Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
logicalgirl said:
Sorry one more question and thanks for your quoted answer - very helpful.
So - the defense doesn't have to say how ICA knew Caylee was dead? ICA doesn't have to get on the stand and say how she knew Caylee was dead? Seems to me this might be a big black pit the defense is about to fall into..or no?
Click to expand...

Numbers said:
Piggybacking on LG's question:

How would they introduce the information that Casey knew Caylee was missing/dead?
Click to expand...

The SA will introduce the evidence that Casey knew Caylee was missing/dead. :)

The defense does not HAVE to present evidence regarding how Casey knew Caylee was dead, but any gaps left in the defense theory will cause the jury to say hmmm :waitasec: instead of "oh, i see now, it all makes sense, here's your MOTY award and sorry for the inconvenience."
 
AZlawyer said:
The SA will introduce the evidence that Casey knew Caylee was missing/dead. :)

The defense does not HAVE to present evidence regarding how Casey knew Caylee was dead, but any gaps left in the defense theory will cause the jury to say hmmm :waitasec: instead of "oh, i see now, it all makes sense, here's your MOTY award and sorry for the inconvenience."
Click to expand...

SA: "Casey said that Zanny did it, but we know Casey did it because A, B, and C. These actions show consciousness of guilt."

DT: "No, she didn't do it, (but she did know that Zanny/Kronk/George did it,) and because of X, Y, or Z mental condition she didn't act appropriately."

Seriously, AZ? (<--- My question, Beach!)

I'm not trying to be a PIA here (although I play one in real life :D) but I can't see how his wouldn't get laughed out of the courtroom. The bailiffs would be picking the jurors up off the floor for hours if Baez tried to float this.

Do you really think Baez would try this? (<-- another question!)
 
So I have to ask (thought by now this thread would have blown up) Not only as an Atty but as DP qualified atty on a very high profile and emotional case, would it not be better to find a different approach to handle a reporter? Does this not "taint" your case or your clients image (not that she hasn't already blown it herself)to make such a juvenile response to a question?

http://www.wftv.com/news/27383423/detail.html


ETA- Does this type of behavior embarrass your highly train- highly educated - profession?
 
Numbers said:
SA: "Casey said that Zanny did it, but we know Casey did it because A, B, and C. These actions show consciousness of guilt."

DT: "No, she didn't do it, (but she did know that Zanny/Kronk/George did it,) and because of X, Y, or Z mental condition she didn't act appropriately."

Seriously, AZ? (<--- My question, Beach!)

I'm not trying to be a PIA here (although I play one in real life :D) but I can't see how his wouldn't get laughed out of the courtroom. The bailiffs would be picking the jurors up off the floor for hours if Baez tried to float this.

Do you really think Baez would try this? (<-- another question!)
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes, I do. Because what else does he have???

chckmate22 said:
So I have to ask (thought by now this thread would have blown up) Not only as an Atty but as DP qualified atty on a very high profile and emotional case, would it not be better to find a different approach to handle a reporter? Does this not "taint" your case or your clients image (not that she hasn't already blown it herself)to make such a juvenile response to a question?

http://www.wftv.com/news/27383423/detail.html


ETA- Does this type of behavior embarrass your highly train- highly educated - profession?
Click to expand...

Yes, he is an embarrassment almost as much as JB in my opinion. :maddening:
 
Last week, Jose Baez had a "melt down" of sorts during his questioning of Dr. Voss. If I am remembering correctly, JA furiously objected to a line of questioning. The question disregarded an earlier agreement that JB and JA had filed with the court in order for JA to drop the contempt charge.

JB obviously wanted to address this situation at a sidebar. He mentioned it twice. However, Judge Perry insisted that the discussion be held in open court. He made a statement something like "this is a public court".

My question is this: Why did Judge Perry insist that the situation be resolved in the open court? Because he wanted to reveal how Baez was about to go back on his agreement? Because the humiliation Baez might feel may stop him from entering into agreements that he doesn't intend to keep in the future? Or is there some sort of process that determines if a conflict needs to be resolved in sidebar?

I am curious because most of the times that lawyers ask for a side bar, it is accepted by the judge, even if he isn't aware of what will be discussed in the sidebar.

I hope my question makes sense!

