Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
AZlawyer said:
The test for whether Miranda warnings must be given before statements may be admitted into evidence is whether the person is "in custody." Sometimes this happens when the person is arrested, and sometimes before. The major issue is whether or not the person would reasonably feel free to leave. In this case, IMO, Casey would not reasonably have felt free to leave that Universal conference room, especially if (and this has not been confirmed) she was handcuffed on the way over.

Plenty of "voluntary" statements are excluded because of the failure to give Miranda warnings.
Click to expand...

But I haven't seen anything that says she was handcuffed on the way over - not in this motion or from the Universal interview. The motion simply states she was handcuffed the evening before. Can you point me towards it?
 
Call me naive , but if I am being interviewed by the Police and they tell me directly that I am free to leave at any time, I will take them at their word, as did ICA apparently. She didn't respond "Oh, I bet you will' she responded that she understood and agreed that she was there voluntarily.
 
Please forgive my ignorance, but when HHJP called Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason to the bench, he also called Madame Court Reporter. My instinct is that the conversation will never be entered into the public record -- is that correct?

Thanks, as always!
 
NoNameLeft said:
Not sure if this changes anything, but they did not immediately arrest her at Universal.

In Yuri's report he mentions how after the Universal interview they went to the parking lot and showed Casey the pictures of several Zenaida Gonzalez's. She didn't identify any of them and was then shown a picture of the Zenaida who visited Sawgrass - whom she didn't recognize either. They then headed back to the station where Yuri received multiple phone calls from Casey's friends and after that Casey was given another opportunity to change her story. When she stuck to her story they placed her under arrest (for child abuse and giving false statements to the police).

Page 15 & 16: Document provided by MuzikMan

I do remember that statement. On the other hand, George told the FBI that they were absolutely stunned to see the arrest of Casey on TV. During that interview he was stating how unhappy he was that Yuri did not give him a heads up. So what was really said to him... who knows...

And thank you AZlawyer for all your informative posts. Really appreciate it!

PS: snipped your post for brevity.
Click to expand...

Good point if she was not immediately arrested. That helps, but ultimately the question remains: would she reasonably have felt that she was not free to leave while in that conference room?

Horace Finklestein said:
Is it likely they will get the photos from Joe Jordan's computer? Isn't that a bit crazy that the defense would claim the photos are so important to their preparation - I mean why wasn't the defense taking their own photos? Sounds like they waited around and decided to subpoena anything they think they could potentially use.
Click to expand...

If JJ has photos of the relevant areas of Suburban Drive during the relevant time period, the defense will get them. But I personally don't remember that JJ posted any such pictures here--just pictures of JB Park. Presumably, the reason the defense wasn't taking photos of Suburban Drive during the relevant time period (July 16 2008-December 11 2008) is that they didn't know that Suburban Drive was important--or at least they didn't want anyone to know that they knew. ;)

Dignity4Victims said:
In the audio tapes from the Universal 'chat' with Casey, LE makes it clear that she knows that she is being recorded, "the door is figuratively "open" but closed just for privacy, and she is free to leave at any time".

More importantly, Casey agreed that she understood that she was not being 'held' against her will, and would continue to speak with them.

So, I'm not understanding why you perceive the Universal chat to be especially worrisome?
Click to expand...

Because plenty of statements made with those types of "disclaimers" have nevertheless been held to have been made while the defendant was "in custody." It just isn't a cut-and-dried issue.

logicalgirl said:
But I haven't seen anything that says she was handcuffed on the way over - not in this motion or from the Universal interview. The motion simply states she was handcuffed the evening before. Can you point me towards it?
Click to expand...

My previous posts were based on CM's in-court statement. Now that the motion has been posted by MM, I agree that it appears any handcuffing episode occurred the day before and therefore is less important. Nevertheless, as I said back in March 2010 before anyone said she was handcuffed, I am concerned that she was still "in custody" at Universal. It's a close question, at least. Maybe HHJP will disagree with me--it's happened before. ;)

Actually, when I say "I'm concerned," I should clarify that I'm NOT really concerned, because IMO there is nothing too important about the Universal interview. If it's thrown out, it's no big deal.

