Page 4 of 120 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1793
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I don't think she's an ideal witness at all. But if she is really going to say that George told her it WAS an accident (not that he THOUGHT it was an accident), it would be worth it for the defense to bring her in. Of course, IIRC her prior statement to LE was more like he THOUGHT it was an accident--if so, it would not be worth it to bring her in because she will be impeached with the prior statement.



    Aggravated manslaughter of a child, 13-30 years.

    But the defense is working hard to convince the jury of 1st degree murder. They may yet succeed.



    HHJP has the "final say" on the verdict in the sense that he can determine that a guilty verdict is unsupported by the evidence and direct a verdict of not guilty. But really the jury has the final say on guilt vs. innocence. As for the penalty phase, the jury provides a "recommendation" and HHJP really does have the final say.

    HHJP cannot consider information that was not presented in court.



    No. (Short answer because multiple longer answers can be found by searching the lawyer threads. )



    IMO this is an overstatement, but the predictions that JB will lose his license are a drastic overstatement in the opposite direction. Repeated violations of the same order in front of a judge who is already ticked off with you are likely to result in some serious (but not disbarment-level serious) consequences. A fine, perhaps a few days in jail if HHJP hasn't cooled off by then, probably a censure letter from the state bar.
    BBM..... but what good does a censure letter do? He owns/runs/is a partner ?? in his own practice, so not like a boss will suspend him over it. Will his future clients (eg those who have not watched this trial) even know he's got a censure letter? Or care? Can that even really be considered a punishment? I mean a fine hurts in a sort of "ouch! well that bites..." way, like a speeding ticket, but isn't there any way to actually discourage this kind of behavior from attorneys? As M Garagos said - it could as easily be seen as an attorney willing to anger the judge slightly for the benefit of his client, with minimal if any punishment.


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ami For This Useful Post:


  3. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pinellas Park, Fl
    Posts
    439
    I know that this has been asked before, but I can't remember the answer.

    If there is a mistrial, would Casey be required to have a court-appointed attorney, or could she let Baez et al have another go at it?


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


  5. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Have any of your thoughts on the potential jury findings changed with any of todays news? In particular how would you anticipate that he jury would react should it come to light that JB's "drowning in the pool, found by Grandpa" almost perfectly matches the confirmed actual life story of a fellow inmate of KC's? What would the juries reaction be if they percieve that the defendant not only told lies throughout the case, but from the moment of the opening statements was most likely outright lying to them in such a direct manner? Would that be enough to swing the findings up to 1st or 2nd degree murder?

    Also has JB's earlier agressive cross examinations of prosecution witnesses concerning whether or not Caylee drowned opened the door already for the prosecution to bring Ms. Whalens story in?

    And what impact does the existence of AW have on the defense team given JB's opening statements? How does it compare with their obligations to not knowingly declare falsehoods before the court?


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


  7. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    680

    Richard Hornsby criticizes Judge Perry

    This video is from yesterday, June 20.

    I would be interested in hearing to what degree any of our attorneys agree with the points that were made by Richard Hornsby from 1:45 to 3:01.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZNJKzpemw"]Richard Hornsby criticizes Judge Perry[/ame]


  8. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Bullwinkle For This Useful Post:


  9. #50
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,172
    Since both sides of the legal teams seem to try to impeach witnesses it is obvious they mostly want to discredit witnesses testimony to devalue their opposition's arguments. However, I'm just wondering at what point does a witness have to worry about their own impeachment leading to a charge of perjury. How would this occur?
    "Every case is a high profile one for me...that's why I examine the head in every case!"

    Dr. Werner Spitz


  10. #51
    There is lots of buzz in Talking-Head-Land indicating that some of Jose Baez's actions are adding up to a legitimate Ineffective Assistance of Counsel appeal, should ICA be convicted.

    Hypothetically, if an appeals court were to grant such an appeal, are there any repercussions for the "ineffective" counsel? Could a conviction be overturned on those grounds and that inept attorney continue his/her practice with no ramifications?

    Thanks to all who take valuable time out of what are sure to be busy days to patiently share knowledge, talk us off of walls, break things to us gently, set us straight and offer amazing insight!


