Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ohiogirl said:
1) "If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure." However, the court may also "prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing
material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause."

And could that portion mean that this "materials and information" may have nothing to do with this case at all?
Click to expand...

No, if it had nothing to do with the case at all, then the information would not be discoverable by the defense, and the State would not have to ask the judge's permission to delay releasing the information to the defense.

They are only obligated to turn over information to the defense that is related to KC's case.
 
JWG said:
As I read the motion, the state says the information and materials are discoverable, and they want to delay their release, not prevent it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think we'll see it eventually.
 
On some of the threads there is a constantly going back and forth about information that the SA or SD has not investigated or so some of us believe. So here is my question, and I guess it is partly because I am a Canuck. Here we know almost nothing until during or after the trial.

If the OCPD or the SA investigate information, people or evidence and find that it is of no value to this case, or is "ruled out" as far as not connected to - are they required to tell us or anyone via Sunshine Laws that this information has been scrutinized?

To me that wouldn't make sense. I can understand they might want to keep notes on their investigation in case it comes up in trial, but to release that "non-evidence" investigation information seems to me to be tedious and of no value.

Could you please comment as to how the laws apply?
 
logicalgirl said:
On some of the threads there is a constantly going back and forth about information that the SA or SD has not investigated or so some of us believe. So here is my question, and I guess it is partly because I am a Canuck. Here we know almost nothing until during or after the trial.

If the OCPD or the SA investigate information, people or evidence and find that it is of no value to this case, or is "ruled out" as far as not connected to - are they required to tell us or anyone via Sunshine Laws that this information has been scrutinized?

To me that wouldn't make sense. I can understand they might want to keep notes on their investigation in case it comes up in trial, but to release that "non-evidence" investigation information seems to me to be tedious and of no value.

Could you please comment as to how the laws apply?
Click to expand...

This is my question too...but more specifically...

If OCSO investigated Roy K. thoroughly, since he is the one who found Caylee's remains, and let's say they didn't find anything bad in his background, does the fact that they investigated him, and to what extent, have to be given over to the defense? Or if, in OCSO's opinion, nothing was found, that would affect the case and trial, are they under any obligation to turn over to defense?
 
What is the process for removing a lawyer from representing a defendant before trial?

Would "conflict of interest" warrant the removal of lawyer?

What happens with the defendant if their lawyer is removed? Would the defendant be able to go through an interview process for a new private lawyer or would they automatically be assigned a public defender?

I'm wondering IF the ex parte request could be because the investigators have evidence that shows Jose really does have some media etc.. contracts.

Thank you in advance!
 
AZlawyer said:
No, if it had nothing to do with the case at all, then the information would not be discoverable by the defense, and the State would not have to ask the judge's permission to delay releasing the information to the defense.

They are only obligated to turn over information to the defense that is related to KC's case.
Click to expand...

mitzi said:
This is my question too...but more specifically...

If OCSO investigated Roy K. thoroughly, since he is the one who found Caylee's remains, and let's say they didn't find anything bad in his background, does the fact that they investigated him, and to what extent, have to be given over to the defense? Or if, in OCSO's opinion, nothing was found, that would affect the case and trial, are they under any obligation to turn over to defense?
Click to expand...
(BBM)

AZ
Conversely, if LE investigated Kronk further and did find something but it is totally unrelated to the Anthony case, could this be what the SA needs guidance from the judge on before releasing?
 
I know that as a defense attorney, you can't put your client on the stand and knowingly ask them questions that will lead them to commit perjury (i.e. if you client told you they did it, and you ask them on the stand if they did and they say no), but what if you put your client on the stand and DON'T ask them about it...then the prosecutor does and your client lies? Do you have to do something about it? You didn't suborn perjury, but you know he/she committed perjury.

I hope you can make sense of what I just wrote...
 