ZsaZsa said:
Call me naive , but if I am being interviewed by the Police and they tell me directly that I am free to leave at any time, I will take them at their word, as did ICA apparently. She didn't respond "Oh, I bet you will' she responded that she understood and agreed that she was there voluntarily.
Click to expand...

Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Try it sometime and let me know. :)
 
LoisDenominator said:
Please forgive my ignorance, but when HHJP called Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason to the bench, he also called Madame Court Reporter. My instinct is that the conversation will never be entered into the public record -- is that correct?

Thanks, as always!
Click to expand...

If you mean that we are unlikely ever to see a transcript, that's correct. If the court reporter was there, though, it was on the record and a transcript could be ordered by the parties, at least, if they wanted one.
 
AZLawyer wrote: Good point if she was not immediately arrested. That helps, but ultimately the question remains: would she reasonably have felt that she was not free to leave while in that conference room?

We're talking about Casey here - I think she absolutely felt free to leave, in that she was lying her @$$ off and fully expected the detectives to believe every single word...so she thought she could leave when she wanted to, IMO. I also think she wanted to "hang around" with them & see if she could get a feel as to whether they were believing her or not...

But I suppose the DT will be able to turn that all around. *sigh*

ETA: Didn't want to quote that whole post, lol
 
AZlawyer said:
Good point if she was not immediately arrested. That helps, but ultimately the question remains: would she reasonably have felt that she was not free to leave while in that conference room?



If JJ has photos of the relevant areas of Suburban Drive during the relevant time period, the defense will get them. But I personally don't remember that JJ posted any such pictures here--just pictures of JB Park. Presumably, the reason the defense wasn't taking photos of Suburban Drive during the relevant time period (July 16 2008-December 11 2008) is that they didn't know that Suburban Drive was important--or at least they didn't want anyone to know that they knew. ;)



Because plenty of statements made with those types of "disclaimers" have nevertheless been held to have been made while the defendant was "in custody." It just isn't a cut-and-dried issue.



My previous posts were based on CM's in-court statement. Now that the motion has been posted by MM, I agree that it appears any handcuffing episode occurred the day before and therefore is less important. Nevertheless, as I said back in March 2010 before anyone said she was handcuffed, I am concerned that she was still "in custody" at Universal. It's a close question, at least. Maybe HHJP will disagree with me--it's happened before. ;)

Actually, when I say "I'm concerned," I should clarify that I'm NOT really concerned, because IMO there is nothing too important about the Universal interview. If it's thrown out, it's no big deal.



Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Try it sometime and let me know. :)
Click to expand...

BBM in red - But Casey wasn't in custody, so now what?
 
Dignity4Victims said:
BBM in red - But Casey wasn't in custody, so now what?
Click to expand...

Well, that's the question, isn't it? "In custody" does not mean "arrested." It means "a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave." So maybe she was in custody, or maybe she wasn't. I'm just saying it isn't an easy question. If I were the judge, I would err on the side of excluding the statement, because (1) letting the statement in would create a great appeal issue for the defense, and (2) kicking the statement out doesn't hurt the State's case. It's not like this was a confession, for heaven's sake! Quite the opposite lol. :)
 
AZlawyer said:
Well, that's the question, isn't it? "In custody" does not mean "arrested." It means "a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave." So maybe she was in custody, or maybe she wasn't. I'm just saying it isn't an easy question. If I were the judge, I would err on the side of excluding the statement, because (1) letting the statement in would create a great appeal issue for the defense, and (2) kicking the statement out doesn't hurt the State's case. It's not like this was a confession, for heaven's sake! Quite the opposite lol. :)
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be difficult but why do you think LE told her the door was closed only for privacy purposes?
 
ZsaZsa said:
I don't mean to be difficult but why do you think LE told her the door was closed only for privacy purposes?
Click to expand...

IMO they said that because they didn't want to actually give her the Miranda warnings, for fear that she would clam up and they might lose their only chance to find Caylee, but they wanted to be able to make an argument down the road that she was not really "in custody."

I'm not blaming them for making this decision, BTW. It was a strategic decision that might have worked just fine if (1) Caylee was alive and Casey was just hiding her from the rest of the A. family, or (2) Caylee was dead but it was a terrible accident and Casey was just a scared young mother who didn't want to admit she had made a mistake.
 
