Page 53 of 108 FirstFirst ... 3 43 51 52 53 54 55 63 103 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 795 of 1611
  1. #781
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,776
    Whether someone knows right from wrong is important if you are trying to EXCUSE someone's behavior based on insanity. There has been no attempt in this case to argue insanity, or that Casey was so mentally ill she did not know right from wrong.

    If you are merely trying to EXPLAIN why someone is acting strangely--e.g., dancing and partying after one's baby has died through some terrible no-fault accident--it does not matter whether they know right from wrong. That's not the issue. The issue is whether they are "weird" in some way that would explain their behavior for the jury.

    For the penalty phase (which is the same as the sentencing phase), it also doesn't matter if the person knew right from wrong, because it is too late at the penalty phase to be discussing insanity--that's an issue for the guilt phase. At the penalty phase, you are also no longer trying to EXPLAIN the strange behavior in order to get the jury to buy a theory of non-guilt (e.g., an accident theory). The jury has already found the person guilty at that point, so obviously they did not buy your theory. Instead, at the penalty phase, you are trying to get the jury to feel sorry for the person and not give them the death penalty. So you can bring up a true mental illness, a behavioral disorder, abuse that did NOT lead to any behavioral disorder, etc.

    So the only time it matters whether the person knew right from wrong is for an insanity defense. For any other purpose, all sorts of mental deficiencies and disorders might come into play.
    Thanks AZ, crystal clear now- thanks for all you do here to help us understand!


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


  3. #782
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    538
    I realize with the sunshine laws everything is released before trial. But is there anything that we the public wont know that will come out at trial? like maybe something the FBI has?
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth


  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to karengo For This Useful Post:


  5. #783
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,851
    ..at the beginning of closing arguments, cheney said:

    http://www.wftv.com/video/27109199/index.html
    ----march 7/2011---@ 3:00---

    cheney-----..by way of, the parameters of all this, in the event that you, uh, deny any, or all, I guess, uh, I hope not, of our motions, that doesn't mean the end of it."

    "The, the, the content of the statements, and/or recordings, and/or video recordings would still be subject to additional, uh, objections such as relevancy or 403 evaluations and so forth and we will have to somehow deal with that later."
    ..even though their 'Motions to suppress..' were denied----does this mean they'll still be bringing them up throughout trial anyway?
    my opinion...........and i happen to agree with it.....


  6. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to lauriej For This Useful Post:


  7. #784
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,340
    Quote Originally Posted by sumbunny View Post
    03/21/2011 Motion to Vacate
    and in the Alternative Motion for Clarification

    What does this mean?
    I have no idea. You can't tell much from docket entries. All you can tell is that one side or the other wants to vacate something (maybe a hearing on a particular issue?) or in the alternative to clarify something (maybe that the hearing doesn't include that issue?).

    Quote Originally Posted by karengo View Post
    I realize with the sunshine laws everything is released before trial. But is there anything that we the public wont know that will come out at trial? like maybe something the FBI has?
    If the FBI has something that the SA wants to use at trial, the SA will have to disclose it first, in plenty of time for the defense to prepare to respond to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by lauriej View Post
    ..at the beginning of closing arguments, cheney said:

    http://www.wftv.com/video/27109199/index.html
    ----march 7/2011---@ 3:00---

    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]

    Quote:
    cheney-----..by way of, the parameters of all this, in the event that you, uh, deny any, or all, I guess, uh, I hope not, of our motions, that doesn't mean the end of it."

    Quote:

    "The, the, the content of the statements, and/or recordings, and/or video recordings would still be subject to additional, uh, objections such as relevancy or 403 evaluations and so forth and we will have to somehow deal with that later."


    ..even though their 'Motions to suppress..' were denied----does this mean they'll still be bringing them up throughout trial anyway?
    It means that he might still have objections to various statements, videos, etc., in addition to those raised in the motions. For example, the statements made by Casey at jail visits will not be excluded based on the theory that her family members were acting as "agents of the state"...but at trial there might be additional objections based on other theories, including relevance or unfair prejudice (Rule 403).

    "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



  8. #785
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    I just finished reading through Dr. Logan's deposition. (Fascinating read. I think he will be very credible on the stand. Especially the part where he confirms that there was probably a buttload of chloroform, but I digress)

    Given HHJP's order stating that anything not testified about in deposition cannot be testified to at trial. What does that mean in situations where the subject was raised, but the expert did not at that time have a complete answer. As an example the line by line comparisons of chemicals between Dr Vass's work and the greek dude. Since the subject was raised in deposition, and the expert clearly stated that "I don't know offhand, but could sit down and look it up", can he then go look at up and testify to his further findings on it at trial?


  9. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to faefrost For This Useful Post:


  10. #786
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Beaufort by the Sea
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post

    It means that he might still have objections to various statements, videos, etc., in addition to those raised in the motions. For example, the statements made by Casey at jail visits will not be excluded based on the theory that her family members were acting as "agents of the state"...but at trial there might be additional objections based on other theories, including relevance or unfair prejudice (Rule 403).
    RS & BBM -

    But if they object about a lot of these statements (most would be by unfair prejudice, I'd think), won't that just make Casey look bad/worse?

