Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Spangle]

If you hear your client perjuring him or herself on the witness stand when the opposing attorney is asking questions, you have the following unsavory choices:

(1) Leap up and request a recess to confer with your client (at which point you yell at them in the hallway and tell them to tell the truth);
(2) If that is denied, or your session in the hallway is unsuccessful, leap up and made a motion to withdraw from the case immediately, indicating to the court that you can't say why;
(3) If THAT is denied, you cannot ask the client any questions about the subject matter addressed by the perjury on redirect.

Unfortunately, this makes it really obvious what the lie is.

You only have to do this if you are *sure* your client is lying. The ethical rules do permit a lawyer to resolve all doubts in favor of one's own client.

Are you saying, that only if you have proof that your client is lying? Cause the client might have lied to the Atty and told the truth on the stand. Do lawyers use that 'reasoning' to not act in court? That they are not sure which is the lie? What was told in court, or what was told to them..

 

[Just Jayla]

I don't want to double post, and I want to keep the questions in their topical thread, so I thought I'd ask the lawyers here if they would mind taking a look at the "02/11/10 Defense Objection to Discovery Schedule" thread, there are a few questions there-Thanks.

PS-Mods, if this request would be better suited for a private message, please advise-Thx

 

[Hell's Belle]

Are you saying, that only if you have proof that your client is lying? Cause the client might have lied to the Atty and told the truth on the stand. Do lawyers use that 'reasoning' to not act in court? That they are not sure which is the lie? What was told in court, or what was told to them..

It is theoretically possible that a client would lie to his or her attorney and then tell the truth on the stand.

(There is a also a third possibility that you didn't list, which is that the client lies to the attorney and also lies on the witness stand. This in turn could be divided into two subcategories, one where the story is consistent on and off the stand, and the other where the story from the client varies.)

Keep in mind, however, that the attorney-client privilege has very few exceptions, and so ordinarily telling the truth to your attorney has very few immediate adverse consequences*, no matter what you have done, but telling the truth on the witness stand can frequently have immediate adverse consequences. So the most likely venue, as it were, for a client to tell the truth is in the privacy of the lawyer's office.

The question of what constitutes "proof" to a lawyer's mind that his or her own client is lying is difficult for me to discuss in the abstract, but in my experience the most blatant examples are when I am told contradictory stories on two different occasions about the same event. In that situation, one version has to be a lie. This hasn't happened very often. What I get more often is a question along the lines of, "I have just told you about this bad fact about me that I don't want to come out. If they ask me about this on cross-exam, suppose I just deny it?"

*There can be long-term consequences of telling your lawyer the truth that might be considered adverse. For example, if you tell the lawyer the truth s/he might later refuse make certain arguments on your behalf as unsupportable by the evidence and the law!

 

[The World According]

If it can be proven that the Anthonys knew Caylee was dead while soliciting donations to find her alive, can they be charged with fraud or some other crime?

 

[AZlawyer]

If it can be proven that the Anthonys knew Caylee was dead while soliciting donations to find her alive, can they be charged with fraud or some other crime?

I think it would require a pretty high level of "knowing" she was dead. Even if Dom C found "something" in the woods, I'm sure he didn't have a DNA test run on whatever he found. But if Cindy sent him out because KC had somehow sent a confession to the family through JB, then maybe they could be charged.

 

[lauriej]

I think it would require a pretty high level of "knowing" she was dead. Even if Dom C found "something" in the woods, I'm sure he didn't have a DNA test run on whatever he found. But if Cindy sent him out because KC had somehow sent a confession to the family through JB, then maybe they could be charged.

..sticking with "if's"..

..IF cindy sent dominic out, by way of info from JB----could JB be charged with something ?

 

[AZlawyer]

..sticking with "if's"..

..IF cindy sent dominic out, by way of info from JB----could JB be charged with something ?

It's not a crime to tell your client's secrets, just an ethics violation.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I guess this is kind of a "snarky" question....but what qualifications would an attorney need to become a prime time news legal analysist? I just saw JB on GR giving his legal opinions on the Haleigh Cummings case, among others.

 

[beach]

Question - Since Andrea Lyons is the death qualified attorney and is therefore 1st chair, is her signature required on every motion filed with the court? Or, could JB draft and sign with just his signature?

This is being asked in re. the Motion to Object to SA's request for ex parte. Discussion on the thread Prosecutors new Motion for Private Meeting #2.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I guess this is kind of a "snarky" question....but what qualifications would an attorney need to become a prime time news legal analysist? I just saw JB on GR giving his legal opinions on the Haleigh Cummings case, among others.

I think you would at least need to be articulate, which rules out Baez.
I no longer watch Geraldo, but I would tune in if he would have Kimberly Guilfoyle interview Baez, she is their legal analyst and she is a plain speaker.
Baez would not agree to it though- he is no match for her.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I think you would at least need to be articulate, which rules out Baez.
I no longer watch Geraldo, but I would tune in if he would have Kimberly Guilfoyle interview Baez, she is their legal analyst and she is a plain speaker.
Baez would not agree to it though- he is no match for her.