AZlawyer said:
If JJ has photos of the relevant areas of Suburban Drive during the relevant time period, the defense will get them. But I personally don't remember that JJ posted any such pictures here--just pictures of JB Park. Presumably, the reason the defense wasn't taking photos of Suburban Drive during the relevant time period (July 16 2008-December 11 2008) is that they didn't know that Suburban Drive was important--or at least they didn't want anyone to know that they knew. ;)
Click to expand...

It's better than pictures, actually! We have a whole video of Dominic Casey, the personal P.I. for the Anthony's, out searching on Suburban Drive a month prior to the remains being found.

Which brings me to this question. Why do you think we have not seen a motion to suppress this video? I think this video clearly shows that someone in the Anthony family knew exactly where Caylee was prior to her remains being found. It is clear that he was searching in black trash bags... which we all know that Caylee's remains were found in a black trash bag... something I would assume that only the killer would know?

I have a lot of questions about Dominic Casey? I understand that he was given an investigative interview. It was an interview that Jose Baez and the defense were not allowed to be present for. Which was a decision they made by not putting Dominic Casey on their witness list, correct?

I know that anything Casey said to DC before ending his contract with the defense is protected under attorney/client privilege... but what about after he ended the contract with the defense? I know that no client/P.I. privilege exists between Cindy/DC or George/DC... but would the rules be different for Casey/DC?

Is there any way that the comments JB made to DC about not calling LE if they found anything will come in at trial?
 
LolaMoon08 said:
It's better than pictures, actually! We have a whole video of Dominic Casey, the personal P.I. for the Anthony's, out searching on Suburban Drive a month prior to the remains being found.

Which brings me to this question. Why do you think we have not seen a motion to suppress this video? I think this video clearly shows that someone in the Anthony family knew exactly where Caylee was prior to her remains being found. It is clear that he was searching in black trash bags... which we all know that Caylee's remains were found in a black trash bag... something I would assume that only the killer would know?

I have a lot of questions about Dominic Casey? I understand that he was given an investigative interview. It was an interview that Jose Baez and the defense were not allowed to be present for. Which was a decision they made by not putting Dominic Casey on their witness list, correct?

I know that anything Casey said to DC before ending his contract with the defense is protected under attorney/client privilege... but what about after he ended the contract with the defense? I know that no client/P.I. privilege exists between Cindy/DC or George/DC... but would the rules be different for Casey/DC?

Is there any way that the comments JB made to DC about not calling LE if they found anything will come in at trial?
Click to expand...

I have a lot of questions about DC too. :) I'm pretty confident that the investigative interview took place, and I believe we concluded a long time ago (when we had all the dates at hand) that no one would have had any A/C privilege for communications with DC after sometime in October 2008 (?) when he stopped working for the defense. There is no such thing as client/PI privilege.

Conversations between JB and DC after DC was no longer working for the defense shouldn't be privileged, but I'm not sure we know when the alleged conversation allegedly took place. Was it the day before the video was made in Nov. 2008, specifically relating to the search of Suburban? Or was it back when JB was working with DC as part of the "defense team" and just a general instruction "call me instead of the cops if you find anything"? The latter conversation would not only be privileged but wouldn't actually violate any ethical rules (i.e., written ethical rules for attorneys--for my own personal ethics, this would be a problem).
 
AZ, a question about Casey's statements at Universal. Wouldn't the defense have to have her testify or submit a statement that she felt she was being held and unable to leave? Or, would the Judge just make a ruling based upon what JB says she felt?
 
ohiogirl said:
AZ, a question about Casey's statements at Universal. Wouldn't the defense have to have her testify or submit a statement that she felt she was being held and unable to leave? Or, would the Judge just make a ruling based upon what JB says she felt?
Click to expand...

The determination is not based on how the actual defendant actually felt at the time, but rather on how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have felt. I just posted some summaries of recent Florida cases on this issue in the motion thread to give everyone a better idea of what "in custody" means in Florida.
 
