Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
After today's hearing, Mark Eiglarsh is on HLN discussing the outcome, as a last chance statement before commercial break he said "I smell a plea bargain, I really do". I am assuming he means in the murder trial, as the check trial is now finished.

My question is, if she does go ahead with a guilty plea on the murder charges, what happens to that 10% of evidence we have not seen, does it get swept under a rug or can we ever know what was being held back?
 
DogMom2JoeAndWillie said:
I've got a question for the lawyers here (or for anyone who may be able to answer) about the adjudication (sp?) of guilt in the plea deal. Does it really matter if she's found guilty of a felony before the murder trial? I mean, it's a really high-profile case and it's all over the media... so even if she's asked about any previous offenses in court, won't members of the jury REALLY know that she was caught stealing? I mean, even if she can legally say "no" it's not like the jury's minds are erased of all the info that they've heard through the media....right? Is it because she has to be a felon before they can impose the death penalty or something like that? TIA
Click to expand...

I don't think it really matters much for the trial. The point of having a felony conviction at the trial is (in the event Casey testifies or anyone else testifies about her statements) to show Casey's lack of credibility. But the jurors will manage to figure out that Casey is a liar without having any felony convictions to rely on.

There is no requirement that she be a felon before they can impose the death penalty. BUT I believe there is a mitigating factor of "lack of prior criminal record" that Casey now cannot use in her favor.
 
Would there be any significance in the fact that JA refers to the evidence as latent prints but JB refers to it as latent evidence? TIA!
 
Tulessa said:
Would there be any significance in the fact that JA refers to the evidence as latent prints but JB refers to it as latent evidence? TIA!
Click to expand...

Maybe JB doesn't know what "latent" means?? :innocent:
 
On the other thread we were talking about whether or not the murder charges will end up in a plea bargain.
So the question is, if Casey if offered a plea bargain, and she accepts it, does Casey herself have to outline the crimes against Caylee and speak of them in court in front of the judge, or can her lawyer do it on her behalf as happened to day, and she simply agrees to his statements and agrees she understands the plea bargain and it's ramifications (jail sentence)?
 
I asked my cousin this tonight, but he hasn't gotten back to me so I'll post here as well. This is in reference to the discovery in which the defense is requesting from the FBI. The defense tactic seems to me (non-legal eyes) that they are stalling, therefore asking for such motions as "hand over the discovery." I haven't counted, but I think this is 3rd or 4th time this has come up in court about this last "10%" of discovery. The same thing each time is stated: The State says they don't have it and if the defense wants it, they have to contact the FBI. The judge then says the same thing: Hey, defense, contact the FBI. So, my questions are if the State knows the results of this discovery via phone/e-mail, etc., AND why do they make the defense formally ask for the discovery thru FBI. What's the deal?? Who's it damning toward? If anyone? To me, as a layperson, this seems so juvenile to keep bringing this crap up every court date since October... I'm waiting for the finale here, and I don't get it.

Am I making sense?? lol
 
Doesn't allocution usually happen before sentencing? Is it an appeal issue if it was not done prior to sentencing?
 
tweety933 said:
Doesn't allocution usually happen before sentencing? Is it an appeal issue if it was not done prior to sentencing?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I didn't get to watch the hearing. Was anything said before the sentencing about it? Or did the judge say anything after KC's little speech about nothing changing his mind about the sentence?
 
gibby207 said:
I asked my cousin this tonight, but he hasn't gotten back to me so I'll post here as well. This is in reference to the discovery in which the defense is requesting from the FBI. The defense tactic seems to me (non-legal eyes) that they are stalling, therefore asking for such motions as "hand over the discovery." I haven't counted, but I think this is 3rd or 4th time this has come up in court about this last "10%" of discovery. The same thing each time is stated: The State says they don't have it and if the defense wants it, they have to contact the FBI. The judge then says the same thing: Hey, defense, contact the FBI. So, my questions are if the State knows the results of this discovery via phone/e-mail, etc., AND why do they make the defense formally ask for the discovery thru FBI. What's the deal?? Who's it damning toward? If anyone? To me, as a layperson, this seems so juvenile to keep bringing this crap up every court date since October... I'm waiting for the finale here, and I don't get it.

