Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

AZlawyer said:

Snipped:

Well, we haven't seen any photos, so we're relying on the autopsy description, which says the tape was "overlying" the lower portion of the face and still attached to "some of the scalp hair". I suspect that the photos will show that the tape was not attached to the skull, but instead was lying loosely across the front area of the skull, bent into a position that would, in theory, fit against the skull, and held in that general area by the hair. After all, there was no adhesive remaining on the tape, and the tape would originally have been attached to Caylee's skin, which was also no longer there. CM is "spinning" the evidence, which is his job. The prosecutors will "spin" it the other way. IMO the SA's "spin" will be a lot easier for the jury to buy, but it is the duty of the defense counsel to point out that the tape was not actually found wrapped around the skull.

Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped and BBM:

Please indulge me this question, as this is something I have thought about for a long time now, and your answer to a previous poster brought it back to me. I know this isn't really a legal question, but you have been so sharp and informative about the duct tape, and based on your previous answer, I'd like to post it here.

If the adhesive on the duct tape had deteriorated to the point that there was none left remaining on the tape, how is it that it that the tape was still stuck to the hair? What held it so tightly that the hair had to be cut to remove the tape?

TIA!!

Excuse me if this has been asked and answered, but this is a loooong thread. IF the DT does decide to throw GA under the bus, and he appears to go along with it, can the SA bring out his hearing testimony where JB asked him if he would do anything for his daughter and GA stated that he would? Maybe even show the tape of the hearing? It seems to me that may have been a setup for GA to take the fall. TIA!

We know that George has a lawyer, who must know of the upcoming trial date. Would it be too far fetched to assume George's lawyer is paying attention to the news and will say to him, "Don't look now George, but I believe there is a bus heading towards you" - or perhaps something more "legally professional", meaning pretty much the same thing?

logicalgirl said:

We know that George has a lawyer, who must know of the upcoming trial date. Would it be too far fetched to assume George's lawyer is paying attention to the news and will say to him, "Don't look now George, but I believe there is a bus heading towards you" - or perhaps something more "legally professional", meaning pretty much the same thing?

Click to expand...

And, jumping off of LG's post, could GA's new attorney be helping him in this public sacrifice to create reasonable doubt by guiding him in just what he can do to help the DT create doubt while holding back just enough to not get himself prosecuted?

Baznme said:

In the endeavor of the defense team, are there any boundaries they are bound by as far as "spinning" or swaying the blame on other innocent people without substantial evidence to do so?

Click to expand...

There are ethical boundaries, of course, and then once the trial starts they will not be able to cast blame on someone else without some basis in the evidence.

momshrink said:

According to FL law, will one person having a reasonable doubt mean not guilty or is a majority needed?

Click to expand...

The verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous, or there will be a mistrial.

MADJGNLAW said:

Casey Anthony is now a felon convicted of 6 felonies.

Will the fact that Casey plead Guilty on her check forgery charges make a difference in her murder trial? Also, she spoke out to say sorry to Amy for stealing her checks but never spoke out regarding her missing/murdered daughter Caylee Marie. Will that not also look bad against her?

.

Click to expand...

If Casey testifies, the felony convictions may be raised. If not, they won't be. Either way, the jury won't know what she said about being sorry about stealing the checks.

Snaz said:

Respectfully snipped and BBM:

Please indulge me this question, as this is something I have thought about for a long time now, and your answer to a previous poster brought it back to me. I know this isn't really a legal question, but you have been so sharp and informative about the duct tape, and based on your previous answer, I'd like to post it here.

If the adhesive on the duct tape had deteriorated to the point that there was none left remaining on the tape, how is it that it that the tape was still stuck to the hair? What held it so tightly that the hair had to be cut to remove the tape?

TIA!!

Click to expand...

Good question. :waitasec: Maybe the hair got intertwined with the polyester threads on the tape??

chefmom said:

Excuse me if this has been asked and answered, but this is a loooong thread. IF the DT does decide to throw GA under the bus, and he appears to go along with it, can the SA bring out his hearing testimony where JB asked him if he would do anything for his daughter and GA stated that he would? Maybe even show the tape of the hearing? It seems to me that may have been a setup for GA to take the fall. TIA!

Click to expand...

Definitely. I don't get how the question was a setup by JB, though--it will work against his client's interests at trial. Unless the theory is that there was an accident that was NOT Casey's fault but George THOUGHT it was Casey's fault and covered it up to make it look like a kidnapping to "help" Casey... :waitasec: ...no. Too many holes in that theory lol.

logicalgirl said:

We know that George has a lawyer, who must know of the upcoming trial date. Would it be too far fetched to assume George's lawyer is paying attention to the news and will say to him, "Don't look now George, but I believe there is a bus heading towards you" - or perhaps something more "legally professional", meaning pretty much the same thing?

Click to expand...