Hi AZ, the Universal studio statement is tricky for me. I get the whole "reasonable person" thing, but I'm wondering what reasonable person standard would apply here...ie)a reasonable person with a missing child who is getting the police to help locate them, or a reasonable person who knows their child has been murdered? I mean, Somer Thompson's mother, if she went with police to be interviewed when Somer went missing and they ended up in a room with a closed door, would NEVER think she was in custody, right? I guess my questions is, in the states, how specific to each case does the "reasonable person" standard get?
 
Soju said:
Hi AZ, the Universal studio statement is tricky for me. I get the whole "reasonable person" thing, but I'm wondering what reasonable person standard would apply here...ie)a reasonable person with a missing child who is getting the police to help locate them, or a reasonable person who knows their child has been murdered? I mean, Somer Thompson's mother, if she went with police to be interviewed when Somer went missing and they ended up in a room with a closed door, would NEVER think she was in custody, right? I guess my questions is, in the states, how specific to each case does the "reasonable person" standard get?
Click to expand...

The standard, I believe, is that of a reasonable innocent person, but the determination is extremely specific to the facts of each case and is handled differently by the courts of different states.

I posted some recent Florida case law in the motion thread so everyone could see how the Florida courts are handling this issue.
 
AZlawyer said:
The standard, I believe, is that of a reasonable innocent person, but the determination is extremely specific to the facts of each case and is handled differently by the courts of different states.

I posted some recent Florida case law in the motion thread so everyone could see how the Florida courts are handling this issue.
Click to expand...

Thank you AZ, I think most of us just don't want to believe it's possible to suppress these statements and hate that it is a real likelihood. :banghead::banghead:I recognize ICA reiterated her story many times, and everything she said at Universal can be found in other statements, but IMHO, it's the wow factor that she went to Universal acting as if she worked there, so far as to walk LE to her pseudo-office and the confession that she lied.:banghead:
 
Regarding the "Oceans of Motions" hearing on Monday:

Can you please shed any light as to why Cheney Mason apparently invited Judge Eaton (?) to attend. It was not lost on me that HHJP interrupted CM to point out that the judge was leaving during CM's argument; nor was CM's incredulous reaction and response, "No. Well, he is not supposed to be leaving." (paraphrased) He seemed a bit flustered, iykwim. :innocent:

I have my suspicions, but surely he would not be doing what I suspect. Seriously.

Thoughts?
 
'Beach said:
Regarding the "Oceans of Motions" hearing on Monday:

Can you please shed any light as to why Cheney Mason apparently invited Judge Eaton (?) to attend. It was not lost on me that HHJP interrupted CM to point out that the judge was leaving during CM's argument; nor was CM's incredulous reaction and response, "No. Well, he is not supposed to be leaving." (paraphrased). He seemed a bit flustered, iykwim. :innocent:

I have my suspicions, but surely he would be doing what I suspect. Seriously.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well, CM was able to get Judge Strickland to step-down. My guess, CM was up to his old tricks. He has nothing to lose here, nothing. What can the court do to him? His career is over. He's planning on retiring and since he can't hear well it's about time. I think CM has some personal issues and he plans to "get even" before he leaves for good. lol Remember CM asking Judge Strickland in court if he trusted him? I bet there was some bad blood there. Just a guess but the "tight boots" comment JS by was meant to hit a nerve and my guess is it did. jmo
 
'Beach said:
Regarding the "Oceans of Motions" hearing on Monday:

Can you please shed any light as to why Cheney Mason apparently invited Judge Eaton (?) to attend. It was not lost on me that HHJP interrupted CM to point out that the judge was leaving during CM's argument; nor was CM's incredulous reaction and response, "No. Well, he is not supposed to be leaving." (paraphrased) He seemed a bit flustered, iykwim. :innocent:

I have my suspicions, but surely he would not be doing what I suspect. Seriously.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

There are so many possibilities. Here's my favorite ;) : Maybe CM wants to get the heck out of this case now that the "fun" is diminishing, and he invited Eaton (newly retired) to come on down and watch the "dream team" in action to see if he wanted to join up and take CM's place. Eaton watched until he couldn't stand it anymore. After the hearing, Eaton told CM he wanted no part of it, and that's why CM was pouting in court today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 3,273 (members: 84, guests: 3,189)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
3,189
Total visitors
3,273
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,188
Messages
17,964,841
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top