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


  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,378
    I read about a DP conviction with Judge Perry as the judge some years back where the conviction was overturned and new trial given based on a videotaped interview shown to jury of the defendant being accused by police of committing the murder before he been read his rights, which was deemed inflammatory. In Casey's case, she was basically accused by YM on the video from Universal when he told her he didn't believe her, that Caylee was most likely in a trash can, etc....isn't this very similar? The case was Scott Mansfield.
    Just my opinion, of course.


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cluciano63 For This Useful Post:


  14. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    32
    I'm confused about what happened today with the defense DNA guy. His testimony,as I understood it, was that he's developed the next generation DNA test and, had he been afforded the opportunity, he could have found DNA on such things as the pieces of tape that the FBI could not find. However, he never ran his test. I'm trying to understand what the evidence is as to why he did not run the test.

    I understood Ashton to get the witness to testify on cross that he wanted to run his test, he asked Baez to set it up, and that never happened.

    But, on redirect, I thought Baez asked the witness to confirm that the reason he did not run his test on the tape was that the prosecution somehow prevented it. However, before the witness could answer, Ashton objected and there was a sidebar; and, when trial resumed, Baez went off on another line of questions, never getting an answer to the one he left hanging.

    Am I correct about what happened? If so, why was Baez prevented from getting an answer to his question, whether the only reason he didn't run his test on the tape is that the prosecution somehow prevented him from doing so.


  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BG4pip For This Useful Post:


  16. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by BG4pip View Post
    I'm confused about what happened today with the defense DNA guy. His testimony,as I understood it, was that he's developed the next generation DNA test and, had he been afforded the opportunity, he could have found DNA on such things as the pieces of tape that the FBI could not find. However, he never ran his test. I'm trying to understand what the evidence is as to why he did not run the test.

    I understood Ashton to get the witness to testify on cross that he wanted to run his test, he asked Baez to set it up, and that never happened.

    But, on redirect, I thought Baez asked the witness to confirm that the reason he did not run his test on the tape was that the prosecution somehow prevented it. However, before the witness could answer, Ashton objected and there was a sidebar; and, when trial resumed, Baez went off on another line of questions, never getting an answer to the one he left hanging.

    Am I correct about what happened? If so, why was Baez prevented from getting an answer to his question, whether the only reason he didn't run his test on the tape is that the prosecution somehow prevented him from doing so.
    Will I get in trouble for answering a question asked by the lawyer in the lawyers thread?

    Around Fall 2010 JB wanted to send some items to be tested for touch DNA. The problem was he wanted to send them to the Eikenbloom's un-certified lab in Holland. HHJP shut that down and said he could do all the tests he wanted, but they had to be with a certified lab in the US. The chain of evidence required that the evidence remain subject to the courts jurisdiction I believe was part of it, and either JAC or Florida rules required a certified lab. (I could be wrong on the details of that). I believe that any DNA tests were therefore done at Dr. Barry Logan's lab, which had the capabilities to do the touch DNA. All JB ever sent for testing was the laundry bag and the shorts. So JB's claim today that the state blocked him from having items tested was disingenuous if not an outright lie. The state opposed him sending evidence outside of US legal jurisdiction but made it freely available to any qualified US lab.



  17. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,990
    Mr Thompson's deposition with the defense is scheduled for tomorrow. IIRC, the attorney taking the depo is permitted to ask away liberally during a deposition. If that is true (and I may be mistaken) what is to prevent the DT from making this a fishing expedition? They are pretty desperate about now. TIA!


  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oakley For This Useful Post:


  19. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    473
    I really want the timeline/phone logs/pings of ICA's whereabouts entered into evidence. Here is where I am uneducated. If the state has already rested their case does that mean they can no longer enter evidence? Can they only rebutt the Defense's case? I am really surprised the state didn't lay a stronger foundation of Casey's actions on June 16th. Also a lot if things things that I consider important to the case haven't been discussed. There is a thread about things we wished the Prosecution had entered and many felt in that thread that they state hasn't played their whole hand yet. But..can they now after resting? Can someone please explain how the States final presentation goes legally.


