Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[Fluffy Puppy]

AZlawyer,

Thank you so much for those references, I see what you are talking about, but I also see that the accused in those murder cases was being interviewed/questioned about a murder investigation. There was no murder investigation here. I guss what I am saying is there was no specific or even general crime being investigated here, not yet. They were still in the process of responding to Cindy's 911 call to help find her grandaughter. imo.


In hindsight, Miranda would have been a good idea. But going back to that point in time, it was 12 hours into the situation and I don't think LE could have been expected to reasonably infer this woman would be arrested for first degree murder.

I would respectfully disagree that Yuri might have been torn between suspecting either neglect or murder: at that point he might be thinking the child is hidden, the child was sold, she is covering for someone, there was an accident, she is being threatened, or, what I think is most likely on his mind: "what the H$ll is going on here?" without coming to any conclusion about what crime, if any, had been committed.

In any case, I do get your point and thank you for the education.

 

[Aedrys]

Can the judge take in account that this issue was brought up two and half years after the fact? Shouldn't Baez have pursued this shortly after it happened, not two years later? Or is there nothing to prevent him from waiting until the last minute and then complaining?

I just feel like if this was such a big issue, it shouldn't have been ignored for two and half years.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer,

Thank you so much for those references, I see what you are talking about, but I also see that the accused in those murder cases was being interviewed/questioned about a murder investigation. There was no murder investigation here. I guss what I am saying is there was no specific or even general crime being investigated here, not yet. They were still in the process of responding to Cindy's 911 call to help find her grandaughter. imo.


In hindsight, Miranda would have been a good idea. But going back to that point in time, it was 12 hours into the situation and I don't think LE could have been expected to reasonably infer this woman would be arrested for first degree murder.

I would respectfully disagree that Yuri might have been torn between suspecting either neglect or murder: at that point he might be thinking the child is hidden, the child was sold, she is covering for someone, there was an accident, she is being threatened, or, what I think is most likely on his mind: "what the H$ll is going on here?" without coming to any conclusion about what crime, if any, had been committed.

In any case, I do get your point and thank you for the education.

By "neglect" I mean what you probably mean by "accident" lol.

But for sure he was interrogating her about the crime of obstructing justice. He was saying to her, look, we're trying to investigate a crime here, and you're trying to obstruct us by lying. It doesn't really matter which crime he thought she had committed at that point--or even if he thought someone else had committed the "major" crime and she had committed only the crime of obstruction.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can the judge take in account that this issue was brought up two and half years after the fact? Shouldn't Baez have pursued this shortly after it happened, not two years later? Or is there nothing to prevent him from waiting until the last minute and then complaining?

I just feel like if this was such a big issue, it shouldn't have been ignored for two and half years.

No, it's pretty normal to wait until close to the deadline to file evidentiary motions. The judge isn't likely to decide motions to suppress until close to trial anyway, so there's no point in filing them earlier.

In any event, anyone involved in law or law enforcement would have been aware of this issue as soon as they heard the tape of the Universal interview--I am 100% certain this came as no surprise to the SA. I know we discussed it here at WS immediately after the interview was released.

 

[LambChop]

It doesn't really matter what the reason was--the question is whether, at the times she was giving the statements to LE, KC would reasonably have felt less "free to leave" because of the fact that she had previously been handcuffed. IMO...maybe a little. This (if true) will just be one fact tossed into the mix of facts to determine whether the statements will be thrown out.

But yes, they might have handcuffed her because CA was saying "she stole my car and lots of money." Seems like a reasonable response from LE to handcuff the perp.

I think we will see more facts and allegations come out at what I assume will be an evidentiary hearing (i.e., a hearing with witnesses and exhibits) regarding the statements. For example, IIRC George at some point very early on said that he and Cindy were asked by LE to make sure Casey didn't leave the house that first night. So that will be one more fact thrown into the mix...are you "free to leave" if your parents are told not to let you leave? And will the officers agree that this request was made? If not, HHJP will have to decide whom to believe.

But in defense of LE there was a child missing so they would want to keep in contact with KC so I can see them telling her she needs to be available in case they have further questions. But I guess it all comes down to how KC felt about it. If she were innocent she would think this were true. If she was responsible and felt guilty about her missing child she may feel she was being detained.

 

[AZlawyer]

But in defense of LE there was a child missing so they would want to keep in contact with KC so I can see them telling her she needs to be available in case they have further questions. But I guess it all comes down to how KC felt about it. If she were innocent she would think this were true. If she was responsible and felt guilty about her missing child she may feel she was being detained.

