Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[logicalgirl]

This is another Dom depo question please AZLawyer. If the SA learned something from Dom in his investigative depo that somehow the DT has raised or "twigged" in these hearings they couldn't use it, right?

So would this new kitchen sink depo be to re-ask Dom a question or two from the investigative depo so they can use that information without releasing the whole secret depo?

I hope that question made sense.. Thx.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Mistrial and do-over!

Considering the fact that George has already testified that he will do anything illegal to help his daughter, I seriously don't doubt for one minute that George and/or Cindy will scream out something to cause a mistrial, so whomever it was that asked the question, it was a good one.

My follow-up question to that is, what penalty do you feel that George and/or Cindy would pay as a consequence for a disruption of this magnitude; a mistrial?

Both yours and Hornsby's opinion, please, since he's in FL.

 

[AZlawyer]

I don't know that this belongs here but... Ok - so my granddaughter lives in Tampa. I've thought about going to visit her and maybe drive up to Orlando for a day or two of court watch. do you think I could get in?

Apparently there will be some kind of lottery system for getting into the courtroom.

Could the fact that Caylee's remains were found with clothes BUT NOT underwear NOR diapers (Lee said she wasn't potty trained and was in diapers still) prove a non-accident? Or at least show that she was changed after her demise? If she had been swimming...wouldn't you expect her to be found in a swimsuit? IMO, she was clearly changed after death. This could totally be why the Defense feels they need a SODDI...

There were pieces of training pants found, so I don't think the SA will attempt to argue that the lack of underwear or diapers proves anything.

This is another Dom depo question please AZLawyer. If the SA learned something from Dom in his investigative depo that somehow the DT has raised or "twigged" in these hearings they couldn't use it, right?

So would this new kitchen sink depo be to re-ask Dom a question or two from the investigative depo so they can use that information without releasing the whole secret depo?

I hope that question made sense.. Thx.

The SA can "use" whatever DC says on the stand that is relevant and otherwise compliant with the rules of evidence. They have disclosed him as a witness--there is no requirement to depose him before they can use his testimony.

Do we even know for sure that it is the State and not the defense that is deposing him??

Also, the investigative interview is not secret. If the SA had recorded it, they would have to disclose it.

Considering the fact that George has already testified that he will do anything illegal to help his daughter, I seriously don't doubt for one minute that George and/or Cindy will scream out something to cause a mistrial, so whomever it was that asked the question, it was a good one.

My follow-up question to that is, what penalty do you feel that George and/or Cindy would pay as a consequence for a disruption of this magnitude; a mistrial?

Both yours and Hornsby's opinion, please, since he's in FL.

IMO there would not be any penalty whatsoever.

 

[Katprint]

Considering the fact that George has already testified that he will do anything illegal to help his daughter, I seriously don't doubt for one minute that George and/or Cindy will scream out something to cause a mistrial, so whomever it was that asked the question, it was a good one.

My follow-up question to that is, what penalty do you feel that George and/or Cindy would pay as a consequence for a disruption of this magnitude; a mistrial?

Both yours and Hornsby's opinion, please, since he's in FL.

IMO there would not be any penalty whatsoever.

I cannot think of anything George or Cindy could scream out that would cause a mistrial. Anything they did - short of attacking and critically wounding one of the prosecutors or defense attorneys or the Judge or Casey - could probably be cured by an admonition to the jury.

If they do anything to try to cause a mistrial, regardless whether they are successful, they will be booted out of the courtroom and will be banned from ever returning except when they must be present to testify on the witness stand. Pretty much like that guy who was ranting about Japan during the last hearing. Plus, if their attempt also constitutes a crime (assault, battery, mayhem, murder, disorderly conduct, drunk in public, whatever) then they could be prosecuted for that although I am not holding my breath considering the evidence tampering and false statements to law enforcement that they have gotten away with thus far.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I cannot think of anything George or Cindy could scream out that would cause a mistrial. Anything they did - short of attacking and critically wounding one of the prosecutors or defense attorneys or the Judge or Casey - could probably be cured by an admonition to the jury.

