Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

I am unclear of the FL sentencing rules. Last few days there was chatter of acquittal, Based on some odd, court requested mistrial, dbl jeopardy ? (This was supposedly due to DT antics & backing HHJP into corner on report w/o opinions. I cannot locate my source/lonk. I thought it was Bill S recap video ? I cannot locate it and could be wrong - tmi!)
Is there such a thing as a mistrial leading to an acquittal?
I was also wondering if the charges against ICA are an 'all or nothing' deal.
Meaning, if the DP is reduced to aggravated manslaughter as an example...what happens with sentencing on all of the additional charges? Served consecutively?
Or, if there were a mistrial, what happens to the remaining charges? Would ICA be sentenced for those separately? And, remain in jail awaiting trial on just the murder/DP charge? TIA!
 
It's so nice to have competent lawyers answering our questions. Thank you!

1. What possible remedies could the Florida Bar impose on JB due to his total mismanagement of this defense?

2. If CA wins an appeal based upon incompetent counsel would she remain in prison pending a new trial?

TIA!

1. "Possible" remedies would be anything up to disbarment. But that wouldn't happen based on the facts so far. My guess is a letter of censure.

2. Yes. I mean she could ask to be bonded out but...yes. :)

I am not sure if this is an appropriate question for this thread, but I really want an atty to answer. If ICA was your client how would you handle the fact that she took the bottom of a sweater and knotted it up almost to look like a tank top? Is this not an area would an atty would advise their client that it is not appropriate?

***note this is not a bash it is a serious question****

I would have untied that stupid knot before the jury walked in.

Sorry not trying to blow up this thread but as usual the DT causes way more questions then answers so here goes.. Could the DT really be trying for a mis trial so that some how it would help them actually put together a defense? I just cant think of any other logical reason there would be this many mistakes violation and horrific questions?

Nah, I think it is a combination of JB's inexperience and belief that he is clever, and the rest of the team's disinterest.

Would judge lean more toward LWOP, even if the jury recommends death, as a way of avoiding the automatic appeals that come with a death sentence?

Some judges might. I understand this one does not.

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.

I agree that a censure letter won't hurt JB much. But really, his ethics violations, if any, are not at the level that would justify anything like disbarment.

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?

She could retain Baez as her attorney again, but I bet he'd say no. ;)

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?

I don't know...the part of the story that matches is pretty generic. The child drowns, the grandfather finds the child...anything else? I'm not impressed yet.

That said, IF the SA can rustle up some proof that Casey heard the story, I think the jury would take it as another example of her "tiny nugget of truth in the big lie" MO.

I don't see how JB's cross examination of prosecution witnesses connects with this question, sorry. :waitasec: Probably just tired... ;)

AFAIK there is certainly no evidence or indication that the defense team was aware that Casey might have heard this story from another inmate. Although if she told them about it close to the time period when Casey was in jail with this lady, they must be wondering now...

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.

Richard Hornsby criticizes Judge Perry

The way I read the Florida rules about qualifications of death penalty counsel, the rules apply only to appointed counsel, not to privately retained counsel. So I disagree, based on that reading. OTOH, the rules are not crystal clear, so RH may be aware of some clarifying interpretation of the rules in Florida.

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?

That almost never happens in real life. People commit perjury every day in every courtroom in America--there would be no way to prosecute them all.

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!

Yes, the attorney could continue to practice with no ramifications, although there might be a bar complaint.

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.

The Scott Mansfield conviction was not overturned. The interrogation tape was found to have been improperly admitted but not important enough to justify reversal. I'm guessing we might get the same ruling on appeal in this case.

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!

Well, there are only so many times you can say, "Did you have this number in July 2008? Are you sure? Are you really sure??" It's like a fishing expedition in a dried-up pond. :crazy:

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.

The State can "only" rebut the defense's case, yes. But that doesn't mean they can't enter evidence. They can enter any evidence that rebuts the defense's case.

But I really don't understand what the phone pings would prove anyway.

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?

If it were a fundamental constitutional error, it would be a problem even if the DT didn't object. But I can't imagine that it is a fundamental constitutional error. If there really are coyotes in the area, I'm sure the DT would be allowed to introduce a quick 1-question witness on that point now that the SA has brought it up.

I am unclear of the FL sentencing rules. Last few days there was chatter of acquittal, Based on some odd, court requested mistrial, dbl jeopardy ? (This was supposedly due to DT antics & backing HHJP into corner on report w/o opinions. I cannot locate my source/lonk. I thought it was Bill S recap video ? I cannot locate it and could be wrong - tmi!)
Is there such a thing as a mistrial leading to an acquittal?
I was also wondering if the charges against ICA are an 'all or nothing' deal.
Meaning, if the DP is reduced to aggravated manslaughter as an example...what happens with sentencing on all of the additional charges? Served consecutively?
Or, if there were a mistrial, what happens to the remaining charges? Would ICA be sentenced for those separately? And, remain in jail awaiting trial on just the murder/DP charge? TIA!