  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to erinleigh For This Useful Post:


  21. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by mombomb View Post
    Could one of our awesome experts please explain what HHJBP could have meant today when he talked about "burden shifting".

    Thanking you in advance
    I think it has to do with the question I posted above, regarding the questions asked by Ashton and Baez of the defense DNA guy concerning the fact that he didn't perform his super duper, better-than-the-FBI's tests on the tape. As I say in my post, I was confused by what happened, but this is my best guess what the judge was referring to.

    In a civil case, the jury is instructed to consider each party's ability to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, the jurors are told they may distrust the weaker evidence.

    That's not an appropriate instruction in a criminal case, because [with few exceptsions, such as cases where the defendant asserts an affirmative defense like self-defense or insanity], the defendant has no duty to provide any evidence. That came to mind as I heard Ashton inquire of the defense DNA witness why he did not perform his test on the duct tape. The only relevance I see in the fact that there exists a super duper test that was not performed is that evidence that coud and should have been presented is not being presented. But here, the prosecution did not offer evidence of an unused super duper test, the defense did, perhaps to support a sort of "rush to judgment" argument, that the prosecution zeroed in on Casey alone and stopped short of looking for evidence that might have exonerated her or implicated someone else.

    I could be wrong, but I think that is the general area the judge had in mind when he talked about a shifting burden. Having offered evidence of the existence of a super duper test that the defendant could have run, did the defense open the door for the prosecutor to show that the defense could have,but did not, perform that test?

    One aspect of this that has be stratching my head is that Baez's question of his expert -- whether it was true that the prosecution prevented him from running the test -- was left unasnwered.


  22. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to BG4pip For This Useful Post:


  23. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    Will I get in trouble for answering a question asked by the lawyer in the lawyers thread?

    Around Fall 2010 JB wanted to send some items to be tested for touch DNA. The problem was he wanted to send them to the Eikenbloom's un-certified lab in Holland. HHJP shut that down and said he could do all the tests he wanted, but they had to be with a certified lab in the US. The chain of evidence required that the evidence remain subject to the courts jurisdiction I believe was part of it, and either JAC or Florida rules required a certified lab. (I could be wrong on the details of that). I believe that any DNA tests were therefore done at Dr. Barry Logan's lab, which had the capabilities to do the touch DNA. All JB ever sent for testing was the laundry bag and the shorts. So JB's claim today that the state blocked him from having items tested was disingenuous if not an outright lie. The state opposed him sending evidence outside of US legal jurisdiction but made it freely available to any qualified US lab.
    Thanks for that useful information. It answers some of my questions. But it raises the question, why not test the tape? That, in turn, raises another question that maybe you can answer.

    Was Baez required to share with the prosecution the results of the tests performed by defense experts? [In civil litigation, the opinions and test results of a party's expert are protected by the work product privilege, and each side has to disclose that stuff only upon deciding to call that witness at trial. So, if I tell my expert to run a certain test, and the results don't fit my theory of the case, I keep those results to myself, and can't be compelled to disclose them.]

    But if Baez was required to share his test results with the prosecution, that might explain why he did not have the tape tested -- he may have reason to believe that any results generated from the test would be incriminating.

    Thanks again


  24. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to BG4pip For This Useful Post:


  25. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    452
    I'm sure this is a stupid question but it's something I was curious about: I read a comment on twitter that JA commited some form of prosocutorial misconduct by stating that Florida has no coyotes; is that correct?


  26. The Following User Says Thank You to back2back19 For This Useful Post:


  27. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by back2back19 View Post
    I'm sure this is a stupid question but it's something I was curious about: I read a comment on twitter that JA commited some form of prosocutorial misconduct by stating that Florida has no coyotes; is that correct?
    To further add - would that be up to DT to recross and clear it up? If JA was wrong and the DT didn't catch it..does that make it fair game?


Page 4 of 120 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 104 ... 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. Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3
    By beach in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1282
    Last Post: 06-20-2011, 07:34 PM
  3. Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2
    By BondJamesBond in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1610
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 09:28 PM
  4. 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
  5. 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

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
  •