If they do anything to try to cause a mistrial, regardless whether they are successful, they will be booted out of the courtroom and will be banned from ever returning except when they must be present to testify on the witness stand. Pretty much like that guy who was ranting about Japan during the last hearing. Plus, if their attempt also constitutes a crime (assault, battery, mayhem, murder, disorderly conduct, drunk in public, whatever) then they could be prosecuted for that although I am not holding my breath considering the evidence tampering and false statements to law enforcement that they have gotten away with thus far.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

BBM - I can't thank you enough!

Personally, I am very confident due to various 'reasons' that at the very least George & Cindy will face multiple charges, (possibly Lee too, but less likely), but for obvious reasons, they won't happen until after the trial.

You don't believe they will go totally unscathed forever, do you?

 

[Dignity4Victims]

It was a terrible question. The answer GA gave would not impeach him if he says something to HELP the State--quite the contrary, because that would mean that his willingness to lie to save his daughter was OVERCOME by his need to tell the truth about whatever it is that helps the State.

But if he says anything to help the defense, the effect of his testimony will be evaporated by his statement that he is willing to lie, break the law, whatever to save his daughter.

I would like yours, Katprint's and Hornsby's opinions, please, on why then, Baez asked the question to begin with?

It was asked with purpose, most definitely, but I can't come up with even a "twisted/deceitful" reason for it. :waitasec:

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Sorry for comment/question....GA's statement about "lying....etc" to save KC, or whatever the context was, reminds me of KC's statement to LE about "lying...etc" doing whatever to find her daughter....me thinks GA's been spending a lot of spare time reading all the interviews/documents to prep for that day of questioning and the coming trial. IMO.

So, on to my question....the defense is asking for the Dr. to be an added witness for all the reasons discussed in prior posts....or theoretically he'll be used for that purpose....so, basically, if I'm understanding correctly, she "acted" guilty for something she didn't do.....to put it in a condensed version.

Here comes the confusion....

She and the defense have been saying up to this point that she did NOTHING to Caylee.

The defense is NOW trying to prove KC was "acting guilty" during the questioning by LE because of some disorder or mindset the new Dr. will testify about......Yet, was just "acting happy" during the 31 days, when she was partying with her friends, due to ANOTHER disorder.

Am I getting that part correctly?? (Somewhat rhetorical)

The "zanny" theory has been found to be a lie (big surprise)....so, they're trying to say KC's NOT responsible for Caylee's death, what is this "deed" the Dr. is going to testify about her ACTING "guilty" of???
Again...zanny/babysitter is proven to be a lie....that leaves what/who?? (Rhetorical)


I know you don't have a crystal ball to see what the defense will try to prove, but, is this what the Dr. thing is all about....the defense is NOW going to bring a nanny/babysitter/kidnapper BACK into the mix...and say THEY did something to Caylee for KC to be "acting guilty" of doing....or are they trying to say something she DID do was simply an accident, and she was acting like she did something sinister to Caylee, as the interviews portray??


ETA : I came back because my post seemed simply stupid.....but I can't bring myself to delete it...was going to....but, I just re-read it, and it sounds like such a bunch of bizarre statements/questions/backwards/forwards....all of which reminds me of Abbott and Costello doing "Who's on First"....LOL

I don't think we have ANYTHING to worry about with THIS new defense strategy, IMO.

 

[Katprint]

I would like yours, Katprint's and Hornsby's opinions, please, on why then, Baez asked the question to begin with?

It was asked with purpose, most definitely, but I can't come up with even a "twisted/deceitful" reason for it. :waitasec:

I personally cannot understand why Baez does many of the things he does. I daresay most attorneys cannot.