No no no - Kimberly and JB were actually on together. They were a "team". I was shocked.

Sorry - No more OT here, I promise

 

[ZsaZsa]

No no no - Kimberly and JB were actually on together. They were a "team". I was shocked.

Sorry - No more OT here, I promise

Aaaargh! Are you kidding? She must have sold out to Geraldo...

 

[logicalgirl]

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

So I just read the latest news release Angel posted, and in it is quoted a statement re the prosecutions belief that the duct tape was the manner of death.
Here's the part I really like:

RH says the defense now needs to be careful about RK and the defense statement that RK duct taped his wife because in essence they are agreeing that duct tape was used.

I've ad libbed a bit because I don't know how to copy and paste here, but what do you think about that statement?

 

[AZlawyer]

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

So I just read the latest news release Angel posted, and in it is quoted a statement re the prosecutions belief that the duct tape was the manner of death.
Here's the part I really like:

RH says the defense now needs to be careful about RK and the defense statement that RK duct taped his wife because in essence they are agreeing that duct tape was used.

I've ad libbed a bit because I don't know how to copy and paste here, but what do you think about that statement?

Any attempt they make to raise a "Some Other Dude Purposely Killed Caylee" defense brings with it the risk that the jury will say "ok, we don't buy the 'Some Other Dude' part...but we do buy the "Purposely Killed Caylee'" part."

 

[The World According]

What could be the reason the defense is not asking for Casey to be declared indigent, if indeed she is? How can it possibly serve her to delay the inevitable? Meanwhile...no work on her behalf is being done.

BSheaffer analysis
http://www.wftv.com/video/22593166/index.html

 

[AZlawyer]

What could be the reason the defense is not asking for Casey to be declared indigent, if indeed she is? How can it possibly serve her to delay the inevitable? Meanwhile...no work on her behalf is being done.

BSheaffer analysis
http://www.wftv.com/video/22593166/index.html

If she were declared indigent, I believe she would be provided with court-appointed counsel, and JB and AL would have to exit stage right. On the other hand, if they offered to continue on the case pro bono, I would think they'd be allowed back in...:waitasec:

You know, every time I try to explain JB's "strategy," I come around to the same conclusion: he has none.

 

[Wescott]

If she were declared indigent, I believe she would be provided with court-appointed counsel, and JB and AL would have to exit stage right. On the other hand, if they offered to continue on the case pro bono, I would think they'd be allowed back in...:waitasec:

You know, every time I try to explain JB's "strategy," I come around to the same conclusion: he has none.

As they are already her counsel couldn't they agree to stay on and be paid public defender fees?

 

[ZsaZsa]

I can't think of another case where the Defense Attorney is viewed by so many of his peers as totally clueless... and they do not hesitate to say so. ... and from what I read that is the way he is seen by the Public, too. Another poster here says this is an act, that acting dumb IS his strategy, which I don't believe for a moment, I think he was probably at the bottom of his Law School class..
Since Casey is an adult can her parents even intervene at all to get rid of Baez?

 

[Kentjbkent]

If she were declared indigent, I believe she would be provided with court-appointed counsel, and JB and AL would have to exit stage right. On the other hand, if they offered to continue on the case pro bono, I would think they'd be allowed back in...:waitasec:

You know, every time I try to explain JB's "strategy," I come around to the same conclusion: he has none.

AZLawyer:

I am still trying to understand what will happen if KC is declared indigent in this particular case as opposed to Baez soliciting the court for Deft Atty Due Process Costs later in the case.

In reading over the court docs for the Nilton Diaz (Lake County) murder case, Jose Baez was the retained attorney. After Mr. Diaz was convicted, Baez solicited the court for Deft Atty Due Process Costs, which leads me to believe that the defense "ran out of money" at some point during the case but I do not see a court document where Diaz was declared indigent until AFTER his conviction, but he was declared indigent for purposes of his Request for Appeal (due to ineffective counsel)

DEFT NOT PRESENT FOR MOTION HRG; ATTY JOSE GARCIA PRESENT (VIA TELEPHONE) FROM ATTY JOSE BAEZ'S OFFICE; ATTY BRAD BISCHOFF PRESENT (VIA TELEPHONE) FROM JAC; RE: DEFENSE'S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF ATTORNEY'S DUE PROCESS COSTS: ATTY BAEZ'S OFFICE AND J.A.C. TO GO OVER COSTS IN QUESTION AND SUBMIT PROPOSED ORDER TO COURT.

http://www.lakecountyclerk.org/services.asp?subject=Online_Court_Records

So I am wondering if something very similar will transpire in this case, and wonder if Mr Diaz did NOT have the option of applying for indigent status AFTER he had already retained counsel, so Baez only option was to request the state pay the remaining costs of the trial? (But would assume Baez would be SOL on any attorney fees he claims were due to him?)

 

[ZsaZsa]

Please correct me but I believe Florida does not require a unanimous verdict- my question is how many members of the Jury have to vote guilty for that to be the verdict...?