Am I making sense?? lol
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure what the legal question is exactly lol. The FBI is not required to take orders from the State re: getting written reports done. If the State has the results of certain tests verbally, they have disclosed that information by listing the people who will present that information at trial as witnesses. I don't think there's any provision in Florida for them to disclose a script of what the witnesses intend to say.

I am not getting the impression that the State is hoarding evidence and making the defense ask for it. There would not be much point in doing that, because (1) if the evidence is helpful to KC, the State would be in a lot of trouble if it didn't turn it over, and (2) if the evidence is helpful to the State, the State cannot use it in trial if it doesn't disclose the evidence in time for the defense to address it.
 
Themis said:
Yes to all. It is a matter of proving the standard of care and the intent. Something that crosses the standard of care so belligerently -- like if a parent placed a little baby on the end of a diving board and walked away and left it and the minute the baby rolled over it hit the water at a depth of 9 feet and drowned --wouldn't you call that murder? Of course! Why? Well a complete idiot knows not to put a baby on the end of a diving board and walk away with water below. Only someone who intended to drown the baby and kill it would violate that standard of care (specific intent to kill is proven by circumstantial evidence.)
Click to expand...

Have wondered... if Caylee's father KNEW he was the father, could he file a civil suit for murder such as in the OJ case??
 
AZlawyer said:
Hmmm...I didn't get to watch the hearing. Was anything said before the sentencing about it? Or did the judge say anything after KC's little speech about nothing changing his mind about the sentence?
Click to expand...

She admitted that the plea deal was signed by her, of her own free will, and understood the rights she was giving up, and the variance of sentencing she might receive. All these questions were asked by the judge before the sentencing, and she answered them in the affirmative. She didn't offer an apology and taking full responsibility for her actions, until AFTER the judge sentenced her. I don't recall the judge responding to it, once she did. But JB had to remind the judge three times (after sentencing), that Casey would like to address the court. All she said is that she wanted everyone to know that she takes full responsibility for her actions, and wishes she'd been a better friend to AH.

I wonder if her little apology would have impacted the judges decision, as to the sentencing, had he heard it BEFORE he adjudicated 6 charges, and withheld adjudication on the remaining 7.
 
AZlawyer said:
Well, I'm not sure what the legal question is exactly lol. The FBI is not required to take orders from the State re: getting written reports done. If the State has the results of certain tests verbally, they have disclosed that information by listing the people who will present that information at trial as witnesses. I don't think there's any provision in Florida for them to disclose a script of what the witnesses intend to say.

I am not getting the impression that the State is hoarding evidence and making the defense ask for it. There would not be much point in doing that, because (1) if the evidence is helpful to KC, the State would be in a lot of trouble if it didn't turn it over, and (2) if the evidence is helpful to the State, the State cannot use it in trial if it doesn't disclose the evidence in time for the defense to address it.
Click to expand...

bbm - what is the criteria for "in time"? Has the trial date been set? The female prosecution lawyer asked yesterday for a firm trial date to be determined stating that people tend to work better when facing a deadline iiirc. I thought the date had been set but know the COV issue is still out there, correct? Maybe that's her point. The prosecution needs to know so they can release everything they have "in time". Until then, let the defense spend their time going off on their wayward tangents in an attempt to defend their client. The defense has requested delays in setting the trial date therefore no "in time" date is known, yes/no? Cat and Mouse.
 
tweety933, My gut response to your question is "no" the Judge doesn't care what KC has to say. This is the same Judge that said that the truth and KCA are liars iirc. He probably has not changed his mind imo. :twocents:

I know your question is more of a legal one though. I would hope the Judge wouldn't make that mistake.
Sorry I just noticed that I'm on the questions for Lawyers thread (thought it was just a questions thread).
 