    If I were on the jury and this happened as much as I think it will, I'd really be wondering hard as to what I wasn't being allowed to hear about, KWIM?

    ETA: RE: Discovery turned over in time for other side to research...If the SAO is investigating up until trial as LDB said in a hearing lately (isn't that what she said? lol)...can the defense object if the SAO finds something the day before the trial starts?
    Last edited by Itsy; 03-21-2011 at 11:02 PM. Reason: lost my train of thought & forgot last question...darn 70's oregano! :)
    Did you know that "Dammit, I'm mad" spelled backwards is "Dammit I'm mad" - well, I still am!


  11. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Itsy For This Useful Post:


  12. #787
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,340
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    I just finished reading through Dr. Logan's deposition. (Fascinating read. I think he will be very credible on the stand. Especially the part where he confirms that there was probably a buttload of chloroform, but I digress)

    Given HHJP's order stating that anything not testified about in deposition cannot be testified to at trial. What does that mean in situations where the subject was raised, but the expert did not at that time have a complete answer. As an example the line by line comparisons of chemicals between Dr Vass's work and the greek dude. Since the subject was raised in deposition, and the expert clearly stated that "I don't know offhand, but could sit down and look it up", can he then go look at up and testify to his further findings on it at trial?
    I doubt it. HHJP's order seemed pretty clear to me. Which means JB was probably "confused" by it, and CM "even more so"....

    Quote Originally Posted by Itsy View Post
    RS & BBM -

    But if they object about a lot of these statements (most would be by unfair prejudice, I'd think), won't that just make Casey look bad/worse?

    If I were on the jury and this happened as much as I think it will, I'd really be wondering hard as to what I wasn't being allowed to hear about, KWIM?

    ETA: RE: Discovery turned over in time for other side to research...If the SAO is investigating up until trial as LDB said in a hearing lately (isn't that what she said? lol)...can the defense object if the SAO finds something the day before the trial starts?
    The jury definitely wonders what's being hidden from them, but there will be so many objections from both sides that over the course of a 2-month trial it will seem like a draw.

    If the SAO finds something the day before the trial starts, either it will not be used at trial or the trial will be delayed. Or I suppose both--i.e., if it is something that the SAO does not plan to use but the defense reasonably needs to investigate prior to trial in case it might be helpful to the defense.

    "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


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


  14. #788
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dells View Post
    Regarding a plea deal, of course the state would want to get as much time as possible and the defense team as little time as possible, but in your professional opinion, what do you think would be a fair plea deal to both sides? I know this is going on what we know and there are probably things we don't know that both the defense and the prosecution probably know, but still, what do you think would be a fair plea deal? Also, if a plea deal is reached, how likely would it be that Casey would have to get up in court and admit what she did?
    Quoting myself to bump my question. I think it got lost in the shuffle. Thanks!


  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Dells For This Useful Post:


  16. #789
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    I think you need to examine it from the opposite view point, meaning can the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee intentionally.

    If the State cannot prove that - beyond a reasonable doubt - then the lesser verdict would be either Second Degree Murder, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, or Not Guilty.

    I think that if a jury was having a difficult time finding that the State proved First Degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt they would compromise with a verdict of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child.
    Thank you, you have answered my question without answering my rambling I have asked more of you in the First Degree or Lesser thread, so as not to clog up this thread-If you get a chance to get over to that thread and answer more questions, that would be swell. Once you answer, we will probably circle like sharks on the attack (not personal attack, of course), so I think that might be a better thread if you are interested-Thanks!

    I will ask here: If DominicC were privy to conversations between KC and JB as to where Caylee's body was, can DC's atty/the defense solidly argue that this information was privileged, even if DC's "contract" with JB expired? How/Could you eliminate any testimony by DC as to this scenario? What case law would you cite?


  17. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Just Jayla For This Useful Post:


  18. #790
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,776
    Is the only way to find out how much each defense expert is getting paid, is to ask them under oath?


  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Capri For This Useful Post:


  20. #791
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North
    Posts
    5,965
    Dr H Lee had a few problems with his testimony in another trial. It seems as if Dr Logan had problems with his employment in 2008.Is the SA allowed to bring up these previous troubles, when questioning these defense experts during trial?

    Thank you kindly for all you do to provide education to us all. You are a great teacher, AZ!
    JMO


  21. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Paintr For This Useful Post:


  22. #792
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,211
    Ok here's the the newest motion:

    Motion to Vacate & In The Alternative Motion For Clarification
    http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27276629/detail.html

    This was written by CM but if I remember correctly it was orginally argued by DS. So my question is IF DS had a problem with HHJBP's order why did she not file this...why did CM? Could it be perhaps that she doesn't think CM has a leg to stand on and doesn't want to bring her reputation into it?


