Page 43 of 65 FirstFirst ... 333435363738394041424344454647484950515253 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,075 of 1611

Thread: Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

  1. #1051
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by LolaMoon08 View Post
    How likely do you think it is that this trial will be delayed?
    It's really impossible to say whether the trial is likely to be delayed unless and until someone comes up with a reason to delay it. No one has asked for a continuance yet, and HHJP really seems to want to stick with his May trial date.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  2. #1052
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pinellas Park, Fl
    Posts
    437
    TV station WESH states: "Perry did not find Baez in violation of discovery rules, but repeatedly chastised him for not following trial protocol.

    "If somebody gets caught hiding something, one time, they're going to end up paying an awful penalty," Perry warned."

    What would the awful penalty be?

    Also: "Sheaffer even saw defense attorney Cheney Mason make a vulgar gesture toward the prosecutor with his arms." If Judge Perry saw that (I don't think he did), would/could he have done anything in the way punishing Mason?
    Last edited by Joanner; 04-01-2011 at 09:43 PM.

  3. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Joanner For This Useful Post:


  4. #1053
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,560
    Any lawyers care to take a stab at how a jury would view Baez constantly sucking on red bull before he questions a witness, then being as aggressive as he is?

    If that was my lawyer I would be calling a 5 min time out and slapping him stupid. Couldn't believe it today when he continued to pour out his red bull into a plastic cup without stopping despite the judge entering the courtroom.

  5. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to darnudes For This Useful Post:


  6. #1054
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Joanner View Post
    TV station WESH states: "Perry did not find Baez in violation of discovery rules, but repeatedly chastised him for not following trial protocol.

    "If somebody gets caught hiding something, one time, they're going to end up paying an awful penalty," Perry warned."

    What would the awful penalty be?

    Also: "Sheaffer even saw defense attorney Cheney Mason make a vulgar gesture toward the prosecutor with his arms." If Judge Perry saw that (I don't think he did), would/could he have done anything in the way punishing Mason?
    If any evidence is hidden, the first "penalty" would be that it could not be used at trial. Beyond that, there could be monetary sanctions and/or a Bar complaint.

    If HHJP had seen Mason use a rude gesture, my guess is he would have fined him $100, based on his comments in court today.

    Quote Originally Posted by darnudes View Post
    Any lawyers care to take a stab at how a jury would view Baez constantly sucking on red bull before he questions a witness, then being as aggressive as he is?

    If that was my lawyer I would be calling a 5 min time out and slapping him stupid. Couldn't believe it today when he continued to pour out his red bull into a plastic cup without stopping despite the judge entering the courtroom.
    I bet there's a rule against anything other than water in the courtroom. IMO the Red Bull/aggressiveness mix comes across badly. Also the apparent lack of preparation or understanding of testimony.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  7. #1055
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,269
    This is probably a stupid no brainer question but it kept me awake a lot last night...

    If one or more of the defense "experts" are disqualified from testifying...does the DT have to find another...get to find another...or are they just out of luck and how will this play into a mistrial or an appeal?

    and

    It seems like Judge Perry is giving out rope by the mile...I don't think for a minute that he is playing into the DT hands but that he, as judge is firmly in control and just like a fisherman who is letting the fish tire itself he will soon real them in.

    Is that right thinking?
    Sitting. on. hands.


  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Mamabear1963 For This Useful Post:


  9. #1056
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    2,098
    At what point , before the trial,will the state be talking to their witnesses? Will they be rehearsing/practicing with them before the trial starts? If so, who usually would be conducting this? thanks...

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pattymarie For This Useful Post:


  11. #1057
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamabear1963 View Post
    This is probably a stupid no brainer question but it kept me awake a lot last night...

    If one or more of the defense "experts" are disqualified from testifying...does the DT have to find another...get to find another...or are they just out of luck and how will this play into a mistrial or an appeal?

    and

    It seems like Judge Perry is giving out rope by the mile...I don't think for a minute that he is playing into the DT hands but that he, as judge is firmly in control and just like a fisherman who is letting the fish tire itself he will soon real them in.

