Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[Dignity4Victims]

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

Well, I didn't say it was a good reason, or an upstanding reason; quite the opposite in fact which is why I included the "deceitful" intent.

I think George expected this to be asked because he was previously coached on the answer, (along with the drama), and Baez has an intended use for it somewhere down the road.

You don't think Baez had some smarmy reason for making sure that George's answer was put on the record? I thought that was the obvious part, and the only part that most understood! lol

 

[AZlawyer]

Well, I didn't say it was a good reason, or an upstanding reason; quite the opposite in fact which is why I included the "deceitful" intent.

I think George expected this to be asked because he was previously coached on the answer, (along with the drama), and Baez has an intended use for it somewhere down the road.

You don't think Baez had some smarmy reason for making sure that George's answer was put on the record? I thought that was the obvious part, and the only part that most understood! lol

The thing is, the point that Baez seemed to be making is that George would do WHATEVER BAEZ ASKED HIM TO DO--e.g., lie or ignore a subpoena--if he thought it would help Casey. So George's answers don't just make him look like a liar (which might have been helpful to the defense, because George's testimony will be used by the State)--they make him look like a person who will lie ONLY FOR THE DEFENSE but certainly not for the State.

So, now, if George says, "Casey never raised her voice or her hand to Caylee, not one time," the jury will say, "oh, well, but he admitted he would lie for his daughter, so we can disregard that."

But if George says, "I hate to say it, but the car smelled like human decomp," then the jury will say, "Oh my gosh, even though he's willing to lie for his daughter, he felt compelled to tell the truth about that smell. It must have really affected him."

 

[NavySubMom]

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.



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.



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.

AZ, Thanks, I see what you are saying, but I just find it mind boggling that they will go with sexual abuse. So was Baez's question to George about "he will do anything to save his daughter......", so will he agree to sexual abuse to save his daughter? I still think they can just say that ICA is a liar, has always been a liar, made up Zanny before the "death accident" just to keep her parents off of her back, she is just a LIAR, but once the "death accident" happened, she BELIEVED she really gave her daughter to Zanny and Zanny took her and still has her, that the mind is a credible instrument that can believe anything when things that are just too traumatic happen. that is what really happened, she totally blocked out the "death accident", I just think they can still go with this. or, as I said, will George say he abused Caylee at trial, as he will do ANYTHING, to save his daughter and get out off scott free??? This case is just too bizarre for me to even be typing these scenarios!!

 

[ThinkTank]

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.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27068800/index.html
RAW VIDEO: George Anthony Back On...
Part Five - George testimony - March 3, 2011 Hearing

(21:43) Baez: Mr. Anthony, you loved grandaughter more than anything in the world - yes [crying]
Baez: and you would have done anything to help find her - yes
Baez: and you love your daughter more than anything in the world - yes
Baez: and you would do anything to protect her - yes
Baez: she is your baby? yes [crying]

(22:20) Baez: now, if I gave you the hypothetical sir, and said if you don't show up to court next Wednesday, and I'm not telling you not to show up to court, it would save your daughter's life - would you show up to court?
George: could you ask me that again.... I'm sorry ....

Baez: sure ... if I gave you a hypothetical, and I'm just doing that ....
Burdick: I'm going to object to the hypothetical - immaterial to the proceeding - whether or not Mr. Anthony is as an agent of state in a specific timeframe
Baez: ...this ....
Judge: just a second ... let him finish the question ... Mr. Anthony, prior to you answering the question, give Mrs. Drane an opportunity to object -- ask your question counsellor
[Mason has hand on KC shoulder]

Baez: if we had court next Wednesday, and this is a hypothetical OK, and I told you, it would save your daughter's life if you did not show up for court, would you show up?
George: if it is gonna save my daughter's life, I would not be here
Burdick: your Honor, again, I'm gonna object on the same basis, it is irrelevant and immaterial as to whether or not Mr. Anthony would do something next week, based on instructions from Mr. Baez.
Judge: objection will be overuled - it has relevancy to the witness' believability - he can answer the question
Baez: you can answer the question

