Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[LambChop]

You're right it doesn't have any bearing on it. According to this people can plead the 5th in Civil Lawsuits;

"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it."

See McCarthy v. Arndstein 266 U.S. 34, *40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 17 (U.S. 1924).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_plead_5th_amendment_in_civil_law_suit_deposition#ixzz1bSXi5GMD

Okay, I'll bite. What criminal charges can be brought against her that she hasn't already served time for or found NG by a jury of her peers??? jmo

 

[sleutherontheside]

Please excuse my unsolicited comment.....and understand it is not intended to pick sides or judge. I see a few posts that are possibly being misinterpreted.

WS is such a great place to discuss and share and ALL opinions are welcome and valued. More than once.....I have been "called out" and asked to "back it up" and am always happy to do so when warranted.

I think many many times....issues arise from something as simple as "semantics".

For example... I saw the word "Evidence" used many times and it seemed to bring out some strong feelings. The word "Exhibit" may have been a good one to use.

Just something to consider.....:truce:

Line forms to the left for group hugs.

 

[logicalgirl]

These were the charges against her;

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/275300/

Count Charge Verdict Sentence
1 First-degree murder Not Guilty N/A

2 Aggravated child abuse Not Guilty N/A

3 Aggravated manslaughter of a child Not Guilty N/A

4 Providing false information to a law enforcement officer 4 Guilty 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine

5 Providing false information to a law enforcement officer 5 Guilty 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine

6 Providing false information to a law enforcement officer 6 Guilty 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine

7 Providing false information to a law enforcement officer 7 Guilty 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine
Total sentence: 4 years in prison, $4,000 fine

IIRC, one of the criticisms of the prosecution is that they didn't include lesser charges like involuntary manslaughter.

Oh I see your point - I thought you meant only one charge of capital murder and I was thinking of all the separate versions of it.

 

[logicalgirl]

Please excuse my unsolicited comment.....and understand it is not intended to pick sides or judge. I see a few posts that are possibly being misinterpreted.

WS is such a great place to discuss and share and ALL opinions are welcome and valued. More than once.....I have been "called out" and asked to "back it up" and am always happy to do so when warranted.

I think many many times....issues arise from something as simple as "semantics".

For example... I saw the word "Evidence" used many times and it seemed to bring out some strong feelings. The word "Exhibit" may have been a good one to use.

Just something to consider.....:truce:

Line forms to the left for group hugs.

Yeah well stand by because I think it is going to get worse.

AZLawyer just answered my question to which I say what complete CARP!
Not AZ's answer itself but what is contained in her answer.

I am in a complete rage and am going off for a while to cool off - and it's true - the law really is an a$$.

 

[bayouland]

Yeah well stand by because I think it is going to get worse.

AZLawyer just answered my question to which I say what complete CARP!
Not AZ's answer itself but what is contained in her answer.

I am in a complete rage and am going off for a while to cool off - and it's true - the law really is an a$$.

Thanks for getting an answer.:banghead::furious::furious:

Well, looks like we have our legal opinion and the talking heads on TV knew what they were saying.

This must have been orchestrated by Cheney himself, after years and years of working the system and knowing it inside and out. Perhaps now we know the real meaning behind "the bird" he shot after the verdict.

So, truly the legal system is a joke if you can go in up front and make false allegations against innocent parties and give false reasons for death in a murder trial.

I suppose the system relies on the jury to wade through everything and understand that when the defense makes statements and doesn't prove them, then credibility should not be given. Didn't happen here and there is no plan B.

 

[Steely Dan]

Okay, I'll bite. What criminal charges can be brought against her that she hasn't already served time for or found NG by a jury of her peers??? jmo

I think you misinterpreted that. It says the SCOTUS says that a person can plead the fifth in civil and criminal trials. That's all I was saying. I was wrong about her pleading.

 

[LambChop]

Just my :twocents: on cityslick's comments/questions. First, the 'assumption' that JB was speaking for FCA is not an assumption. He was hired by her as an attorney, he is licensed for practice by the state. He is her voice in the court. Fl State Statutes cover the fact that as an attorney he is bound to represent his client's directives in court, to confer with her regularly, and requires "that the lawyer may not counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" is criminal or fraudulent, and must consult with the client if the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct." In fact, one of the acceptable reasons for a lawyer to leave a case is if the client insists on fraud in their defense. What JB presented was as her representative (or voice) in court. According to law, not assumption.
As for proving TM's contact with FCA, since JB himself was there, met TM and knew they were originally searching for a live Caylee, I'm pretty sure trying to argue that FCA didn't mislead TM will be pretty useless. JB did ask TM not to consult privately with his client, but other than that he voiced no objections. FCA was in and out of his conversations with CA/GA without protesting their assertions. Other than TM's word, there were both his assistant and the Padilla people, GA/CA and her own attorney there witnessing it. I don't know the rules about hearsay in civil cases, but several EquaSearch volunteers heard TM's comments about the map incident, and GA's Ohio friend was there involved in the whole thing. TM's assistant and Padilla's may have overheard the map thing too.

