Page 68 of 68 FirstFirst ... 185859606162636465666768
Results 1,676 to 1,698 of 1698

Thread: Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

  1. #1676
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by LolaMoon08 View Post
    If you were JA and LDB would you ask that all witnesses be gagged during the trial? Do you think, in a case like this, that a gag order during trial would make sure things run smoother?
    Since the jury will be sequestered, I'm not sure I would care very much. But I'm a big free speech person.

    "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. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  3. #1677
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL area
    Posts
    2,433
    Skipping ahead to post trial (and conviction). If KC gets someone willing to appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel, would that term cover the whole defense team? Can one attorney (Baez) be singled out or does the whole defense team come under fire in that kind of appeal?
    Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
    Euripides

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Macushla For This Useful Post:


  5. #1678
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Macushla View Post
    Skipping ahead to post trial (and conviction). If KC gets someone willing to appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel, would that term cover the whole defense team? Can one attorney (Baez) be singled out or does the whole defense team come under fire in that kind of appeal?
    Even if one person is alleged to have been the main "ineffective counsel," the others are accused of ineffectiveness in not doing something about it.

    "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


  6. #1679
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    13,902
    As much as I am askeered to even type this out, here goes -

    Suppose the defense never turns over the expert discovery as ordered and HHJP is pretty much forced (per the FRCP) to exclude them...

    Would Casey have a decent appellate issue then for ineffective counsel? (on the grounds that her attorneys refused to comply with a court order)
    Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.

  7. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to beach For This Useful Post:


  8. #1680
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by 'Beach View Post
    As much as I am askeered to even type this out, here goes -

    Suppose the defense never turns over the expert discovery as ordered and HHJP is pretty much forced (per the FRCP) to exclude them...

    Would Casey have a decent appellate issue then for ineffective counsel? (on the grounds that her attorneys refused to comply with a court order)
    Yes. But HHJP would not be forced to exclude the experts. He could impose stricter sanctions and even delay the trial if necessary to make sure that the state got the information it needs.

    "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


  9. #1681
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,819
    Quote Originally Posted by 'Beach View Post
    As much as I am askeered to even type this out, here goes -

    Suppose the defense never turns over the expert discovery as ordered and HHJP is pretty much forced (per the FRCP) to exclude them...

    Would Casey have a decent appellate issue then for ineffective counsel? (on the grounds that her attorneys refused to comply with a court order)
    Sorry, I have to say this. I hope they have good malpractice insurance...
    Last edited by ZsaZsa; 01-12-2011 at 01:12 PM. Reason: typo

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


  11. #1682
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,808
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Yes. But HHJP would not be forced to exclude the experts. He could impose stricter sanctions and even delay the trial if necessary to make sure that the state got the information it needs.
    Also, just fyi, someone posted, yesterday I believe, an interview with Hornsby where he says he believes the Universal Interview would be included, he believes, because KC was not under arrest. Doesn't mean he is right, just posting.

    Also, was reading Lee's prosecution interview and they ask when KC was in the garage "was she free to move around" and Lee responds "yes". So I don't think she was handcuffed. I think her e-mail to Tony saying she was, was probably another lie.

    Thanks.

  12. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Solace For This Useful Post:


  13. #1683
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL area
    Posts
    2,433
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Even if one person is alleged to have been the main "ineffective counsel," the others are accused of ineffectiveness in not doing something about it.
    I have to say, your answer gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside just imagining CM's reaction if someone does file an appeal based on ineffective counsel.
    Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
    Euripides

  14. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Macushla For This Useful Post:


  15. #1684
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,110
    Not a lawyer, but I found this....
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-distri...l/1480146.html

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TotallyObsessed For This Useful Post:


  17. #1685
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    369
    Does this 'Mafia-like' behavior ( sending in a recently retired Judge...as an intimidating factor) and the ensuing Case law mentioned in Cheneys motion, happen often? These veiled threats to our Judges, are they noticed by the Bar? I know they are not direct, but clearly if the fine sleuthers here can figure it out, wouldn't the Bar as well?