Not acquittal exactly, but if there is a mistrial declared over the objection of the defense, then there would not be a retrial. Is that what you mean? But I don't think there's any likelihood of that happening.

All the charges are being tried now. There are no "remaining" charges. So I'm not sure what you're asking.
 
The way I read the Florida rules about qualifications of death penalty counsel, the rules apply only to appointed counsel, not to privately retained counsel. So I disagree, based on that reading. OTOH, the rules are not crystal clear, so RH may be aware of some clarifying interpretation of the rules in Florida.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.112(c): "Minimum Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases" states: "This rule applies to all defense counsel handling capital trials and capital appeals, who are appointed or retained on or after July 1, 2002."

The only way it could be any clearer is if the rule actually bolded and underlined the "or retained" language as I did.
 
I am confused about the rules of "hearsay." If a witness testifies that a person told them something, why is that called hearsay? I always understood that it was not hearsay as long as you say the person told you personally. If I say this person told me so-and-so, that is not hearsay, right? But if I say that someone else tells me something that they were told by a 3rd party, that is hearsay. Please clarify for me, and thanks. Sorry if the question is confusing, I'm not 100% back to normal yet.
 
I'm curious to know what the experts think about this... If Casey had come forward at any point after the initial murder charge and said "Look, I messed up, it was really a drowning, and I tried to cover it up", do you think the state would have accepted a child neglect plea, or would they pressed for a more serious charge, such as aggravated manslaughter?
 
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!

Thanks AZ, but I don't think I asked my question clearly enough.

My question is: Must the questions at the deposition be limited to the phone number or can Jose ask about anything he likes? And if so, just how deep can the defense dig into this VT's personal life during the deposition. Hope that makes sense.

Sorry for the confusion. TIA
 
Would like the opinion of the Lawyers on here, as to their opinion of Jeff Ashton. He is so brilliant and knowledgeable, and wonder if there are many attorneys working for the State, in other areas of the country, that are of his caliber.

TIA
 
If Casey has a mistrial and she gets new lawyers, the state can not use anything JB put forth against her from the first trail in her 2 trial-right-Thank you sorry if ask and answered-I did not see post
 
Not acquittal exactly, but if there is a mistrial declared over the objection of the defense, then there would not be a retrial. Is that what you mean? But I don't think there's any likelihood of that happening.

All the charges are being tried now. There are no "remaining" charges. So I'm not sure what you're asking.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the quick reply! Most appreciated!
I posted with bleary eyes and mind last evening. Let me try to clarify my questions.

The acquittal reply: I think I understand this is a moot point since it would be highly unlikey the court (or SA) would request the mistrial and the defense would object. I believe HHJP has previously either denied DT requests for mistrial and/or informed DT all mistrial requests would be decided upon @ the end of trial portion.

As to the charges being tried now...
Allow me to give you an example of State of IL vs Gov Blago. 1st trial, 24(?) charges. Convicted of 1 charge. Jury hung on remaining 23 counts. Sentencing not being addressed until after re-trial.
Blago recently re-tried for balance of 23 counts. Jury currently deliberating last I knew.

FL vs ICA: Charged on several counts. (Sorry I do not wish to quote all counts & 'get it wrong'!)
My question: Could ICA be convicted on 4 counts of lying to LE, but jury be hung on all other counts?
If so, would the court continue thru sentencing on only those 4 guilty counts? And, then she would be re-tried on balance of charges?
Or, must she be guilty/not guilty/hung jury on ALL counts after jury deliberations?
:tyou:
 
If they decide to take the risk of losing the trust of they jury, would it be allowed for the defense to present a closing statement that completely ignores the premise stated in their opening statement?

Has this ever happened in a court of law?
 
I listened what RHornsby said on the video about DP qualified attorneys in DP cases and that it is essentially Judge Perry's fault that Casey has unqualified lead counsel. However, Casey chose Baez as her attorney and she kept him as her attorney even after the DP came into the picture. Judge Strickland had asked Casey repeatedly if she was satisfied with her representation and Judge Perry has asked her as well.

My questions: What can a judge do if the defendant insists on having their attorney of choice represent them? If the Supreme Court or any other body were to limit DP defenses to only specific attorneys, wouldn't that leave open the argument that defendant was not allowed their attorney of choice?

I agree that CM should be lead counsel for Casey or should at least should take a more active role in her defense but does Judge Perry have authority to order this? And if he does have the authority and executed that authority, wouldn't that open the door for an argument later on (after conviction) that Casey's defense team was somehow structured by the judge and as such went in a direction the defense had not intended, or that Casey had not wanted?

And finally, I assume all potential arguments surrounding Baez not being DP qualified as moot if Casey is convicted but does not receive the death penalty...is that a reasonable assumption?

Sorry if the above is confusing, and if someone else asks these questions while I am typing I will try to delete this post since I have difficulty presenting my questions clearly.
 
This thread is for asking questions of verified lawyers and receiving their answers ONLY. All speculation, discussion and theorizing should be taken elsewhere.

You may copy the lawyer's answer and take it to the appropriate thread, but please don't start a discussion here.

These are our verified lawyers:

Law
AZLawyer
beachbumming
BG4pip
Cybersleuth58
Desquire
Gitana1
Gwenabob
Hell's Belle
Katprint
Miracleshappen
nancy botwin
Rhornsby
Themis
RLynne
SoCalSleuth
GermanePoints
gritguy
Just A Lawyer


Thanks and let one of the mods know if there are any questions!

Salem
 
If they decide to take the risk of losing the trust of they jury, would it be allowed for the defense to present a closing statement that completely ignores the premise stated in their opening statement?

Has this ever happened in a court of law?
The DT can make whatever closing argument it wishes as long as facts supporting that argument are presented at trial. The defense can't just make it up. For example, if no evidence is presented regarding GA sexually abusing ICA, nothing can be said about that in closing. In opening statements attorneys lay out what they expect the evidence to show, in closing they argue the evidence that was admitted. JB may be forced to argue something different in closing if he can't get in evidence that goes to the drowning and/or sexual abuse theories. If JB attempts to argue facts that were not introduced at trial the State can object and the judge will sustain that objection.
 
I listened what RHornsby said on the video about DP qualified attorneys in DP cases and that it is essentially Judge Perry's fault that Casey has unqualified lead counsel. However, Casey chose Baez as her attorney and she kept him as her attorney even after the DP came into the picture. Judge Strickland had asked Casey repeatedly if she was satisfied with her representation and Judge Perry has asked her as well.

My questions: What can a judge do if the defendant insists on having their attorney of choice represent them? If the Supreme Court or any other body were to limit DP defenses to only specific attorneys, wouldn't that leave open the argument that defendant was not allowed their attorney of choice?

I agree that CM should be lead counsel for Casey or should at least should take a more active role in her defense but does Judge Perry have authority to order this? And if he does have the authority and executed that authority, wouldn't that open the door for an argument later on (after conviction) that Casey's defense team was somehow structured by the judge and as such went in a direction the defense had not intended, or that Casey had not wanted?

And finally, I assume all potential arguments surrounding Baez not being DP qualified as moot if Casey is convicted but does not receive the death penalty...is that a reasonable assumption?

Sorry if the above is confusing, and if someone else asks these questions while I am typing I will try to delete this post since I have difficulty presenting my questions clearly.

I am not saying you are wrong, but the only hearing I am aware of where any meaningful inquiry was made by a judge into Jose Baez as attorney was the one made by Judge Strickland at Jeff Ashton's request, and that inquiry was limited to "financial conflicts." (Link to video.)

If you are aware of other instances where a meaningful inquiry was made, please point them out and provide links to the video or articles regarding them and I will review them and let you know if it changes my opinion.
 
I have a question about attorney client privilege. If Jose Baez, either loses his license or decides to no longer practice, would he still be held to hold his tongue. Meaning, what would hold him to it? His license would be gone. Could he go to jail? I keep thinking he knows he isn't going to be a lawyer anymore and is going to write one heck of a tell-all for a whole lot of dough. Is that possible. Hope this makes sense.

I just don't believe anyone can be as clueless without some kind of motive. He did graduate law school, for crying out loud. He can't be a total dunce cap. Can he?
 
IF, JB decides to pull something totally outrageous for the purpose of causing a mistrial, would it work?
 
Mr. Hornsby, can I ask you a hypothetical question?:crazy:

Lets just say that Baez couldn't make it into court on Wed. and asked for you to step in and finish this case. Given his opening statements and what witnesses he has put forward thus far, where would you start? Would you focus on the car? Or would you focus on damage control of the opening statement?

P.S. -Hypothetically you would have to agree to be there on time and ready to proceed.:crazy:
 
I'm curious to know what the experts think about this... If Casey had come forward at any point after the initial murder charge and said "Look, I messed up, it was really a drowning, and I tried to cover it up", do you think the state would have accepted a child neglect plea, or would they pressed for a more serious charge, such as aggravated manslaughter?

I think you have the flesh out the hypothetical a bit because, depending on how she explains the evidence [e.g. duct tape, chloroform, decomposing body in trunk, 31 days of partying], I think there is a good chance prosecution would believe that jury would not believe her
 
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.112(c): "Minimum Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases" states: "This rule applies to all defense counsel handling capital trials and capital appeals, who are appointed or retained on or after July 1, 2002."

The only way it could be any clearer is if the rule actually bolded and underlined the "or retained" language as I did.

It is my understanding that she has been asked repeatedly about replacing Baez and has consistently refused. So my question is how can the court FORCE her to accept another attorney if she doesn't want one even if it is a capital case?

Thank you.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
767
Total visitors
876

Forum statistics

Threads
589,928
Messages
17,927,774
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top