Thanks to all the lawyers who patiently answer our questions!
 
txelaine1 said:
Last week, Jose Baez had a "melt down" of sorts during his questioning of Dr. Voss. If I am remembering correctly, JA furiously objected to a line of questioning. The question disregarded an earlier agreement that JB and JA had filed with the court in order for JA to drop the contempt charge.

JB obviously wanted to address this situation at a sidebar. He mentioned it twice. However, Judge Perry insisted that the discussion be held in open court. He made a statement something like "this is a public court".

My question is this: Why did Judge Perry insist that the situation be resolved in the open court? Because he wanted to reveal how Baez was about to go back on his agreement? Because the humiliation Baez might feel may stop him from entering into agreements that he doesn't intend to keep in the future? Or is there some sort of process that determines if a conflict needs to be resolved in sidebar?

I am curious because most of the times that lawyers ask for a side bar, it is accepted by the judge, even if he isn't aware of what will be discussed in the sidebar.

I hope my question makes sense!

Thanks to all the lawyers who patiently answer our questions!
Click to expand...

I think HHJP was trying to make a point about the appropriate use of sidebars. Many times, sidebars are appropriate during questioning of a witness, even if no jury is present, because if the witness hears the conversation his answers might be affected. Lots of times when a jury is in the courtroom, sidebars are appropriate because they concern questions about whether the jury ought to hear or see something.

But in that case, the discussion was just about whether JB was or was not supposed to be going into a specific issue. There was no reason Dr. Vass couldn't hear it, so no excuse for a sidebar.
 
Hopefully a quick question.

Since there is so much dispute over the stipulation that Baez and Ashton signed in court.. looks like Perry is going to err on the side of caution and go by Jose's word. (sigh)

Can Ashton now refile his original complaint for contempt? The State certainly gained zero relief/satisfaction by that scribbled piece of paper. MOO

Thanks So Much!
 
5bigfish5 said:
Hopefully a quick question.

Since there is so much dispute over the stipulation that Baez and Ashton signed in court.. looks like Perry is going to err on the side of caution and go by Jose's word. (sigh)

Can Ashton now refile his original complaint for contempt? The State certainly gained zero relief/satisfaction by that scribbled piece of paper. MOO

Thanks So Much!
Click to expand...

I think Ashton had better not refile the contempt motion. HHJP is getting sick and tired of the sideshows and wants to address the real issues in the case now. Basically his message today was, "Grow up. We have a murder case to try."
 
How likely do you think it is that this trial will be delayed?
 
LolaMoon08 said:
How likely do you think it is that this trial will be delayed?
Click to expand...

It's really impossible to say whether the trial is likely to be delayed unless and until someone comes up with a reason to delay it. No one has asked for a continuance yet, and HHJP really seems to want to stick with his May trial date.
 
TV station WESH states: "Perry did not find Baez in violation of discovery rules, but repeatedly chastised him for not following trial protocol.

"If somebody gets caught hiding something, one time, they're going to end up paying an awful penalty," Perry warned."

What would the awful penalty be?

Also: "Sheaffer even saw defense attorney Cheney Mason make a vulgar gesture toward the prosecutor with his arms." If Judge Perry saw that (I don't think he did), would/could he have done anything in the way punishing Mason?
 
Any lawyers care to take a stab at how a jury would view Baez constantly sucking on red bull before he questions a witness, then being as aggressive as he is?

If that was my lawyer I would be calling a 5 min time out and slapping him stupid. Couldn't believe it today when he continued to pour out his red bull into a plastic cup without stopping despite the judge entering the courtroom.
 
Joanner said:
TV station WESH states: "Perry did not find Baez in violation of discovery rules, but repeatedly chastised him for not following trial protocol.

"If somebody gets caught hiding something, one time, they're going to end up paying an awful penalty," Perry warned."

What would the awful penalty be?

Also: "Sheaffer even saw defense attorney Cheney Mason make a vulgar gesture toward the prosecutor with his arms." If Judge Perry saw that (I don't think he did), would/could he have done anything in the way punishing Mason?
Click to expand...

If any evidence is hidden, the first "penalty" would be that it could not be used at trial. Beyond that, there could be monetary sanctions and/or a Bar complaint.