  18. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to shotgun09 For This Useful Post:


  19. #1686
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    465
    Speaking of the case law referenced in the motion,(line 2 of the motion) what in the world does it have to do with the sanctions?

    Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

    2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges

    (h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist.

    Thank you.

  20. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to BChand For This Useful Post:


  21. #1687
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by shotgun09 View Post
    Does this 'Mafia-like' behavior ( sending in a recently retired Judge...as an intimidating factor) and the ensuing Case law mentioned in Cheneys motion, happen often? These veiled threats to our Judges, are they noticed by the Bar? I know they are not direct, but clearly if the fine sleuthers here can figure it out, wouldn't the Bar as well?
    Quote Originally Posted by BChand View Post
    Speaking of the case law referenced in the motion,(line 2 of the motion) what in the world does it have to do with the sanctions?

    Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

    2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges

    (h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist.

    Thank you.
    I don't think either of these things were threats. My best guess regarding the presence of the retired judge was that he was being invited to join the pro bono dream team. (And how is a retired judge a threat to a sitting judge? ) My best guess regarding the citation of the disqualification rule instead of the reconsideration rule at the beginning of the motion is that someone used the disqualification motion as a template.

    "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


  22. #1688
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    579
    As Baez took his check in Wednesday (wonder what time he did, lol), does this now make the motion moot? Or will HHJP still discuss it Friday - if he was going to in the first place?
    Did you know that "Dammit, I'm mad" spelled backwards is "Dammit I'm mad" - well, I still am!

  23. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itsy For This Useful Post:


  24. #1689
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Itsy View Post
    As Baez took his check in Wednesday (wonder what time he did, lol), does this now make the motion moot? Or will HHJP still discuss it Friday - if he was going to in the first place?
    No, it's not moot. He can always be paid back if the sanctions are reconsidered.

    "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

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


  26. #1690
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    579
    Thanks - I was hoping that would be the answer
    Did you know that "Dammit, I'm mad" spelled backwards is "Dammit I'm mad" - well, I still am!

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itsy For This Useful Post:


  28. #1691
    Snaz's Avatar
    Snaz is offline "Heavens to Habeas Corpus" ~ Legal Eagle Lion
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sunny Florida
    Posts
    1,176
    AZ, I have a question for you....

    I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."

    If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?

    Is that rule different in every state?

    TIA!!!
    "Judge, Mr, Ashton is laughing at me..... " ~ Jose Baez, Closing Argument 7/3/11 (Paraphrased, of course!)

  29. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Snaz For This Useful Post:


  30. #1692
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaz View Post
    AZ, I have a question for you....

    I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."

    If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?

    Is that rule different in every state?

    TIA!!!
    Has this motion been ruled on yet? (I am way behind.....)

  31. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Kentjbkent For This Useful Post:


  32. #1693
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaz View Post
    AZ, I have a question for you....

    I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."

    If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?

    Is that rule different in every state?

    TIA!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kentjbkent View Post
    Has this motion been ruled on yet? (I am way behind.....)
    I didn't think that motion had been ruled on yet, either. I think her sexual history immediately (maybe up to a couple of months?) before the "disappearance" is relevant to motive, and her sexual history while Caylee was "missing"--particularly within a few hours of the "kidnapping"--is relevant to show that her mental state was not that of a mother crazed with worry but that of a cold-hearted murderer who has been freed of a burden.

    "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

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


  34. #1694
    kaRN's Avatar
    kaRN is offline Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Where the Mayor smokes crack
    Posts
    4,415
    This has been on my mind for a while but the Jan 03 hearing really solidified the concern...

    What happens if during the course of the months leading up to trial, one of the attorneys begins to show strong signs of early dementia and an inablity to focus on and comprehend written and spoken words? Is it the judge who must raise those concerns and have him/her removed from the case?
    I ask because the person with failing faculties usually doesn't have the situational or self awareness to step away themselves.