Not sure an attorney can answer this question but can a PI legally conduct an investigation in another state other than where they have their license?
 
hroark2112 said:
I know that as a defense attorney, you can't put your client on the stand and knowingly ask them questions that will lead them to commit perjury (i.e. if you client told you they did it, and you ask them on the stand if they did and they say no), but what if you put your client on the stand and DON'T ask them about it...then the prosecutor does and your client lies? Do you have to do something about it? You didn't suborn perjury, but you know he/she committed perjury.

I hope you can make sense of what I just wrote...
Click to expand...
There are ethical rules on how to deal with this. The attorney has a duty of candor (truthfulness) to the court as an officer of the court. For example, the attorney who knows his client -- or any other witness -- has lied on the stand in giving evidence cannot use that lie in argument. Sometimes, the deliberate avoidance of what would be clearly expected in an argument or to support a motion, is a red flag that essentially puts the court and the other counsel on notice that the witness has lied.
 
LambChop said:
Not sure an attorney can answer this question but can a PI legally conduct an investigation in another state other than where they have their license?
Click to expand...
When a state license is required for any occupation, that licensed professional may not practice in another state without getting the other state's license. There are a few exceptions; such as when an attorney gets admitted to practice for a single case. If the PI licensing has an exception like this, the PI could do that. Otherwise, the client will have to hire a PI in the other state and the two PIs can associate with each other in getting the job done.
 
ClockWatcher said:
What is the process for removing a lawyer from representing a defendant before trial?

Would "conflict of interest" warrant the removal of lawyer?

What happens with the defendant if their lawyer is removed? Would the defendant be able to go through an interview process for a new private lawyer or would they automatically be assigned a public defender?

I'm wondering IF the ex parte request could be because the investigators have evidence that shows Jose really does have some media etc.. contracts.

Thank you in advance!
Click to expand...


Maybe you are thinking of recusal (removing oneself), disqualification or disbarment? Generally, if an attorney is licensed to practice, they can represent a client even if the other side or the court doesn't think it is right. Issues of conflict of interest are generally a client's cause of action, not opposing counsel's or the court's. If an attorney has misrepresented something to the court is wouldn't normally be grounds for removal, but would be a basis for a disciplinary action with a complaint to the bar or a contempt of court procedure. If an attorney becomes unavailable for any reason during a client's case, the client may choose a new attorney. Sometimes, if an attorney becomes unable to proceed with cases in progress, like illness or disability, other local law firms will be asked to offer their services or the state bar may step in with a bank of attorneys to handle immediate matters until the client can select an attorney of their choice.
 
logicalgirl said:
On some of the threads there is a constantly going back and forth about information that the SA or SD has not investigated or so some of us believe. So here is my question, and I guess it is partly because I am a Canuck. Here we know almost nothing until during or after the trial.

If the OCPD or the SA investigate information, people or evidence and find that it is of no value to this case, or is "ruled out" as far as not connected to - are they required to tell us or anyone via Sunshine Laws that this information has been scrutinized?

To me that wouldn't make sense. I can understand they might want to keep notes on their investigation in case it comes up in trial, but to release that "non-evidence" investigation information seems to me to be tedious and of no value.

Could you please comment as to how the laws apply?
Click to expand...
Sunshine laws, or public records acts, pertain to all matters that are in a public record. Generally, the disclosure obligations to not require the public entity to keep records. So, if there are no records, kept, there is nothing to disclose as per public records. Further, agency notes, internal memorandum or working papers do not need to be disclosed. These are "thought process" notes and are just thinking on paper. Those are not generally subject to disclosure, although if pushed, there can be a balancing of the public's need to know vs a right to know. There are also many exceptions and exclusions to the sunshine laws. The specific request for disclosure has to be compared to what is sought to be excluded each and every time and the reason for nondisclosure must be cited. Finally, if it is in a public record, doesn't meet an exclusion and tedious or of no value, it must still be disclosed. Relevancy is not the test. Existance in a public record without an exception for nondisclosure is the relevant test.
 