(23:44) George: if you asked me to stay away from my daughter's legal proceedings, to not be here next week, and it would help save her life - I would stay away
Baez: even if you were subpoened to do so
George: even if I was subpoened to be here and I knew deep in my heart that it would save her life - I would subject myself to what I have to subject myself to, yes sir
Baez: and ...if I were a law enforcement officer telling you it would save Caylee's life if you went in there and got Casey to talk to them without a lawyer, would you do the same thing?
George: uh, yes, do the same thing ... I'd do it a 100 times
Baez: no further questions

no re-cross

 

[Dignity4Victims]

The thing is, the point that Baez seemed to be making is that George would do WHATEVER BAEZ ASKED HIM TO DO--e.g., lie or ignore a subpoena--if he thought it would help Casey. So George's answers don't just make him look like a liar (which might have been helpful to the defense, because George's testimony will be used by the State)--they make him look like a person who will lie ONLY FOR THE DEFENSE but certainly not for the State.

So, now, if George says, "Casey never raised her voice or her hand to Caylee, not one time," the jury will say, "oh, well, but he admitted he would lie for his daughter, so we can disregard that."

But if George says, "I hate to say it, but the car smelled like human decomp," then the jury will say, "Oh my gosh, even though he's willing to lie for his daughter, he felt compelled to tell the truth about that smell. It must have really affected him."

I agree, and that was the "obvious" part I was talking about. There was no question as to Baez' inquiry of George, and certainly no question as to George's answer.

BUT, do you think Baez was also attempting to draw a very sloppy and totally inappropriate parallel to George's willingness to protect Casey at all costs, in tandem with Casey's willingness to protect Caylee at all costs, thus why she didn't report her missing? That 31 days is the, if not one of the top hurdles for Casey to overcome.

I believe that somewhere, somehow, the DT is still going to shoot for the "kidnapped" story, and this was Baez' way of being able to recall later for the Jury, the fact that a loving, caring parent will go to any and all lengths to protect their offspring.

You think?

 

[ThinkTank]

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

No, nothing officially filed with "possible" Defense witness names ... but a "list/letter" alluded to in the Defense Motion asking to add more witnesses, see (6) Patricia Young ... "While Ms Young's address was lacking from the letter and she was listed as "possible" only, Ms. Young's address has been recently found and information revealed during her deposition has changed her status from "possible" to "necessary."

The Defense has given the State a list of names/in the form of a "letter", listing "possible" Defense witnesses. To date, the State has taken the depositions of approximately 18 of these "possible" witnesses, who have not been officially filed on the Defense Witness List. Dominic is one of these "possible" Defense witnesses.

2011.03.22 Defense Motion Clarifying Motion for Leave For Additional Witnesses
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7480096...ing-Motion-for-Leave-For-Additional-Witnesses

 

[AZlawyer]

http://www.wftv.com/video/27068800/index.html
RAW VIDEO: George Anthony Back On...
Part Five - George testimony - March 3, 2011 Hearing

(21:43) Baez: Mr. Anthony, you loved grandaughter more than anything in the world - yes [crying]
Baez: and you would have done anything to help find her - yes
Baez: and you love your daughter more than anything in the world - yes
Baez: and you would do anything to protect her - yes
Baez: she is your baby? yes [crying]

(22:20) Baez: now, if I gave you the hypothetical sir, and said if you don't show up to court next Wednesday, and I'm not telling you not to show up to court, it would save your daughter's life - would you show up to court?
George: could you ask me that again.... I'm sorry ....

Baez: sure ... if I gave you a hypothetical, and I'm just doing that ....
Burdick: I'm going to object to the hypothetical - immaterial to the proceeding - whether or not Mr. Anthony is as an agent of state in a specific timeframe
Baez: ...this ....
Judge: just a second ... let him finish the question ... Mr. Anthony, prior to you answering the question, give Mrs. Drane an opportunity to object -- ask your question counsellor
[Mason has hand on KC shoulder]

Baez: if we had court next Wednesday, and this is a hypothetical OK, and I told you, it would save your daughter's life if you did not show up for court, would you show up?
George: if it is gonna save my daughter's life, I would not be here
Burdick: your Honor, again, I'm gonna object on the same basis, it is irrelevant and immaterial as to whether or not Mr. Anthony would do something next week, based on instructions from Mr. Baez.
Judge: objection will be overuled - it has relevancy to the witness' believability - he can answer the question
Baez: you can answer the question