    Is that right thinking?
    They are out of luck if their experts are disqualified this close to trial. This will not cause a mistrial. On appeal, it will be argued that the experts were improperly disqualified. If that argument doesn't succeed, in a post-conviction relief proceeding (let's just call that an "appeal" too for short ) it will be argued that the defense team provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not getting a better expert. The question will be whether there was some reasonable probability of actually finding a qualified expert who would provide the opinions needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pattymarie View Post
    At what point , before the trial,will the state be talking to their witnesses? Will they be rehearsing/practicing with them before the trial starts? If so, who usually would be conducting this? thanks...
    I don't prepare my witnesses until the night before their testimony--if you do it any earlier, they forget everything by the time they get on the stand. The attorneys should be doing this themselves.

    The prep sessions do involve "practicing" in the sense that you listen to the witness's answer and give both presentation advice--don't talk too fast, don't mumble, don't slouch, don't scowl, etc.--and substantive advice--don't anticipate where the attorney is going and try to answer things that haven't been asked yet, don't offer long explanations for a simple question, don't make jokes, etc.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  12. #1058
    Snaz's Avatar
    Snaz is offline "Heavens to Habeas Corpus" ~ Legal Eagle Lion
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sunny Florida
    Posts
    1,176
    I have two quick questions, please:

    1. Can the State add to their witness list (late - with good cause) a chemist or someone from Proctor & Gamble (manufacturer of Febreze) for rebuttal in the event the defense goes with the 'Febreze caused the chloroform' theory?

    2. Would the State be allowed to have someone testify that at the time of trial the car still smells to help show that garbage would not still stink 3 years after being removed (and that human decomp would)?

    Hope these two questions make sense... and thanks in advance!!!
    "Judge, Mr, Ashton is laughing at me..... " ~ Jose Baez, Closing Argument 7/3/11 (Paraphrased, of course!)

  13. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Snaz For This Useful Post:


  14. #1059
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaz View Post
    I have two quick questions, please:

    1. Can the State add to their witness list (late - with good cause) a chemist or someone from Proctor & Gamble (manufacturer of Febreze) for rebuttal in the event the defense goes with the 'Febreze caused the chloroform' theory?

    2. Would the State be allowed to have someone testify that at the time of trial the car still smells to help show that garbage would not still stink 3 years after being removed (and that human decomp would)?

    Hope these two questions make sense... and thanks in advance!!!
    1. Probably, but it will be up to HHJP.

    2. Yes, this should be allowed.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  15. The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  16. #1060
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,303
    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?

  17. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to faefrost For This Useful Post:


  18. #1061
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    779
    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.

  19. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Whome? For This Useful Post:


  20. #1062
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whome? View Post
    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.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  21. #1063
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,303
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    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?

  22. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to faefrost For This Useful Post:


  23. #1064
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    18,378
    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?

  24. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:


  25. #1065
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    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.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  26. The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  27. #1066
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pinellas Park, Fl
    Posts
    437
    In the closing arguments at trial, who goes first, the defense or the prosecutors?

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joanner For This Useful Post:


  29. #1067
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Joanner View Post
    In the closing arguments at trial, who goes first, the defense or the prosecutors?
    The prosecutors.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  30. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  31. #1068
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Small Town Missouri
    Posts
    1,534
    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?

  32. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SunnyinMO For This Useful Post:


  33. #1069
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnyinMO View Post
    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.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  34. The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  35. #1070
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Small Town Missouri
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    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!!

  36. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SunnyinMO For This Useful Post:


  37. #1071
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    877
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    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!

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to IfIMay For This Useful Post:


  39. #1072
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    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..
    We have enough youth. How about looking for a Fountain of Smart?


  40. #1073
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by IfIMay View Post
    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.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  41. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  42. #1074
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    galactic sector zz9 plural z alpha
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    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.

  43. The Following User Says Thank You to aspiring drifter For This Useful Post:


  44. #1075
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by aspiring drifter View Post
    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.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  45. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


Page 43 of 65 FirstFirst ... 333435363738394041424344454647484950515253 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*
    By Kimster in forum Zahra Clare Baker
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 07-20-2011, 04:04 PM
  2. Replies: 458
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 02:16 PM
  3. Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1697
    Last Post: 01-14-2011, 02:17 AM
  4. Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers on the board
    By Capri in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 04:36 PM
  5. Legal Q&A Answers from VERIFIED Legal professionals only
    By JBean in forum Somer Renee Thompson
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-17-2010, 02:40 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •