Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
If during the trial the D/T purposely brings up a matter previously ruled against by the judge,in an attempt to ambush the SA what are the penalties and could this be grounds for a mistrial? Thank you so very much for all you do answering these questions.
 
Does CA's "fabreeze" story on the stand in the recent hearing place her in any direct legal jeopardy? If she is on the stand called by the defense does she have any use immunity? And what are the consequences if her testimony differs from prior? Just how far can the state or court go to screen against obvious bullplop testimony, or prevent it from causing a surge in public investigative spending?

Legal jeopardy for what? It's no crime to spray Febreze, or to say you forgot you sprayed Febreze. :) There would be no "use immunity" that I know of, but there are also normally no consequences for contradicting your prior testimony, except that the jury will tend not to believe you. ;)

If during the trial the D/T purposely brings up a matter previously ruled against by the judge,in an attempt to ambush the SA what are the penalties and could this be grounds for a mistrial? Thank you so very much for all you do answering these questions.

If they say something in front of the jury that the judge has already ruled cannot be raised at trial, that could cause a mistrial. If it is done on purpose the lawyers could be sanctioned--probably monetarily.
 
Legal jeopardy for what? It's no crime to spray Febreze, or to say you forgot you sprayed Febreze. :) There would be no "use immunity" that I know of, but there are also normally no consequences for contradicting your prior testimony, except that the jury will tend not to believe you. ;)

But could the whole febreeze thing come back to haunt her as a willful attempt to destroy or cover evidence? Spraying febreeze is not something the court could take action on. But spraying febreeze to clean the evidence of a murder? did she just finally back herself into that evidence tampering corner that she has danced so close to for so long?
 
Would SA want to limit the A's testimony during trial and therefore limit the cross-examination by defense? And if the A's continued to misstate what was said in their depositions and change their statements to benefit their daughter's case what will happen to them? Is it possible to just play the 911 tapes and let the jury view the videos without the A's testimony about them?
 
But could the whole febreeze thing come back to haunt her as a willful attempt to destroy or cover evidence? Spraying febreeze is not something the court could take action on. But spraying febreeze to clean the evidence of a murder? did she just finally back herself into that evidence tampering corner that she has danced so close to for so long?

I don't think so. Febreze doesn't clean anything anyway, and they'll never be able to prove that Cindy thought the car was a crime scene at the time.

Would SA want to limit the A's testimony during trial and therefore limit the cross-examination by defense? And if the A's continued to misstate what was said in their depositions and change their statements to benefit their daughter's case what will happen to them? Is it possible to just play the 911 tapes and let the jury view the videos without the A's testimony about them?

What would be the point in limiting the cross-exam by the defense? The defense would just call the As as their own witnesses.

Nothing will happen to them for changing their testimony, except that the jury will not believe them.

The As would not be needed to testify about any tapes/videos that are admissible, but they are needed to testify about June 15-16, the 31 days of avoidance, the pickup of the car, Casey's intense reaction to her dad getting near the trunk, the confrontation of Casey on July 15--basically to link all the pieces of the story together.
 
In the closing arguments at trial, who goes first, the defense or the prosecutors?
 
I hope this has not been asked and answered. JP said they only had money thru April. What does that mean EXACTLY? With the money crisis what do you think the likelihood of the State being pressured to offer a deal considering the estimated amount the trial will cost?
 
I hope this has not been asked and answered. JP said they only had money thru April. What does that mean EXACTLY? With the money crisis what do you think the likelihood of the State being pressured to offer a deal considering the estimated amount the trial will cost?

I think he said "we only have so much money to get through April" or something like that. My understanding of what he was saying was that they did not have the money in the budget for April to have his staff work overtime.

There is no chance whatsoever that anyone from the court system will pressure the SA to offer a deal. Others in state government might, I suppose, but obviously they can't make Casey take any deal that might be offered.
 
I think he said "we only have so much money to get through April" or something like that. My understanding of what he was saying was that they did not have the money in the budget for April to have his staff work overtime.

There is no chance whatsoever that anyone from the court system will pressure the SA to offer a deal. Others in state government might, I suppose, but obviously they can't make Casey take any deal that might be offered.

AZ, thank you so much for your response. I wasn't sure what it meant and my heart skipped a couple beats. You are the bestest!!
 
The prosecutors.

Don't most state give the State a rebuttal opportunity and the chance to be last voice as well as they carry the burden of proof? I've seen that in many trials I've watched. TIA!
 
I think he said "we only have so much money to get through April" or something like that. My understanding of what he was saying was that they did not have the money in the budget for April to have his staff work overtime.

There is no chance whatsoever that anyone from the court system will pressure the SA to offer a deal. Others in state government might, I suppose, but obviously they can't make Casey take any deal that might be offered.

I know I'm not a lawyer, but........

Florida's fiscal year runs from May 1 - April 30. They are running on fumes through until May, providing the legislature passes a new budget. Hence HHJP's trips to Tallahassee - fighting for more money in the budget..
 
Don't most state give the State a rebuttal opportunity and the chance to be last voice as well as they carry the burden of proof? I've seen that in many trials I've watched. TIA!

Yes, the SA should get to go first and last.
 
Yes, the SA should get to go first and last.

will baez let that happen? does he have a say? that may make him go crazy! as if their mouths are duct taped shut but only for so long, sadly. he would have all that covered in the media i suppose. sorry, i know this is only a question/answer thread.
 
will baez let that happen? does he have a say? that may make him go crazy! as if their mouths are duct taped shut but only for so long, sadly. he would have all that covered in the media i suppose. sorry, i know this is only a question/answer thread.

No, Baez doesn't have a say in the order of argument. That's just standard procedure. :)
 
As a follow up to Snaz's question about the car - we've seen in jury trials where the jury is taken to the crime scene.

Will the jury be allowed to see and smell the car?
 
AZ, is it correct that the SA always sits nearest the jury box during trials? Is that a standard protocol nationwide, and if so, do you know why?

:tyou: in advance!
 
Hi AZ,

Discussions about the DT strategies and the two threads giving suggestions to both the SA and the DT have prompted my question.

From you experince, is it a common part of a lawyer's general strategy to annoy, bully, and interrupt (on both sides) through manners of objection, obsessive-compulsive habits like pen clicking, and cheap shots, during the hearings while there is no jury, only to change to a softer more likeable person while the jury is seated?

Will we see a drastic change in demeanor from both sides in front of the jury?
 
AZ, is it correct that the SA always sits nearest the jury box during trials? Is that a standard protocol nationwide, and if so, do you know why?

:tyou: in advance!

And piggybacking on ynotdivein's question, would it have anything to do with having the jury both feel a safe distance away from what could be a dangerous defendant, and so the jury could observe the defendant more objectively from a distance. And also, would the rights of the defendant play into this anywhere - such as more privacy to talk to their lawyer, etc. during the trial?

Or is it just a matter of court formality and doesn't represent anything in particular besides tradition? Thanks AZ.
 
Will the jury see KC's written statement (nanny.... dropped Caylee off between.... work... )?

Will the jury see taped interviews - specifically the one where she talks about the Zanny's number being on the other sim card in her work phone, filing the report at Universal re:the phone not keeping a charge, etc.?

TIA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
2,526
Total visitors
2,587

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,963
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top