Hopefully! When George's lawyer came out to say, "As far as we know, there is no bus heading toward George," or whatever it was he said, my assumption was that he was trying to "flush out" JB and CM to see if they would agree or disagree. He must have been nervous when they responded, "the defense strategy has not changed" or something like that.

chefmom said:

And, jumping off of LG's post, could GA's new attorney be helping him in this public sacrifice to create reasonable doubt by guiding him in just what he can do to help the DT create doubt while holding back just enough to not get himself prosecuted?

Click to expand...

Sounds like a dangerous game. I would never advise a client to implicate themselves in a murder "just a little bit" to save someone else! I really doubt that George is interested in being the sacrificial lamb. If they decide to steer the bus toward George, IMO the defense team will try to spring it on him in order to trigger a boiling-over anger response from him in front of the jury. Then Casey can open her eyes really big and look like a terrified little girl. :banghead:

AZlawyer said:

There are ethical boundaries, of course, and then once the trial starts they will not be able to cast blame on someone else without some basis in the evidence.



The verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous, or there will be a mistrial.



If Casey testifies, the felony convictions may be raised. If not, they won't be. Either way, the jury won't know what she said about being sorry about stealing the checks.



Good question. :waitasec: Maybe the hair got intertwined with the polyester threads on the tape??



Definitely. I don't get how the question was a setup by JB, though--it will work against his client's interests at trial. Unless the theory is that there was an accident that was NOT Casey's fault but George THOUGHT it was Casey's fault and covered it up to make it look like a kidnapping to "help" Casey... :waitasec: ...no. Too many holes in that theory lol.



Hopefully! When George's lawyer came out to say, "As far as we know, there is no bus heading toward George," or whatever it was he said, my assumption was that he was trying to "flush out" JB and CM to see if they would agree or disagree. He must have been nervous when they responded, "the defense strategy has not changed" or something like that.



Sounds like a dangerous game. I would never advise a client to implicate themselves in a murder "just a little bit" to save someone else! I really doubt that George is interested in being the sacrificial lamb. If they decide to steer the bus toward George, IMO the defense team will try to spring it on him in order to trigger a boiling-over anger response from him in front of the jury. Then Casey can open her eyes really big and look like a terrified little girl. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Re: their being able to "spring it on GA"- isn't that the ambush technique that HHJP keeps mentioning? Would the SA be privy to that as their intended defense ?
TIA

ZsaZsa said:

Re: their being able to "spring it on GA"- isn't that the ambush technique that HHJP keeps mentioning? Would the SA be privy to that as their intended defense ?
TIA

Click to expand...

No, HHJP is talking about springing new EVIDENCE on the other side at trial. We're talking about springing a THEORY on the other side at trial. This kind of ambush is ok.

Not a question....just a comment.

I just want to say thank you to AZlawyer (and of course all of the other attorneys who contribute). I get all gushy when I read your posts AZ. You are like a patient parent who loves their children as much as "we" love you!

Someone on another blog brought up a scenario that, after the state rests its case, the defense could call Casey up to testify. While I know that 99.9% that is not going to happen, if it did, would the state still get to question her on the stand?

AZlawyer said:

No, HHJP is talking about springing new EVIDENCE on the other side at trial. We're talking about springing a THEORY on the other side at trial. This kind of ambush is ok.

Click to expand...

But doesn't there have to be some evidence supporting any theory they put out to the jury? If they want to theorize that Caylee accidentally drowned and George helped Casey cover it up, doesn't there have to be some evidence to back up the theory if they plan to throw it out there?

katydid23 said:

But doesn't there have to be some evidence supporting any theory they put out to the jury? If they want to theorize that Caylee accidentally drowned and George helped Casey cover it up, doesn't there have to be some evidence to back up the theory if they plan to throw it out there?

Click to expand...

But they aren't trying to convict anyone else...just cause reasonable doubt in 1 mind, right??? Isn't that all they have to do?

Joanner said:

Someone on another blog brought up a scenario that, after the state rests its case, the defense could call Casey up to testify. While I know that 99.9% that is not going to happen, if it did, would the state still get to question her on the stand?

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely. Both sides get to cross-examine each other's witnesses.

katydid23 said:

But doesn't there have to be some evidence supporting any theory they put out to the jury? If they want to theorize that Caylee accidentally drowned and George helped Casey cover it up, doesn't there have to be some evidence to back up the theory if they plan to throw it out there?

Click to expand...

The theory can't be inconsistent with the evidence, but there doesn't have to be something extra that proves the theory is correct.

Mamabear1963 said:

But they aren't trying to convict anyone else...just cause reasonable doubt in 1 mind, right??? Isn't that all they have to do?

Click to expand...

For a mistrial, yes. If they want a "not guilty" verdict (no retrial), they need to get all the jurors on the "reasonable doubt" bandwagon. But certainly they don't need to convince the jurors that the evidence is strong enough to actually convict someone else.

During the trial, can the SA say things like:

1. CA and GA have a habit of of bringing up "I'm tired...I can't eat...This is so rough on me....no one should have to suffer what I have suffered" every time they are asked an awkward question? For example, can they point that out prior to the jury watching the FBI interviews about what to look for in their behavior? Can they point out how willing CA is to "speculate" on who she suspects but refuses to "speculate" on any of ICA's behavior?