If HHJP had seen Mason use a rude gesture, my guess is he would have fined him $100, based on his comments in court today. :)

darnudes said:
Any lawyers care to take a stab at how a jury would view Baez constantly sucking on red bull before he questions a witness, then being as aggressive as he is?

If that was my lawyer I would be calling a 5 min time out and slapping him stupid. Couldn't believe it today when he continued to pour out his red bull into a plastic cup without stopping despite the judge entering the courtroom.
Click to expand...

I bet there's a rule against anything other than water in the courtroom. IMO the Red Bull/aggressiveness mix comes across badly. Also the apparent lack of preparation or understanding of testimony. :banghead:
 
This is probably a stupid no brainer question but it kept me awake a lot last night...

If one or more of the defense "experts" are disqualified from testifying...does the DT have to find another...get to find another...or are they just out of luck and how will this play into a mistrial or an appeal?

and

It seems like Judge Perry is giving out rope by the mile...I don't think for a minute that he is playing into the DT hands but that he, as judge is firmly in control and just like a fisherman who is letting the fish tire itself he will soon real them in.

Is that right thinking?
 
At what point , before the trial,will the state be talking to their witnesses? Will they be rehearsing/practicing with them before the trial starts? If so, who usually would be conducting this? thanks...
 
Mamabear1963 said:
This is probably a stupid no brainer question but it kept me awake a lot last night...

If one or more of the defense "experts" are disqualified from testifying...does the DT have to find another...get to find another...or are they just out of luck and how will this play into a mistrial or an appeal?

and

It seems like Judge Perry is giving out rope by the mile...I don't think for a minute that he is playing into the DT hands but that he, as judge is firmly in control and just like a fisherman who is letting the fish tire itself he will soon real them in.

Is that right thinking?
Click to expand...

They are out of luck if their experts are disqualified this close to trial. This will not cause a mistrial. On appeal, it will be argued that the experts were improperly disqualified. If that argument doesn't succeed, in a post-conviction relief proceeding (let's just call that an "appeal" too for short :) ) it will be argued that the defense team provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not getting a better expert. The question will be whether there was some reasonable probability of actually finding a qualified expert who would provide the opinions needed.

Pattymarie said:
At what point , before the trial,will the state be talking to their witnesses? Will they be rehearsing/practicing with them before the trial starts? If so, who usually would be conducting this? thanks...
Click to expand...

I don't prepare my witnesses until the night before their testimony--if you do it any earlier, they forget everything by the time they get on the stand. ;) The attorneys should be doing this themselves.

The prep sessions do involve "practicing" in the sense that you listen to the witness's answer and give both presentation advice--don't talk too fast, don't mumble, don't slouch, don't scowl, etc.--and substantive advice--don't anticipate where the attorney is going and try to answer things that haven't been asked yet, don't offer long explanations for a simple question, don't make jokes, etc.
 
I have two quick questions, please:

1. Can the State add to their witness list (late - with good cause) a chemist or someone from Proctor & Gamble (manufacturer of Febreze) for rebuttal in the event the defense goes with the 'Febreze caused the chloroform' theory?

2. Would the State be allowed to have someone testify that at the time of trial the car still smells to help show that garbage would not still stink 3 years after being removed (and that human decomp would)?

Hope these two questions make sense... and thanks in advance!!!
 
Snaz said:
I have two quick questions, please:

1. Can the State add to their witness list (late - with good cause) a chemist or someone from Proctor & Gamble (manufacturer of Febreze) for rebuttal in the event the defense goes with the 'Febreze caused the chloroform' theory?

2. Would the State be allowed to have someone testify that at the time of trial the car still smells to help show that garbage would not still stink 3 years after being removed (and that human decomp would)?

Hope these two questions make sense... and thanks in advance!!!
Click to expand...

1. Probably, but it will be up to HHJP.

2. Yes, this should be allowed.
 
Does CA's "fabreeze" story on the stand in the recent hearing place her in any direct legal jeopardy? If she is on the stand called by the defense does she have any use immunity? And what are the consequences if her testimony differs from prior? Just how far can the state or court go to screen against obvious bullplop testimony, or prevent it from causing a surge in public investigative spending?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 159 more.
Total: 3,604 (members: 160, guests: 3,444)

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
3,444
Total visitors
3,604
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,205
Messages
17,964,979
Members
228,714
Latest member
galesr
Back
Top