This is the post that answered my question. It quotes Florida law. Thanks

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/FL_NARR_1_02.HTM#1.2:100

 

[LambChop]

I think you misinterpreted that. It says the SCOTUS says that a person can plead the fifth in civil and criminal trials. That's all I was saying. I was wrong about her pleading.

Sorry, Dan, I thought maybe you knew. We know she's just about committed every crime in the book......gone through the 10 commandments at least twice so I'm curious to see why she fears criminal charges for testimony she will give on a deposition. Hey, thanks for trying. lol

 

[MaryAnn]

Thanks for getting an answer.:banghead::furious::furious:

Well, looks like we have our legal opinion and the talking heads on TV knew what they were saying.

This must have been orchestrated by Cheney himself, after years and years of working the system and knowing it inside and out. Perhaps now we know the real meaning behind "the bird" he shot after the verdict.

So, truly the legal system is a joke if you can go in up front and make false allegations against innocent parties and give false reasons for death in a murder trial.

I suppose the system relies on the jury to wade through everything and understand that when the defense makes statements and doesn't prove them, then credibility should not be given. Didn't happen here and there is no plan B.

Excuse me if I misunderstood this, but how can the state of Florida sue Casey for monies spent on trying to find Caylee if this is true? I believe it's true, but don't understand how the state can sue then. I'm really confused now.

 

[LambChop]

Excuse me if I misunderstood this, but how can the state of Florida sue Casey for monies spent on trying to find Caylee if this is true? I believe it's true, but don't understand how the state can sue then. I'm really confused now.

Well, I think that was the point we were trying to make. Who would know better than LDB and Judge Perry regarding Florida law as to what JB said in court about knowing that Caylee died from drowning on June 16th. LDB's statement indicated that their understanding was that the story came from KC's mouth. Very difficult for JB to go back now and say, "Well, it was just little story KC and I came up with." The State took it as an omission that KC knew her child died on June 16th. It doesn't matter whether it is the truth only that KC agreed that this would be her defense. JB was obligated to let his client know what he was going to tell the jury. jmo

 

[Steely Dan]

Excuse me if I misunderstood this, but how can the state of Florida sue Casey for monies spent on trying to find Caylee if this is true? I believe it's true, but don't understand how the state can sue then. I'm really confused now.

http://www.wesh.com/r/29195304/detail.html

Casey Ordered To Pay Some, Not All Case Costs
Judge Orders Anthony To Pay More Than $97K
POSTED: 1:45 pm EDT September 15, 2011
UPDATED: 4:26 pm EDT September 15, 2011

...Perry said the costs incurred by the State Attorney's Office were for prosecuting the more serious charges Anthony faced, not the four misdemeanors on which she was convicted.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/29195304/detail.html#ixzz1bT10QK4G

 

[logicalgirl]

http://www.wesh.com/r/29195304/detail.html

Casey Ordered To Pay Some, Not All Case Costs
Judge Orders Anthony To Pay More Than $97K
POSTED: 1:45 pm EDT September 15, 2011
UPDATED: 4:26 pm EDT September 15, 2011

...Perry said the costs incurred by the State Attorney's Office were for prosecuting the more serious charges Anthony faced, not the four misdemeanors on which she was convicted.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/29195304/detail.html#ixzz1bT10QK4G

Well I sort of agree that was what HHJP said - however the reason the State was prosecuting OCA was based on evidence she gave at the beginning of this case..that is the kidnapping, etc. in other words, work done because of her lies...

 

[2goldfish]

Thanks for your explanation, it makes more sense to me. But my question is obviously Casey's explanation of a drowning was never proven, plus she was found not guilty of having anything to do with Caylee's disappearance/murder, so where does that leave TES as to what to prove FCA knew and didn't know at the moment he spoke with her?

apparently from the lawyer's thread AZlawyer says it does not matter what JB said and NG is NOT innocent or proof of drowing, so now I understand even more why OCA does not not not want to do this depo for morgan. it locks her into a lie for TM too.

if she "admits" caylee "drowned" neither goes well for her sure but that's a LOT of money TM could recoup. more than ZG is likely to get.

I guess she'd like to tell morgan that caylee drowned and miller's lawyer than ZFG took caylee. that's not gonna fly.

 

[2goldfish]

I was kind of chuckling in a sympathetic way at your frustration and thinking it's a good thing you weren't around in the early days - a post could be ignored for three or four days if something else bigger was going on or else you'd have eight or ten people saying link? don't agree because..or just plain not agreeing.

Gee, I remember when I said I thought people should give Cindy a break the day she had her testimony about the 911 call, that maybe we were wrong about her completely. And then she proved me so . very. w-r-o-n-g.....ACK! It still gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about it. It was like a deep freeze around here everytime I came on the board and some of my very good friends thought I'd drunk the Koolaid and crossed over. Fortunately most forgave me and except for a few - like my darling MissJames who give me a poke to remind me of my big pratfall when I get too big for my britches - thank god!