Regardless of how she actually felt about it, if LE told her she was not free to leave, then she was "in custody" and Miranda warnings were required IF LE wanted to ensure that her statements could be used as evidence.

But no one is saying LE did anything wrong by making sure Casey didn't run off--or by handcuffing her, for that matter, if that actually happened. I, at least, am not even saying they did anything wrong by not giving her a Miranda warning. IMO the risk that the statements could not be used was outweighed by the potential benefit of getting Casey to tell where Caylee was.

I'm just saying that they might not get to use some of her statements as a result of these facts. Not because LE should be punished for doing something wrong, but just because you don't get to use the defendant's statements under certain circumstances. Believe me, the detectives were fully aware of the risks they were balancing. IMO it was not wrong for them to say, "OK, let's try to get her to confess to whatever happened. She's a young woman with no criminal background, so she will probably break down and tell the truth, and then we will at least know whether the baby is alive or dead and where she is. If we find out the truth, hopefully there will be enough evidence apart from her statements to convict her of whatever she's done. If she won't tell us what happened, then what difference does it make if we can't use her statements?"

 

[LCoastMom]

But in defense of LE there was a child missing so they would want to keep in contact with KC so I can see them telling her she needs to be available in case they have further questions. But I guess it all comes down to how KC felt about it. If she were innocent she would think this were true. If she was responsible and felt guilty about her missing child she may feel she was being detained.

Or if she were responsible, felt no guilt what-so-ever but someone else came along after the fact and made mention of the cuffs, no Miranda and unlocked door aside, that interview sure sounded like you were being detained/ interrogated/ accused/pushed around by LE - I'll bet she could almost push out a tear just thinking about it.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I don't want to give clues to JB if he reads here :innocent: but if you were representing Kathi Belich what would be doing for her at this point ?

 

[AZlawyer]

I don't want to give clues to JB if he reads here :innocent: but if you were representing Kathi Belich what would be doing for her at this point ?

I would move to intervene for purposes of supporting the State's Motion to Strike the addition of KB to the witness list. I would probably have some things to say about JB's nonsense description of her expected testimony, the journalist's privilege, the 1st Amendment, and actions taken for purposes of harassment and intimidation rather than for purposes of defending one's client.

 

[Macushla]

How much do you think an attorney's personality and/or style in the courtroom affects a jury? I know a juror is supposed to make their decision based solely on the evidence presented at trial, but do you think HOW that evidence is presented affects their final decision? JB does not seem to be the best speaker in the world and I am wondering how that will go down with the jurors.

I guess this relates to Expert Witnesses too. If one side's witness trashes the other side and is superior, arrogant in their answers etc. and the other side is calm, collected, quietly competent, and perhaps even more personable than their counter part, will a juror give more weight to that expert's testimony?

I know I react to different personalities in different ways just in every day occurances, I am thinking that even if I didn't realize it at the time, I would be affected by the personality of the expert and of the attorney for both sides.

 

[AZlawyer]

How much do you think an attorney's personality and/or style in the courtroom affects a jury? I know a juror is supposed to make their decision based solely on the evidence presented at trial, but do you think HOW that evidence is presented affects their final decision? JB does not seem to be the best speaker in the world and I am wondering how that will go down with the jurors.

I guess this relates to Expert Witnesses too. If one side's witness trashes the other side and is superior, arrogant in their answers etc. and the other side is calm, collected, quietly competent, and perhaps even more personable than their counter part, will a juror give more weight to that expert's testimony?

I know I react to different personalities in different ways just in every day occurances, I am thinking that even if I didn't realize it at the time, I would be affected by the personality of the expert and of the attorney for both sides.

The personalities and presenting styles of the attorneys and experts affect the jury A LOT.

 

[beach]

For the life of me, I do not understand why it needs to take 2 months to try this case. Can you shed any light?

 

[AZlawyer]

For the life of me, I do not understand why it needs to take 2 months to try this case. Can you shed any light?

It makes sense based on the current posturing by the defense about the witnesses they plan to call. But we might see that timeline shrink as JB/CM are forced to admit that not all of these people are actually going to be called as witnesses.

That was the estimate just for the guilt phase, right? If it includes the penalty phase, it is more reasonable.

ETA: And keep in mind that picking a jury on this case might take the whole first week!

 

[mac66]

I can imagine JB turning down candidate after candidate. Does
he get a certain number of "turndowns" so he can't prolong the selection forever? Of course, the State would have the same number. I've never followed a case before and am dumb as dirt.
Thanks.