As far as this specific question to GA, IMO it belongs in the same "really bad question" category as Baez' question to the other (temporary) defense lawyer which could have waived Casey's attorney-client confidential communication privilege as to ALL her communications with ALL of her attorneys.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[ThinkTank]

The SA can "use" whatever DC says on the stand that is relevant and otherwise compliant with the rules of evidence. They have disclosed him as a witness--there is no requirement to depose him before they can use his testimony.

Do we even know for sure that it is the State and not the defense that is deposing him??

Yes, the State is deposing Dominic.
The State put Dominic on the State Witness List ... but he is NOT on the Defense Witness List.
Dominic was given to the State along with other "possible" Defense witnesses [such as Tracey Wollam], who have not yet been "officially" added to the Defense Witness List - not filed with the Clerk, so the State is taking depositions of these "possible" Defense witnesses.

 

[logicalgirl]

AZLawyer, referring to Thinktank's post above, how do we know if the State is deposing DC because he "might" be a witness for the DT?

Do we know if they might be deposing him because they want him as their own witness, regardless of what the Defense is doing or does it "work that way"?

 

[AZlawyer]

I would like yours, Katprint's and Hornsby's opinions, please, on why then, Baez asked the question to begin with?

It was asked with purpose, most definitely, but I can't come up with even a "twisted/deceitful" reason for it. :waitasec:

I think that's the flaw in your reasoning right there. :innocent:

I personally cannot understand why Baez does many of the things he does. I daresay most attorneys cannot.

As far as this specific question to GA, IMO it belongs in the same "really bad question" category as Baez' question to the other (temporary) defense lawyer which could have waived Casey's attorney-client confidential communication privilege as to ALL her communications with ALL of her attorneys.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

ITA.

Sorry for comment/question....GA's statement about "lying....etc" to save KC, or whatever the context was, reminds me of KC's statement to LE about "lying...etc" doing whatever to find her daughter....me thinks GA's been spending a lot of spare time reading all the interviews/documents to prep for that day of questioning and the coming trial. IMO.

So, on to my question....the defense is asking for the Dr. to be an added witness for all the reasons discussed in prior posts....or theoretically he'll be used for that purpose....so, basically, if I'm understanding correctly, she "acted" guilty for something she didn't do.....to put it in a condensed version.

Here comes the confusion....

She and the defense have been saying up to this point that she did NOTHING to Caylee.

The defense is NOW trying to prove KC was "acting guilty" during the questioning by LE because of some disorder or mindset the new Dr. will testify about......Yet, was just "acting happy" during the 31 days, when she was partying with her friends, due to ANOTHER disorder.

Am I getting that part correctly?? (Somewhat rhetorical)

The "zanny" theory has been found to be a lie (big surprise)....so, they're trying to say KC's NOT responsible for Caylee's death, what is this "deed" the Dr. is going to testify about her ACTING "guilty" of???
Again...zanny/babysitter is proven to be a lie....that leaves what/who?? (Rhetorical)


I know you don't have a crystal ball to see what the defense will try to prove, but, is this what the Dr. thing is all about....the defense is NOW going to bring a nanny/babysitter/kidnapper BACK into the mix...and say THEY did something to Caylee for KC to be "acting guilty" of doing....or are they trying to say something she DID do was simply an accident, and she was acting like she did something sinister to Caylee, as the interviews portray??


ETA : I came back because my post seemed simply stupid.....but I can't bring myself to delete it...was going to....but, I just re-read it, and it sounds like such a bunch of bizarre statements/questions/backwards/forwards....all of which reminds me of Abbott and Costello doing "Who's on First"....LOL

I don't think we have ANYTHING to worry about with THIS new defense strategy, IMO.

I don't think the defense will say that her "happy acting" during the 31 days and her "cold acting" during the interviews are due to 2 separate mental disorders--I think they will say that both are due to a dissociative-type disorder that separated her from the reality of Caylee's death.

IMO the best defense theory would acknowledge an "accident" that was completely and entirely not Casey's fault but was covered up by Casey out of fear of her mother's reaction.