(23:44) George: if you asked me to stay away from my daughter's legal proceedings, to not be here next week, and it would help save her life - I would stay away
Baez: even if you were subpoened to do so
George: even if I was subpoened to be here and I knew deep in my heart that it would save her life - I would subject myself to what I have to subject myself to, yes sir
Baez: and ...if I were a law enforcement officer telling you it would save Caylee's life if you went in there and got Casey to talk to them without a lawyer, would you do the same thing?
George: uh, yes, do the same thing ... I'd do it a 100 times
Baez: no further questions

no re-cross

I agree, and that was the "obvious" part I was talking about. There was no question as to Baez' inquiry of George, and certainly no question as to George's answer.

BUT, do you think Baez was also attempting to draw a very sloppy and totally inappropriate parallel to George's willingness to protect Casey at all costs, in tandem with Casey's willingness to protect Caylee at all costs, thus why she didn't report her missing? That 31 days is the, if not one of the top hurdles for Casey to overcome.

I believe that somewhere, somehow, the DT is still going to shoot for the "kidnapped" story, and this was Baez' way of being able to recall later for the Jury, the fact that a loving, caring parent will go to any and all lengths to protect their offspring.

You think?

ThinkTank, thanks so much for reminding us of the context!

Now I see what Baez's "reasoning" was. My mistake was in hearing "Casey" instead of "Caylee" in the final question. Baez's point was that George would do anything to save Casey but also would do anything to save CAYLEE (before he knew she was dead), including acting as an agent of the state to interrogate Casey to get information from her that would save CAYLEE.

So the question in the middle about whether he would violate a court order to save CASEY was totally irrelevant and unhelpful to the point he was making, and will destroy the credibility of anything George says in favor of the defense down the road. :banghead: But the questions about what George would do to save CAYLEE were relevant and helpful to his point (although ultimately unsuccessful) on the "agent of the state" motion.

 

[Katprint]

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.

<respectfully snipped>

George has a history of mental instability and (possible) attempted suicide. Cindy has claimed that she too considered suicide. It is conceivable albeit unlikely that these two drama queens might kill themselves - or maybe a murder/suicide - to defy the subpoenas in a very final way.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[rhornsby]

http://www.wftv.com/video/27068800/index.html
RAW VIDEO: George Anthony Back On...
Part Five - George testimony - March 3, 2011 Hearing

(21:43) Baez: Mr. Anthony, you loved grandaughter more than anything in the world - yes [crying]
Baez: and you would have done anything to help find her - yes
Baez: and you love your daughter more than anything in the world - yes
Baez: and you would do anything to protect her - yes
Baez: she is your baby? yes [crying]

(22:20) Baez: now, if I gave you the hypothetical sir, and said if you don't show up to court next Wednesday, and I'm not telling you not to show up to court, it would save your daughter's life - would you show up to court?
George: could you ask me that again.... I'm sorry ....

Baez: sure ... if I gave you a hypothetical, and I'm just doing that ....
Burdick: I'm going to object to the hypothetical - immaterial to the proceeding - whether or not Mr. Anthony is as an agent of state in a specific timeframe
Baez: ...this ....
Judge: just a second ... let him finish the question ... Mr. Anthony, prior to you answering the question, give Mrs. Drane an opportunity to object -- ask your question counsellor
[Mason has hand on KC shoulder]

Baez: if we had court next Wednesday, and this is a hypothetical OK, and I told you, it would save your daughter's life if you did not show up for court, would you show up?
George: if it is gonna save my daughter's life, I would not be here
Burdick: your Honor, again, I'm gonna object on the same basis, it is irrelevant and immaterial as to whether or not Mr. Anthony would do something next week, based on instructions from Mr. Baez.
Judge: objection will be overuled - it has relevancy to the witness' believability - he can answer the question
Baez: you can answer the question

(23:44) George: if you asked me to stay away from my daughter's legal proceedings, to not be here next week, and it would help save her life - I would stay away
Baez: even if you were subpoened to do so
George: even if I was subpoened to be here and I knew deep in my heart that it would save her life - I would subject myself to what I have to subject myself to, yes sir
Baez: and ...if I were a law enforcement officer telling you it would save Caylee's life if you went in there and got Casey to talk to them without a lawyer, would you do the same thing?
George: uh, yes, do the same thing ... I'd do it a 100 times
Baez: no further questions

no re-cross

I think you all are reading too much into the question itself.