Themis said:
When a state license is required for any occupation, that licensed professional may not practice in another state without getting the other state's license. There are a few exceptions; such as when an attorney gets admitted to practice for a single case. If the PI licensing has an exception like this, the PI could do that. Otherwise, the client will have to hire a PI in the other state and the two PIs can associate with each other in getting the job done.
Click to expand...

My husband was a PI licensed in the State of Connecticut for 20 years and that is what he had to do. He had to hire another PI. Then how was MS able to conduct an investigation in TN if he is not licensed there????
 
Harmony2 said:
(BBM)

AZ
Conversely, if LE investigated Kronk further and did find something but it is totally unrelated to the Anthony case, could this be what the SA needs guidance from the judge on before releasing?
Click to expand...

Well, they didn't ask for guidance (a ruling on discoverability). They said the information WAS discoverable (therefore would potentially lead to relevant evidence) but they wanted a DELAY before releasing it to the defense.
 
Bringing this question over from another thread...

Can someone who searched for Caylee, with TES, refuse to talk to the defense?
 
lisalei321 said:
Bringing this question over from another thread...

Can someone who searched for Caylee, with TES, refuse to talk to the defense?
Click to expand...

Lisalei - you beat me to it! Basically I want to know what rights I have in this circumstance. I was a TES volunteer on 3 different occasions, do I have the right to not talk to someone from the defense team if, in the very unlikely event, they contact me?
 
lisalei321 said:
Bringing this question over from another thread...

Can someone who searched for Caylee, with TES, refuse to talk to the defense?
Click to expand...

Macushla said:
Lisalei - you beat me to it! Basically I want to know what rights I have in this circumstance. I was a TES volunteer on 3 different occasions, do I have the right to not talk to someone from the defense team if, in the very unlikely event, they contact me?
Click to expand...

You can refuse to talk to the defense unless and until they get you in a deposition (or at trial).
 
AZlawyer said:
You can refuse to talk to the defense unless and until they get you in a deposition (or at trial).
Click to expand...

Thank you! It's nice to know that I have the option of hanging up if I ever get a call from the defense team. I must practice hanging up the phone VERY loudly.

All joking aside, I doubt that any volunteer who was not one of the 32 people already noted as having searched the crime scene area will ever be contacted. If the defense can't be bothered deposing the central figures in this case - LE, Crime Scene Techs, etc. I doubt they are going to depose the volunteers who were not in the crime scene area.

Having said all that, excuse me while I daydream about hanging up on Mr. Baez :woohoo:
 
hroark2112 said:
I know that as a defense attorney, you can't put your client on the stand and knowingly ask them questions that will lead them to commit perjury (i.e. if you client told you they did it, and you ask them on the stand if they did and they say no), but what if you put your client on the stand and DON'T ask them about it...then the prosecutor does and your client lies? Do you have to do something about it? You didn't suborn perjury, but you know he/she committed perjury.

I hope you can make sense of what I just wrote...
Click to expand...

If you hear your client perjuring him or herself on the witness stand when the opposing attorney is asking questions, you have the following unsavory choices:

(1) Leap up and request a recess to confer with your client (at which point you yell at them in the hallway and tell them to tell the truth);
(2) If that is denied, or your session in the hallway is unsuccessful, leap up and made a motion to withdraw from the case immediately, indicating to the court that you can't say why;
(3) If THAT is denied, you cannot ask the client any questions about the subject matter addressed by the perjury on redirect.

Unfortunately, this makes it really obvious what the lie is.

You only have to do this if you are *sure* your client is lying. The ethical rules do permit a lawyer to resolve all doubts in favor of one's own client.
 
I asked this question on another thread and am moving it here. If KC is declared indigent, can the present attorneys remain on the case and be paid whatever the State pays public defenders?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 3,918 (members: 69, guests: 3,849)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
3,849
Total visitors
3,918
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,663
Messages
17,957,235
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top