Yes, the State is deposing Dominic.
The State put Dominic on the State Witness List ... but he is NOT on the Defense Witness List.
Dominic was given to the State along with other "possible" Defense witnesses [such as Tracey Wollam], who have not yet been "officially" added to the Defense Witness List - not filed with the Clerk, so the State is taking depositions of these "possible" Defense witnesses.

AZLawyer, referring to Thinktank's post above, how do we know if the State is deposing DC because he "might" be a witness for the DT?

Do we know if they might be deposing him because they want him as their own witness, regardless of what the Defense is doing or does it "work that way"?

The problem with the theory that the State is deposing him "because they want him as their own witness" is that they already HAVE him as their own witness, and they already know what he will say because they did an investigative interview. Why would they need a deposition? Generally, you do not depose your own witnesses, unless you are afraid they will die before trial.

ThinkTank, how did the defense disclose these "possible" witnesses? Did they file a "Possible Witness List"? :waitasec:

 

[Solace]

Am I wrong in hearing Judge Perry reply to Ann Finnell (sp) that referring to "state of mind" sounds like she is talking about "diminished capacity". Ann F. replied "not at all" or words to that effect.

My question to you is this. I gleaned from Perry's remark that he would not allow "diminished capacity" and I am assuming because KC was tested and found fit to stand trial?

Another question: If this be the case, how during the penalty phase would the defense be able to bring up a disorder such as a sociopath or the like in her defense, being the result of say sexual abuse.

Thanks in advance.

 

[LambChop]

The problem with the theory that the State is deposing him "because they want him as their own witness" is that they already HAVE him as their own witness, and they already know what he will say because they did an investigative interview. Why would they need a deposition? Generally, you do not depose your own witnesses, unless you are afraid they will die before trial.

ThinkTank, how did the defense disclose these "possible" witnesses? Did they file a "Possible Witness List"? :waitasec:

Is it possible that the investigative deposition had a life of it's own and was headed down the "tampering" path and today's deposition just has to do with KC's case only and does not include questions regarding the parallel investigation?

 

[Joanner]

I cannot think of anything George or Cindy could scream out that would cause a mistrial. Anything they did - short of attacking and critically wounding one of the prosecutors or defense attorneys or the Judge or Casey - could probably be cured by an admonition to the jury.

If they do anything to try to cause a mistrial, regardless whether they are successful, they will be booted out of the courtroom and will be banned from ever returning except when they must be present to testify on the witness stand. Pretty much like that guy who was ranting about Japan during the last hearing. Plus, if their attempt also constitutes a crime (assault, battery, mayhem, murder, disorderly conduct, drunk in public, whatever) then they could be prosecuted for that although I am not holding my breath considering the evidence tampering and false statements to law enforcement that they have gotten away with thus far.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

I think the mistrial was said in the context of George being on the stand and saying he is responsible for Caylee's death, not saying it from the gallery.

 

[NavySubMom]

"IMO the best defense theory would acknowledge an "accident" that was completely and entirely not Casey's fault but was covered up by Casey out of fear of her mother's reaction."
above posted by AZLawyer.....

Question for the attys: This is very probably what they are ultimately going to do, as posted above. however, and I am trying to read through all of these threads to find this scenario mentioned, I am sure this has been asked, or if not, maybe because it is not possible with all of her lies, but what about saying "the actual accident or whatever happened ITSELF was so traumatic, Casey blocked everything about it before and after out of her mind," how people can do that with very traumatic events, and that it did NOT have to do with her upbringing at all or prior abuse, but with the actual even itself. I know someone earlier gave the definition of PTSD, where the person keeps reliving the traumatic scene over and over in their head, etc., but what if the defense will just talk about the actual death event in itself, that is the trauma that she cannot bring herself to deal with, she is blocking the whole thing from her mind due to some mental "condition." or is this not possible because of the lies during a coverup? do you know what I mean? I am sorry if this is confusing or has already been asked. Thank you.