But in context to the purpose of the question, he was trying to establish to Judge Perry how easy it was to manipulate George to assist with his daughter; thus how easily he was placed under the direction of law enforcement.

 

[Bittiness39]

The paper towels that were found in the garbage bag in KC's trunk at the wrecker place (with GA and the wrecker place guy as witnesses)...the same ones covered with the adipocere (so the SA alleges) which is the same adipocere covering the trunk lining (the SA alleges)...would tend to show that ONLY KC tried poorly to clean up after the fact. Would it not eliminate GA as someone the Defense could place the blame on?

All of the evidence leads back to KC. I agree with Hal Boedeker from the Orlando Sentinel in his article this evening...what is next for the Defense...Martians kidnapped Caylee?

 

[chefmom]

"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.

Taking NavySubMom's post and expanding on it. What if they were to say that the accident was so traumatic that KC reverted to a period prior to Caylees birth when she was still employed at Universal, and all of the other info/lies she gave was just a jumble of memories from a shocked mind after such a horrific event? I can see the DT grasping at any and everything possible. I know you have told us before, but do all 12 jurors have to agree or can it be a majority vote?

 

[Imbackon]

Regarding Hal Boedecker article on throwing GA out as a suspect:
&#8220;Sheaffer says George could even go along with this, even going so far as to take the Fifth if he&#8217;s directly asked whether he killed Caylee,&#8221; Sheaffer says Casey could also testify that she was abused and traumatized and that she lied to protect George.&#8221;
My question; isn't it true, you cannot just throw out any suspect out of the blue during trial. After all, wouldn't GA have been asked this question if he was at all a suspect during depositions, police interrogations, maybe the Grand jury? I believe the defense would have to show some sort of cause prior to any line of questioning like this and the SA and Judge could stop any inferences that GA killed Caylee.

 

[AZlawyer]

The paper towels that were found in the garbage bag in KC's trunk at the wrecker place (with GA and the wrecker place guy as witnesses)...the same ones covered with the adipocere (so the SA alleges) which is the same adipocere covering the trunk lining (the SA alleges)...would tend to show that ONLY KC tried poorly to clean up after the fact. Would it not eliminate GA as someone the Defense could place the blame on?

All of the evidence leads back to KC. I agree with Hal Boedeker from the Orlando Sentinel in his article this evening...what is next for the Defense...Martians kidnapped Caylee?

The paper towels would sure help, for the reasons you mention. But they aren't a definite get-out-of-jail-free card for George.

Taking NavySubMom's post and expanding on it. What if they were to say that the accident was so traumatic that KC reverted to a period prior to Caylees birth when she was still employed at Universal, and all of the other info/lies she gave was just a jumble of memories from a shocked mind after such a horrific event? I can see the DT grasping at any and everything possible. I know you have told us before, but do all 12 jurors have to agree or can it be a majority vote?

Hmmm but she was "working at Universal" every day before that too.

The jurors must all agree.

Regarding Hal Boedecker article on throwing GA out as a suspect:
“Sheaffer says George could even go along with this, even going so far as to take the Fifth if he’s directly asked whether he killed Caylee,” Sheaffer says Casey could also testify that she was abused and traumatized and that she lied to protect George.”
My question; isn't it true, you cannot just throw out any suspect out of the blue during trial. After all, wouldn't GA have been asked this question if he was at all a suspect during depositions, police interrogations, maybe the Grand jury? I believe the defense would have to show some sort of cause prior to any line of questioning like this and the SA and Judge could stop any inferences that GA killed Caylee.

I don't know of any requirement that the defense must announce its "bus victim(s)" ahead of time.

George would not have been asked the questions by the State/LE in his depo or interviews, because the State doesn't consider him a suspect.

 

[Wagara]

I asked this is another thread but it's probably more appropriate here...