 

[logicalgirl]

I can imagine JB turning down candidate after candidate. Does
he get a certain number of "turndowns" so he can't prolong the selection forever? Of course, the State would have the same number. I've never followed a case before and am dumb as dirt.
Thanks.

Thanks Mac66 - that's a good question for the Legal Thread so AZLawyer can expand for us. I believe HHJP is going to provide some guidelines for questions the SA and Defense can ask, and he said he's going to be timing the question period. I guess it's a little early for a jury selection thread. But I sure will be interested in your answers, AZ.

 

[AZlawyer]

I can imagine JB turning down candidate after candidate. Does
he get a certain number of "turndowns" so he can't prolong the selection forever? Of course, the State would have the same number. I've never followed a case before and am dumb as dirt.
Thanks.

Thanks Mac66 - that's a good question for the Legal Thread so AZLawyer can expand for us. I believe HHJP is going to provide some guidelines for questions the SA and Defense can ask, and he said he's going to be timing the question period. I guess it's a little early for a jury selection thread. But I sure will be interested in your answers, AZ.

Yes, the "turndowns" are called "strikes," and both sides will get an equal number of strikes that they can use for any reason (except, e.g., to get all the minorities off the jury). They will have to show "cause" for any additional strikes.

The "question period" is called "voir dire" (I feel like Black's Law Dictionary here lol), and this is how you get the information that you use to decide which jurors to strike. I am quite sure there will be some haggling over what the prospective jurors can be asked and how long it will take.

 

[FaerieB]

Oh AZ!!! Yoohoo! Can you peruse the State's "Motion for Rule to Show Cause" (http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26942318/detail.html) and advise as to the likelihood that this will be granted? If it is granted, what sort of sanctions/penalties do you feel Mr. Baez will face if he's found in contempt? TIA and for all you do for us!

ETA: And maybe help me understand what it will take before the Florida Bar realizes that maybe he shouldn't be a member.

 

[AZlawyer]

Oh AZ!!! Yoohoo! Can you peruse the State's "Motion for Rule to Show Cause" (http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26942318/detail.html) and advise as to the likelihood that this will be granted? If it is granted, what sort of sanctions/penalties do you feel Mr. Baez will face if he's found in contempt? TIA and for all you do for us!

ETA: And maybe help me understand what it will take before the Florida Bar realizes that maybe he shouldn't be a member.

Oh geez, I just read this and am :banghead:. Baez is confused? What else is new?

IMO HHJP will be irritated for sure. The order was clear, and clearly did NOT say what JB supposedly thinks it said. I have no idea what sanctions might be imposed, though--perhaps monetary sanctions, because HHJP has been working hard not to punish JB in a way that will punish KC and thereby provide an appeal issue for her.

The Florida Bar appears to be very tolerant. :waitasec: But keep in mind that they have to find an ethical violation in order to take action--a lawyer's perpetual "confusion" is probably not sufficient.

 

[Numbers]

AZ - Would you be so kind as to address:

FL Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
[Credit: flitterfuzz at IS]

Please see specifically:

Section 4.4 LACK OF DILIGENCE
Section 4.5 LACK OF COMPETENCE
Section 6.1 FALSE STATEMENTS, FRAUD, AND MISREPRESENTATION
Section 6.2 ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS
and a smattering of my personal wishful thinking -
Section 4.3 FAILURE TO AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (re: selling of photos)

Thank you! :seeya:

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ - Would you be so kind as to address:

FL Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
[Credit: flitterfuzz at IS]

Please see specifically:

Section 4.4 LACK OF DILIGENCE
Section 4.5 LACK OF COMPETENCE
Section 6.1 FALSE STATEMENTS, FRAUD, AND MISREPRESENTATION
Section 6.2 ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS
and a smattering of my personal wishful thinking -
Section 4.3 FAILURE TO AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (re: selling of photos)

Thank you! :seeya:

Thus far, JB might have acted with questionable diligence and competence, but what harm has he caused to KC? (Note that lack of "strategy" is not an ethical violation.) At most, under these standards, he should be admonished.

Re: false statements, etc., I suspect we would also land at the "admonishment" level, as JB would plead "confusion" regarding what his staff told him about the court reporter, what BC told him about the TES documents, etc., and no significant harm has been done.

For abuse of the legal process (I assume you're talking about failure to comply with court orders), it would depend on whether the Bar chose to adopt HHJP's finding that JB's failure to comply was intentional. If so, it looks like suspension might be appropriate (although, again, I can't see much harm done, so perhaps it would be a short suspension?).

I can't remember why the selling of photos was thought to be an ethical violation. Assuming it was a conflict of interest (why, though?), it looks like it would land at the "admonishment" level again.