Whoops went sideways there - the point being - you can't assume nobody is listening to you - they maybe don't know the answer or are still in "think" mode...not necessarily disagreeing with you.

And as you know perfectly well, a small percentage will always disagree with you - that's a given.

dont feel too bad. I sat here sobbing right along with CA and taking back every mean thought I ever had about her, posters and people in chat tried to set me right and I was like no, no, look how bad she feels and it wasnt too long before she proved me a fool. poor caylee. whyever was she stuck with this family.

 

[cityslick]

I'm glad the AZ clarified some things in the lawyer thread. It's exactly why I think the case is shaky because I didn't think because JB said it = KC said it so at that point it leaves TES in an impossible position to prove that KC knowingly defrauding them.

 

[LambChop]

I'm glad the AZ clarified some things in the lawyer thread. It's exactly why I think the case is shaky because I didn't think because JB said it = KC said it so at that point it leaves TES in an impossible position to prove that KC knowingly defrauding them.

Hard as JB tried he was not able to prove that anyone other than KC knew about Caylee dying. All the evidence points to Caylee being with KC the day she died. Her history will hurt her in court. jmo

 

[2goldfish]

I'm glad the AZ clarified some things in the lawyer thread. It's exactly why I think the case is shaky because I didn't think because JB said it = KC said it so at that point it leaves TES in an impossible position to prove that KC knowingly defrauding them.

unless/until she locks herself into it or something like it for the ZG depo.

 

[NavySubMom]

Please excuse my unsolicited comment.....and understand it is not intended to pick sides or judge. I see a few posts that are possibly being misinterpreted.

WS is such a great place to discuss and share and ALL opinions are welcome and valued. More than once.....I have been "called out" and asked to "back it up" and am always happy to do so when warranted.

I think many many times....issues arise from something as simple as "semantics".
re: bbm.
For example... I saw the word "Evidence" used many times and it seemed to bring out some strong feelings. The word "Exhibit" may have been a good one to use.

Just something to consider.....:truce:

Line forms to the left for group hugs.

Thanks, but I'll use the word "evidence" because that is what it was, those photos were admitted by JP and presented at trial, without objection by the State, to try to convince the jury that Caylee drowned. No matter how ridiculous those photos were, they were considered "evidence" for trial purposes, which is what I was trying to say. Here are some links. MOO.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671
evidence
n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e048.htm
EVIDENCE
In law, various things presented in court for the purpose of proving or disproving a question under inquiry. Includes testimony, documents, photographs, maps and video tapes.

Trial evidence consists of:
1. The sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness; 2. The exhibits which have been received into evidence; and Any facts to which all the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.
Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence; Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence; Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that the jurors have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.

and AZLawyer also used the word "evidence" in answer to a question about this matter:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
HHJP was generous in allowing the drowning theory to be referenced in closing argument, based on some pretty thin threads of evidence.

 

[MissJames]

Thanks, but I'll use the word "evidence" because that is what it was, those photos were admitted by JP and presented at trial, without objection by the State, to try to convince the jury that Caylee drowned. No matter how ridiculous those photos were, they were considered "evidence" for trial purposes, which is what I was trying to say. Here are some links. MOO.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671
evidence
n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e048.htm
EVIDENCE
In law, various things presented in court for the purpose of proving or disproving a question under inquiry. Includes testimony, documents, photographs, maps and video tapes.

Trial evidence consists of:
1. The sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness; 2. The exhibits which have been received into evidence; and Any facts to which all the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.
Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence; Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence; Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that the jurors have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.

and AZLawyer also used the word "evidence" in answer to a question about this matter:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
HHJP was generous in allowing the drowning theory to be referenced in closing argument, based on some pretty thin threads of evidence.

It was introduced as evidence ,but what was it evidence of ? Nothing,IMO

 

[MissJames]

I'm glad the AZ clarified some things in the lawyer thread. It's exactly why I think the case is shaky because I didn't think because JB said it = KC said it so at that point it leaves TES in an impossible position to prove that KC knowingly defrauding them.

So what if it's shaky? The courts are full of shaky lawsuits. If it continues to create an environment in which Casey is forced to confront what she did,then good!
We know everything Casey has said publicly so far has been lies. She SHOULD have to answer questions .Her child is dead and she has yet to tell the truth of what happened to Caylee.If it wasn't drowning,then what? Some other accident? Why not use that at trial?

If TM's lawsuit ,ZG's lawsuit and anyone else who chooses to go after her,forces her to speak about Caylee, then a tiny bit of justice happens,IMO. It will never be enough,but it's something. A lot of good people were caught up in Casey's evil ,twisted world. Payback time and it's all legal.

ETA: A very large number of people thought Casey's defense was shaky. Anything's possible.JMO