If GA were to suddenly state "he" killed Caylee, for whatever reason, couldn't the judge declare a mistrial rather than let the trial continue and KC go free?

Wouldn't that preserve the ability for the SA to retry ICA rather than risk double jeopardy?

 

[AZlawyer]

I asked this is another thread but it's probably more appropriate here...

If GA were to suddenly state "he" killed Caylee, for whatever reason, couldn't the judge declare a mistrial rather than let the trial continue and KC go free?

Wouldn't that preserve the ability for the SA to retry ICA rather than risk double jeopardy?

We talked about this a couple of pages back in the context of George screaming his "confession" from the gallery. IMO this would cause a mistrial.

If George said this on the stand, I wouldn't be so sure. But it certainly wouldn't mean that KC would go free. I would expect the State to cross-examine him closely on this issue--did he put the body in KC's trunk? When? What did he tell KC about it? Does he even know where KC keeps her heart stickers? etc.--and then wrap up with his admission that he would do anything Jose asked him to do to save Casey.

 

[Fl Breeze]

GA and CA have counsel representing them in some capacity.

If the defense appears to be going in the direction of accusing GA of sexual abuse and/or complicit in Caylee's death, what would his counsel advise him to do on the stand and would they advise him to get separate counsel from CA to avoid conflict of interest?

Would it be his counsel's job to protect him from these accusations and advise him to be honest with the court and not cooperate in lying or taking the 5th for the defense?

Would his counsel be required to tell the court if they knew he was lying on the stand or would they resign if they knew he would agree to do this for the defense?

 

[LC446]

This might be a bit premature considering we haven't seen the recently filed motions but why would they be filing the motion in reference to Karen Lowe? She testified about the hair banding. Isn't the purpose of Frye to determine whether it is admissable or not? And then in reference to a hearing for Dr Hall's testimony....didn't HHJP already rule that it was going to be admissible? So are they going to request that it not be allowed? Isn't that basically requesting him to reconsider his initial ruling? Hope all that makes sense.

 

[spqr]

We talked about this a couple of pages back in the context of George screaming his "confession" from the gallery. IMO this would cause a mistrial.If George said this on the stand, I wouldn't be so sure. But it certainly wouldn't mean that KC would go free. I would expect the State to cross-examine him closely on this issue--did he put the body in KC's trunk? When? What did he tell KC about it? Does he even know where KC keeps her heart stickers? etc.--and then wrap up with his admission that he would do anything Jose asked him to do to save Casey.

BBM...Could you expand on your reasoning? Because I would have to respectfully disagree. If that was the case, anyone in any murder case could do the same and cause a mistrial all the time could they not?

Would he not be simply ejected from the gallery and/or charged with OGA? Be banned from any future court appearence. An investigation into a claim of that nature would only result in no evidence to support his claim and reaffirm the evidence against KC. I just dont understand the mistrial possibility. Seems too easy of an tactic here or in any other trial.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Cabin girl]

AZ, I have a question regading the autopsy report. The report states "The posterior half of the sagittal suture appears to be in the beginning stages of premature synostosis". From everything I've read Caylee was not born with this defect and the information I have read strongly suggest premature synostosis can be evidence of child abuse. In your opinion will this be brought up during the trial?

 

[Jolynna]

We talked about this a couple of pages back in the context of George screaming his "confession" from the gallery. IMO this would cause a mistrial.

If George said this on the stand, I wouldn't be so sure. But it certainly wouldn't mean that KC would go free. I would expect the State to cross-examine him closely on this issue--did he put the body in KC's trunk? When? What did he tell KC about it? Does he even know where KC keeps her heart stickers? etc.--and then wrap up with his admission that he would do anything Jose asked him to do to save Casey.

In reference to the part of the statement I made bold, something like this happened where I live in 2002.

F Senior, the dad, was the murder defendant. F Junior, his son, had evidence against his father and was supposed to be a star prosecution witness. But, when F Junior got on the stand, instead of testifying against his father, Junior said, "I did it." F Senior was acquitted. F Junior was not charged. Thomas L., the defense attorney,became a defense superstar in my neck of the woods.

If it could happen where I live, why not in Florida?

(In the case I cited Kathy Vroman was the victim.)