guilty based on the indictment and then refile a new set of charges that match her confession (you can't be tried multiple times for crimes for the same event?).

Not to mention if she took the stand and made that confession she would still have to go through cross examination where her story would never ever hold up to even a cursory type of scrutiny.

I didn't realize they had dropped the neglect charge--thanks!

I don't think the SA would stop everything if she "confessed" to an accident during trial. I think Ashton would roll his eyes, the woman SA would poke him in the ribs for rolling his eyes in front of the jury, and then they would continue on with the murder trial, presenting this to the jury as Casey's Lie Number 99. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we had a dramatic moment there when Casey "confessed." But let me remind you about the last time she "confessed." [play tape of 911 call where Cindy says Casey finally "admitted" or confessed that Caylee was taken by Zani the Imaginanni and was not simply at a fun sleepover as previously maintained] Obviously, we cannot take the Defendant's "confessions" at face value."

 

[Themis]

Thank You!

REALLY though? I was under the impression that this counselor told CA to send KC packing? And that would have been the catalyst for the infamous June 15th fight/argument that didn't happen. IYKWIM.

Just seems LE and FBI were really digging for that family dynamic hard. Thought she/he (counselor) could shed a little light on it as well.

Oh well, thanks again for your reply.

The contents of any mental health counseling may be privileged and therefore not subject to being admitted into evidence if the therapist was a qualified psychotherapist under Florida's privilege statutes. CA said she received this counseling through an employee benefits program. In that CA works for a health industry company, we can probably guess that the counselors and therapists they would provide would be qualified under the state's law to qualify as a professional (like a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, psychiatric social worker or licensed marriage and family therapist) and therefore come under the protection of the privilege.

It doesn't matter how relevant it is if the communication is privileged. If privileged, it won't come in.

That being said, the real evidence is not whether or not the therapist told CA to kick KC out, but whether or not CA did tell KC to get out. The first communication between therapist and CA is privileged, except to the extent that it has already been made public by CA (CA thereby waived the privilege to the extent it was disclosed). The second communication between CA and KC has no privilege protection whatsoever, is clearly relevant to this case on several issues and CA can be questioned on it. Whether or not they will get a truthful answer will be a problem.

 

[Themis]

I have a question. So all along JB has said “it will come out at trial”, blah, blah, blah. Supposedly very compelling reasons to show that KC did not kill her child. She is up for murder charges, and/or child neglect or endangerment charges. IF she got on the stand and simply said “Caylee drowned in the pool while I was on the phone inside for a minute”....then that confession would not meet any of the requirements of convicting on the charges as brought, right? Yes, she panicked and hid the body. Yes she didn’t let anyone know her child was gone. Yes she lied to the cops, etc. BUT technically she didn’t kill/murder Caylee - it was an accidental drowning.

Would it then be as simple as the jury returning a “not guilty” verdict on the charges brought and she waltzes out of the courthouse?????? That would explain the lack of defensive work, i.e, no depos, no witness list, nada. You know, "keep it simple, stupid". Just simply it was an accident, and the jury buys it. WOULD KC WALK FREE?

There are other threads where we discuss the legal implications of a death by drowning. There is a legal myth going around that if Caylee drowned, it would be an accident and therefore KC would be innocent of the charges. Not so fast there my friends. KC was Caylee's mother and responsible for taking care of her. Parents don't "watch" their own kids. They do everything parents are supposed to do. One of this many duties includes making sure a toddler doesn't have access to an open swimming pool unattended. There can be homicide charges and criminal guilt in such a situation.

 

[Themis]

Can I piggyback, TotallyObsessed on your question please? While the good expert lawyer (s) are answering that can I tag on a further question? Would she still be up on child neglect charges and obstruction of justice charges? Thanks in advance.

Could happen.