 

[AZlawyer]

Am I wrong in hearing Judge Perry reply to Ann Finnell (sp) that referring to "state of mind" sounds like she is talking about "diminished capacity". Ann F. replied "not at all" or words to that effect.

My question to you is this. I gleaned from Perry's remark that he would not allow "diminished capacity" and I am assuming because KC was tested and found fit to stand trial?

Another question: If this be the case, how during the penalty phase would the defense be able to bring up a disorder such as a sociopath or the like in her defense, being the result of say sexual abuse.

Thanks in advance.

AF's point was that she is NOT making an argument of diminished capacity (which is a different issue from competence to stand trial). But evidence regarding a mental disorder that causes a person to behave in an abnormal way following a traumatic event would NOT be "diminished capacity" evidence--it would, as AF pointed out, be "state of mind" evidence.

Is it possible that the investigative deposition had a life of it's own and was headed down the "tampering" path and today's deposition just has to do with KC's case only and does not include questions regarding the parallel investigation?

Yes, that's possible. Or, as faefrost mentioned in another thread, maybe the SA is just concerned that DC will lie on the stand and wants to get something he said in the investigative interview "on the record" so they can impeach him with it at trial if he veers off-script.

"IMO the best defense theory would acknowledge an "accident" that was completely and entirely not Casey's fault but was covered up by Casey out of fear of her mother's reaction."
above posted by AZLawyer.....

Question for the attys: This is very probably what they are ultimately going to do, as posted above. however, and I am trying to read through all of these threads to find this scenario mentioned, I am sure this has been asked, or if not, maybe because it is not possible with all of her lies, but what about saying "the actual accident or whatever happened ITSELF was so traumatic, Casey blocked everything about it before and after out of her mind," how people can do that with very traumatic events, and that it did NOT have to do with her upbringing at all or prior abuse, but with the actual even itself. I know someone earlier gave the definition of PTSD, where the person keeps reliving the traumatic scene over and over in their head, etc., but what if the defense will just talk about the actual death event in itself, that is the trauma that she cannot bring herself to deal with, she is blocking the whole thing from her mind due to some mental "condition." or is this not possible because of the lies during a coverup? do you know what I mean? I am sorry if this is confusing or has already been asked. Thank you.

The defense will have to acknowledge some level of mental disorder in Casey prior to the incident, due to her invention of Zanny, employment, etc. before that time.

IMO they will be unable to cram her "symptoms" into any known disorder that would be sympathetic to a jury (e.g., "sociopath" is not a diagnosis that will get you a defense verdict!), but they don't need an official diagnosis to present "state of mind" evidence.

 

[rhornsby]

I would like yours, Katprint's and Hornsby's opinions, please, on why then, Baez asked the question to begin with?

It was asked with purpose, most definitely, but I can't come up with even a "twisted/deceitful" reason for it. :waitasec:

I didn't hear the question, but asking someone if they are willing to lie to protect someone is a fairly common question in criminal cases were a friend or family member is called to testify against a loved one.

Reason being is that if the person admits they are willing too, their whole testimony becomes questionable.

 

[AZlawyer]

I didn't hear the question, but asking someone if they are willing to lie to protect someone is a fairly common question in criminal cases were a friend or family member is called to testify against a loved one.

Reason being is that if the person admits they are willing too, their whole testimony becomes questionable.

Hi, Mr. Hornsby. The thing that has us :waitasec: about this one is that Baez was asking GEORGE (a defense witness) if he was willing to lie to save his daughter--and he seemed to think that he was IMPROVING George's credibility by asking the question.

 

[LambChop]

If this becomes an issue with GA or CA, not showing up, will they use their depositions?

 

[AZlawyer]

If this becomes an issue with GA or CA, not showing up, will they use their depositions?

They will be subpoenaed, so they had better show up. I suspect HHJP would order that they be brought to the trial by force if necessary before he would allow their depositions to be used in place of live testimony.

So far, they've always shown up to testify when required to do so.