    Thanks

    Injustice for Caylee Marie Anthony.

    Copyright that Cindy

    Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to get better. It's not. Dr. Suess

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


  36. #1695
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Northern Cal
    Posts
    4,248
    In this early video, Baez states how his client was cooperating with law enforecement (alluding to the interviews by police and Casey's statements now at issue in the motion to exclude them) and that she did not retain counsel until after she was arrested (inferring that she's just an innocent mom looking for her missing child and was aware that she COULD hire an attorney) [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQp_-iEJ5s[/ame]

    Can this be used to impeach Baez during his pre-trial motion when he is now arguing that she was "in custody" and the statements were illegally obtained w/ Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues?

    Or will this just be considered a "defense lawyer doing his thing" and carry zero weight?
    __________________
    Disclaimer: while I have graduated law school and hold a JD, I am not yet licensed to practice. Therefore, if I say anything which could possibly be considered legal advice, or if I explain anything related to legal matters, rules of evidence, legal procedures, or anything related to law, please be aware that I do not yet hold a bar card and we have no attorney/client relationship. Please always, always talk to a personal attorney, and follow their directions. Please also follow the TOS in regards to all unverified posters. Thank you!

  37. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ziggy For This Useful Post:


  38. #1696
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by kaRN View Post
    This has been on my mind for a while but the Jan 03 hearing really solidified the concern...

    What happens if during the course of the months leading up to trial, one of the attorneys begins to show strong signs of early dementia and an inablity to focus on and comprehend written and spoken words? Is it the judge who must raise those concerns and have him/her removed from the case?
    I ask because the person with failing faculties usually doesn't have the situational or self awareness to step away themselves.

    Thanks
    I have seen this happen only once. In that case, the judge ordered the other counsel on the team to take over primary responsibility for the case and to file a report with the Bar notifying the Bar that Mr. X appeared to be no longer able to competently practice law. Mr. X retired shortly thereafter. Sad but necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    In this early video, Baez states how his client was cooperating with law enforecement (alluding to the interviews by police and Casey's statements now at issue in the motion to exclude them) and that she did not retain counsel until after she was arrested (inferring that she's just an innocent mom looking for her missing child and was aware that she COULD hire an attorney) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQp_-iEJ5s

    Can this be used to impeach Baez during his pre-trial motion when he is now arguing that she was "in custody" and the statements were illegally obtained w/ Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues?

    Or will this just be considered a "defense lawyer doing his thing" and carry zero weight?
    Baez can't be impeached because he's not a witness. His "spin" or interpretation of the facts is irrelevant. In addition, it is not inconsistent for all these things to be true at once: Casey's statements were made voluntarily (you could call them "cooperating" if they had been truthful statements), Casey had not retained counsel at the time she made the statements but was aware she could have retained a lawyer, Casey was in custody at the time she made the statements, and Casey's statements cannot be used as evidence due to the failure to give Miranda warnings.

    "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

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


  40. #1697
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I don't think either of these things were threats. My best guess regarding the presence of the retired judge was that he was being invited to join the pro bono dream team. (And how is a retired judge a threat to a sitting judge? ) My best guess regarding the citation of the disqualification rule instead of the reconsideration rule at the beginning of the motion is that someone used the disqualification motion as a template.
    BBM - Glad to hear you say that. I was wondering what magic powers he had also.

    Thank you for your responses.

  41. The Following User Says Thank You to BChand For This Useful Post:


  42. #1698
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,907
    Continue here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125267"]Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2[/ame]

Page 68 of 68 FirstFirst ... 185859606162636465666768

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 on the board
    By Capri in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 04:36 PM
  4. 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
  5. Legal Questions
    By daisy7 in forum Byrd and Melanie Billings
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 09:18 PM

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
  •