2. Can they point out how subservient CA and GA are to ICA so there is no way ICA felt "threatened" by big, bad GA? Can the SA openly state that CA and GA are stupid and gullible and blindly believe everything that ICA says?

3. Can the SA head the defense off at the pass and openly talk about attempts to blame others like Jesse, Ricardo, Amy and George?

4. Will the SA be able to point out that CA and GA provided everything for ICA, who made no effort to move out, work and be on her own? If she was so fearful of GA, why didn't she move out?

Thank you

goldleaf said:

During the trial, can the SA say things like:

1. CA and GA have a habit of of bringing up "I'm tired...I can't eat...This is so rough on me....no one should have to suffer what I have suffered" every time they are asked an awkward question? For example, can they point that out prior to the jury watching the FBI interviews about what to look for in their behavior? Can they point out how willing CA is to "speculate" on who she suspects but refuses to "speculate" on any of ICA's behavior?

2. Can they point out how subservient CA and GA are to ICA so there is no way ICA felt "threatened" by big, bad GA? Can the SA openly state that CA and GA are stupid and gullible and blindly believe everything that ICA says?

3. Can the SA head the defense off at the pass and openly talk about attempts to blame others like Jesse, Ricardo, Amy and George?

4. Will the SA be able to point out that CA and GA provided everything for ICA, who made no effort to move out, work and be on her own? If she was so fearful of GA, why didn't she move out?

Thank you

Click to expand...

1. I don't think there is any way the jury will get to watch those interviews in their entirety, or will get to hear any of CA's "speculation" about alternate theories.

IMO the best way to deal with this "I'm so tired" crap at trial is to patiently request that the judge direct them to answer the question. The jury will not need to be told that CA and GA are on KC's side--this will be crystal clear.

2. The SA will be able to point out to the jury that KC's behavior toward CA/GA was not that of a frightened person, assuming that the defense asserts that she was afraid of them.

The SA will not be able to say that CA and GA are stupid and believe everything KC says to them, because it is irrelevant, for one thing. Who cares whether CA and GA believe her?

3. The SA will not be able to raise any attempts to blame others unless the defense actually attempts (at trial) to blame that person.

4. The SA will be able to raise the fact that KC made no effort to get a job or move out if the defense says she was terrified to live at home.

Can GA's grand jury testimony be used by the SA to rebut the potential assertion by the DT that GA was involved in or responsible for Caylee's murder? TIA

If the defense somehow succeeds in gaining a mistrial or a hung jury, would Casey remain in jail pending a retrial or be freed???

Im sorry if this has been asked and answered.., But its really hard to work full time.. take care of house et. all and follow this case at times ( I can just imagine how hard it will be to follow the trial.. Ive tried to read all i can here for over a year.. But rarely have time left over to post lol..
My question is this.. How can the dt change any of the story that casey ever said happened without puttin her on the stand.. ??? I mean wouldnt anything they have to say that changes what they say happened have to be backed up by casey?? This all really confuses me.. sorry.

Could GA be on the hook for anything legally if he goes along with the possible "GA did it" scenario? For example if CA tells him to admit to something that would implicate him in Caylee's death in order to free ICA?

AdoraBlue said:

Can GA's grand jury testimony be used by the SA to rebut the potential assertion by the DT that GA was involved in or responsible for Caylee's murder? TIA

Click to expand...

No. It is possible that his GJ testimony can be used if he says something at trial that is blatantly contradictory to his GJ testimony, however.

LinasK said:

If the defense somehow succeeds in gaining a mistrial or a hung jury, would Casey remain in jail pending a retrial or be freed???

Click to expand...

She could ask to be released on bond. I would probably die from shock if HHJP granted such a request.

LEFT-COASTER said:

Im sorry if this has been asked and answered.., But its really hard to work full time.. take care of house et. all and follow this case at times ( I can just imagine how hard it will be to follow the trial.. Ive tried to read all i can here for over a year.. But rarely have time left over to post lol..
My question is this.. How can the dt change any of the story that casey ever said happened without puttin her on the stand.. ??? I mean wouldnt anything they have to say that changes what they say happened have to be backed up by casey?? This all really confuses me.. sorry.

Click to expand...

They don't have to put her on the stand to prove that the original story was false--the SA will take care of that job lol. They don't have to put her on the stand to suggest a new theory that is consistent with the evidence, either--but the jury is likely to wonder why the heck she's not telling them this new story herself... :waitasec:

Horace Finklestein said:

Could GA be on the hook for anything legally if he goes along with the possible "GA did it" scenario? For example if CA tells him to admit to something that would implicate him in Caylee's death in order to free ICA?

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely! He would be putting himself in danger of being prosecuted for whatever he admits, and his statements at Casey's trial could be used against him in that prosecution.

I seriously don't think GA is going to do this.

I'm curious, what is the standard for a conviction of 1st degree murder if not: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

Thanks AZ & all for all of your help on this case, it is always the go to thread!