Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AZ could you please explain to me just what the word 'aggravated' adds to a charge. For example, why is aggravated child abuse more serious than just child abuse? aggravated manslaughter more serious than manslaughter?
I know what aggravated means in everyday language, but just what does it mean when used in a legal sense?
Thank you kindly for all your help!
I have a question about 'tampering'. There is tampering with a witness, tampering with evidence. Is there such a thing as tampering with a case - or would that be covered under evidence? If JB let LB make her statements and he knew that she was lying or at the least unreliable, is that tampering with evidence?
Do our legal analysts have an opinion as to what tampering OCSO is investigating? Witnesses or evidence or both at this point?
..is baez aware immediatley as to who filed the bar complaint against him, even if we are not?
..is baez aware immediatley as to who filed the bar complaint against him, even if we are not?
Question about Attorney Client privilege? What actually insures that? Is it simply the lawyers license to practice law, or is there some harsher statutory penalty for violating it? Essentially if JB were to lose his license to practice law, what would then prevent him from opting to write a tell all book? (Because I'm going to guess that it won't be personal ethics)
I have noticed in a few non related cases I have been reading about where the defendent was found guilty of a serious charge, such as murder, when the case was appealed the 'ineffective counsel' card was played every time. This leads me to believe that the ineffective counsel appeal is used quite often in appeals. In apeals for murder convictions, would you say ineffective counsel is claimed often, sometimes, or did I just stumble across rare instances, one after another?
It's a very common argument. IMO the reason it is common is because it is not an argument made through the normal appeal process (although you might call it an "appellate" issue when speaking loosely). Instead, it is made through a separate "habeas corpus" proceeding. So it buys your client a lot more time if you can come up with arguments for two separate "appellate" proceedings.
Doesn't mean you'll win, of course.
ETA: Here's a flow chart to show you why it takes so dang long to get these cases through the system:
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/brokensystem2/images/flowchart.gif
Oh my. Yes. But one can only hope he would have known better. :innocent:
You mean the money she got for selling Caylee's pictures? What kind of accusations were you thinking of? I need more details to answer this one.
Are the numbers in parentheses years? So the average case takes nine years to get through the system? Wow. (Btw, math is my not my best skill, lol).
Twizzlers come to mind.:waitasec:
Also what did ica do for 8 hours a day at his office?
Just wondering.
imo
Question about Attorney Client privilege? What actually insures that? Is it simply the lawyers license to practice law, or is there some harsher statutory penalty for violating it? Essentially if JB were to lose his license to practice law, what would then prevent him from opting to write a tell all book? (Because I'm going to guess that it won't be personal ethics)
Jeez for most people losing their license is a good enough threat, so I've never thought beyond that lol. I suppose you could sue the lawyer for...I don't know...breach of fiduciary duty or something. Or constructive trust to take the profits of the book. Sounds like a fun lawsuit actually, not to sound like CM.
I'm convinced that Casey will get the death penalty, but with all the talk of Baez being such a lousy attorney do you think that she could actually win an appeal for ineffective counsel, or just delay her execution for years? I'm not following all the legal stuff about this case, but that is one thing that is concerning.
What are the implications if the defense legal experts back out? What If Kathy Reichs, Dr. Logan and Dr. Rodriguez get upset because JB is portraying them as people who are not doing what they said they would do (If they did actually say they would testify) and let JB know in no uncertain terms that he should go find another expert because they have had it? Thorw in the fact that Dr. Spitz may not be able to write a report by 3/11, and you have a whole lot of people who suddenly disappear from the Defense Expert list. Are these people important enough to cause a delay while JB looks for replacements, or would the Judge decide that KC can get a fair trial if these experts never even show up in court?
At the time that KC was out on bail and in JB's office all day if they set KC up with an office ID so she could get online would that be an ethics violation on JB's part? If she was set up as staff she might have had the ability to access a firm database. Not saying she did but just the fact her attorney would set something up so she could surf the net. I don't see KC sitting for 8 hours a day doing nothing more than going through pictures of Caylee.
Sorry if this has been asked previously.
But Baez stated something in court yesterday (paraphrasing) Wonder if the State for goes taking the experts depositions. Now with him saying this in court yesterday reminds me that he has not amended his expert witness list of all the experts that supposedly are not going to testify. My question is can these experts (Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. John Leeson, Dr. Michael Freeman) who Baez/Mason has in pleadings and in court say that they are not going to testify come to trial and testify for the defense? TIA
BBM
Okay! Going a step further with this, let's assume that KC is found guilty, JB is disbarred, and then JB does indeed write a tell-all book, with all of the juicy details about what she did when she was out, how they spent their days, their personal relationship, (Wait! Hold on! I have vomit rising in my throat! Hang on! :sick Whew! Anyway, he tells all of the things that would normally fall under ACP because these are the things that would make for a big-selling book. Since KC has been found guilty, could she sue him for the profits of the book about her crime even if she were suing under the guise of breach of duty? KWIM? Even though she was suing for breach, she would still be receiving monies that were had because of the crime she committed. What do you think?
This is a tough one (for HHJP). He doesn't want to create appellate issues, but he doesn't want to go back on his word either. I think he'll probably address each expert separately and may issue different rulings depending on the specific reasons for the failure to obtain reports from each of them.