  23. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to salvarenga For This Useful Post:


  24. #793
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by salvarenga View Post
    Ok here's the the newest motion:

    Motion to Vacate & In The Alternative Motion For Clarification
    http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27276629/detail.html

    This was written by CM but if I remember correctly it was orginally argued by DS. So my question is IF DS had a problem with HHJBP's order why did she not file this...why did CM? Could it be perhaps that she doesn't think CM has a leg to stand on and doesn't want to bring her reputation into it?
    I remember back when the defense forced HHJS out and got HHJP instead there was a lot of talk of "this would allow them to get a second bite of the apple" on some motions that had gone against them. And it seemed at the time that such a "second bite" was unusual and was only possible because they had forced a switch in judges.

    So how is this motion not an attempt at a similar second bite? and is that normally allowed or if allowed does it ever work. I mean it appears that CM is completely re-arguing something that another of the lawyers had already argued before the court, using different referenced case law? Can they do that? And if they can what is the limit to it to prevent a continuous stream of motions to vacate from the defense?


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


  26. #794
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Dells View Post
    Regarding a plea deal, of course the state would want to get as much time as possible and the defense team as little time as possible, but in your professional opinion, what do you think would be a fair plea deal to both sides? I know this is going on what we know and there are probably things we don't know that both the defense and the prosecution probably know, but still, what do you think would be a fair plea deal? Also, if a plea deal is reached, how likely would it be that Casey would have to get up in court and admit what she did?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dells View Post
    Quoting myself to bump my question. I think it got lost in the shuffle. Thanks!
    Sorry, I thought your question was for RH. He would probably have a much better idea of how these things normally turn out in Florida. My gut instinct is that a 15-year plea would make sense.

    She would not have to get up in court and admit the details of what happened, just that she did, in fact, commit whatever offense she pleas to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capri View Post
    Is the only way to find out how much each defense expert is getting paid, is to ask them under oath?
    You can also ask them to bring their retention agreement and evidence of payment to the deposition, or to produce it separately if there will not be a deposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paintr View Post
    Dr H Lee had a few problems with his testimony in another trial. It seems as if Dr Logan had problems with his employment in 2008.Is the SA allowed to bring up these previous troubles, when questioning these defense experts during trial?

    Thank you kindly for all you do to provide education to us all. You are a great teacher, AZ!
    Only if the "problems" are relevant. In the case of Dr. Lee, for example, IF there was any reason to believe he had tampered with evidence in this case, his "problems" might be relevant. But there isn't. In the case of Dr. Logan, I haven't read the thread, but you'd have to ask yourself whether or not his "problems" cast doubt on his opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by salvarenga View Post
    Ok here's the the newest motion:

    Motion to Vacate & In The Alternative Motion For Clarification
    http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27276629/detail.html

    This was written by CM but if I remember correctly it was orginally argued by DS. So my question is IF DS had a problem with HHJBP's order why did she not file this...why did CM? Could it be perhaps that she doesn't think CM has a leg to stand on and doesn't want to bring her reputation into it?
    Everything that is filed is filed by the entire team and affects the reputation of the entire team. The signature might tell you which office prepared the document, but nothing else. Personally, I have a hard time believing that CM wrote this particular document, which is titled "Motion to Vacate and in the Alternative Motion for Clarification" but is obviously a Motion for Reconsideration. He seems to at least have a basic grasp of procedure, unlike....well...you know who.

    I am quite certain that DS had a problem with the order, because she lost. Also, this was not one of the "throwaway," not-a-leg-to-stand-on motions. It was a decent motion in substance, although it was written so poorly that it was hard to tell.

    "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


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


  28. #795
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,340
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    I remember back when the defense forced HHJS out and got HHJP instead there was a lot of talk of "this would allow them to get a second bite of the apple" on some motions that had gone against them. And it seemed at the time that such a "second bite" was unusual and was only possible because they had forced a switch in judges.

    So how is this motion not an attempt at a similar second bite? and is that normally allowed or if allowed does it ever work. I mean it appears that CM is completely re-arguing something that another of the lawyers had already argued before the court, using different referenced case law? Can they do that? And if they can what is the limit to it to prevent a continuous stream of motions to vacate from the defense?
    The motion, as I mentioned above, is incorrectly titled. It is, in fact, a motion for reconsideration, which is absolutely an attempt at a second bite at the apple and is absolutely allowed, but very rarely works.

    I don't know how it works in FLA, but in AZ the other side doesn't have to respond to a motion for reconsideration unless the judge orders a response, and the judge can just ignore the motion if he/she prefers, until time runs out and it is "deemed denied." So there is not much point in filing one unless you have something good to say.

    Of course, if you titled it a "motion to vacate" instead, the other side would feel obligated to respond...hmmm, maybe the rule is the same in FLA as in AZ.

    "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


  29. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


Page 53 of 108 FirstFirst ... 3 43 51 52 53 54 55 63 103 ... 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
  •