SCSam said:
Have wondered... if Caylee's father KNEW he was the father, could he file a civil suit for murder such as in the OJ case??
Click to expand...

Probably, but this is really a Florida state law question that I don't feel qualified to answer.

Certainly there would be questions about WHEN he knew. If he knew he was the father before this all happened, can he really argue that he suffered damages by being deprived of a relationship with Caylee, when obviously he was willing to give up that relationship anyway?
 
tweety933 said:
She admitted that the plea deal was signed by her, of her own free will, and understood the rights she was giving up, and the variance of sentencing she might receive. All these questions were asked by the judge before the sentencing, and she answered them in the affirmative. She didn't offer an apology and taking full responsibility for her actions, until AFTER the judge sentenced her. I don't recall the judge responding to it, once she did. But JB had to remind the judge three times (after sentencing), that Casey would like to address the court. All she said is that she wanted everyone to know that she takes full responsibility for her actions, and wishes she'd been a better friend to AH.

I wonder if her little apology would have impacted the judges decision, as to the sentencing, had he heard it BEFORE he adjudicated 6 charges, and withheld adjudication on the remaining 7.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll just say I wish the judge had asked her to speak before making his decision, and leave it at that. ;)
 
Woe.be.gone said:
bbm - what is the criteria for "in time"? Has the trial date been set? The female prosecution lawyer asked yesterday for a firm trial date to be determined stating that people tend to work better when facing a deadline iiirc. I thought the date had been set but know the COV issue is still out there, correct? Maybe that's her point. The prosecution needs to know so they can release everything they have "in time". Until then, let the defense spend their time going off on their wayward tangents in an attempt to defend their client. The defense has requested delays in setting the trial date therefore no "in time" date is known, yes/no? Cat and Mouse.
Click to expand...

"In time" means according to the rules...but those dates have probably passed long ago, as they usually do lol...so now it means "in time for the other side to figure out how to respond to the information so nothing is unfair at trial, unless you have just not even tried and the judge is pi$$ed at you." But with no trial date set yet (right?), the State should be OK unless they have purposely and maliciously withheld information.
 
Is it safe to say then that the state wants a firm date set once and for all because, by the way, they have other things to do and crime in FL has not stopped in its tracks because of this case. They'll get busy and do everything right when they know the trial is coming up but, in the meantime, they have other deadlines to meet every day. Furthermore, under their breath, they are thinking that JB is a pain in the arse and he should get with the program.
 
Hello, is there anything the State of Florida can do to "light a fire under the defense? They say they are not ready but have time to whine on TV. about kc. being innocent,they should put up or shut up.
Thank you so much.
 
Baez started his comments yesterday by complaining that KC was treated differently and in considering the fraud charges he asked the Judge to treat her the same as any other felon in that area would be.
Since this is important to him, I wonder what is the average time that a Murder trial takes to prepare- it seems to me we have seen people charged, tried and convicted during this year and a half and he is still no closer to being ready to defend KC. He wants extra time for her, isn't that treating her differently?
Who has the final say as to when this case goes to trial? Is there a time limit he cannot exceed?
 
I have the following questions concerning filed motions (generally):

1. Once a motion is filed, how long does the opposing side have to respond, or do they even have to respond?

2. Once a response to a motion is filed, is there a specific timeframe wherein a hearing must be scheduled or judge files decision?

3. If a motion is denied, can it be refiled at a later date for reconsideration?

Seems like there are motions in this case that have just been "hanging there" for a while (or is my impatience showing again?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 194 more.
Total: 2,617 (members: 195, guests: 2,422)

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
2,422
Total visitors
2,617
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,170
Messages
17,964,560
Members
228,712
Latest member
Lover305
Back
Top