AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
Non-expert witnesses can say things at trial that were not said in their depositions.
Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2
- Thread starter BondJamesBond
- Start date
- Status
Non-expert witnesses can say things at trial that were not said in their depositions.
Aedrys
If justice doesn't get you, karma will.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 6,719
- Reaction score
- 17
I'm curious about things being posted to the docket at the court house. Specifically, I'm wondering why all of HHJP's rulings were not able to be posted on Thursday. I know they were sent late in the day, but is the process to get things on the docket a lengthy one? Was this just laziness on the part of the court official? Or could HHJP tell the court to only post one ruling and wait until Monday for the others? I have no idea of the process to get something on the court docket, which is why I'm asking about this. It is driving me crazy that they were only able to get one ruling out on Thursday.
RR0004
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 19,987
- Reaction score
- -27
Not a lawyer (sorry), but does anyone have proof that he made a decision on the other matters prior to 5pm yesterday?
Aedrys
If justice doesn't get you, karma will.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 6,719
- Reaction score
- 17
I read one of the news websites that a court official said he had the rulings, but couldn't the post the rest until Monday since the court was closed on Friday. So yes, HHJP has ruled on everything, we just don't get to see it until Monday, and that's why I was asking about it here.
It was WESH http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/27628608/detail.html and here's the quote:
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
That's not the way I interpret the court official's statement. I think he/she was saying that, although HHJP had been EXPECTED to rule on other matters on Thursday, "no other rulings would be issued Thursday" because HHJP did NOT in fact rule on those issues.
uklaw
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 785
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi All,
I just joined up after a bit of lurking. Hope that I don't make myself unpopular by saying that, taking a view of matters most unfavourable to the Defendant, I am not convinced that Casey Anthony intended to kill her child. Of course, whether or not she killed her child in some manner, whether she is a good mother and whether or not she is a "sociopath" are all different stories.
Anyway I hope some of you legal eagles could help me with this question.
QUESTION:Is the State required to prove that Anthony effected the death of Caylee "from a premeditated design to effect the death of... a human being" to secure a conviction of First Degree Murder (FDM)?
Now before you all jump on the bandwagon and say "Yes! Obviously", I would just like to explain my hang-up:
In short, it seems to me that the State can make out a case of FDM by simply showing that the Defendant killed Caylee whilst the Defendant was engaged in "Aggravated Child Abuse" (i.e. "chloroform dousing" without the intend to kill or some other form of abuse).
After reading into the case and flicking through the CBS "focus group" episode I got to thinking: could the State make out a case of FDM by simply showing that the Defendant caused the death of Caylee and that she did so either from a pre-meditated design or as a result of some form of "aggravated child abuse" (i.e. "chloroform dousing", or another form of abuse) and that which it was is irrelevant to whether or not the Defendant should be convicted of FDM (penalty may well be a different matter).
Here is my reasoning:
Obviously if the State proves unlawful killing and the "pre-meditated design" criterion then they have proved Murder in the First Degree under Floridian law. Paragraph (1)(a)1 of Section 782.04 (Murder) of the Florida Statute (2008) provides, in the material part that:
However, (1)(a)2.h. of the Murder section also provides, again in the material part, that
"Aggravated child abuse" is defined in Section 827.03 of the Florida Statute (2008) as occurring when a person:
The search for the definition of Aggravated battery takes leads to section 784.045, which provides, again in the material part, that:
So, as far as I can see (and I have neither studied nor practiced law in the USA) and have no idea on the relevant Floridian or Federal case law, a Defendant can be convicted of FDM on the basis of their unlawfully killing someone whilst "engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate" aggravated child abuse as defined above (or any of the other felonies prescribed by 782.04(1)(a)(2). As an aside the victim of the unlawful killing does not need to be the victim of the "aggravated child abuse" (or so it would seem from my reading of the statute) but that is not relevant in this case, interesting as it is.
The statute seems to provide various acts which constitute "Aggravated child abuse". However, I am tentatively assuming here that "chloroform dosing" even if just to "knock out" the child would constitute "aggravated child abuse" under Floridian law. However, I appreciate that this is open to the interpretation of the statute and certainly on some interpretations of the statute such "chloroform dosing" would not constitute "aggravated child abuse".
So there is my reasoning and really the basis of my questions to those US (and hopefully Floridian lawyers) or are on the forum. Can Casey Anthony be convicted of First Degree Murder even if the jury do not buy that Anthony killed Caylee from a "premeditated design" (essentially, set out to intentionally kill Caylee) but that the death of Caylee instead, may have resulted from a botched "chloroform dosing" on the part of Casey or something similar? What would the state need to prove? How practical is it?
If I am honest, looking through this case I kept thinking to myself: "Granted I have not seen all the evidence (the Defense have not put on their case yet and there is far too much) but although I think it is likely that Casey Anthony was involved in her death there is little evidence that Anthony intended to kill her child, it could just as easily be extreme negligence, treatment which constitutes stupid/bad parenting resulting in Casey's death, or 'sedation' (i.e. chloroform) gone wrong". And that's how this question came up. Please do not abuse me for this view it's just my honest opinion.
Another reason I ask this question is that Defence, the Media and indeed the CBS "focus group" seem to be working on the basis that the state requires to prove "pre-meditated design" to secure a FDM conviction. However, as far as I can tell all the state has to prove is that the Defendant unlawfully killed Caylee and did so either from "a pre-meditated design" or during the course of "aggravated child abuse"
--------
There is another issue connected to all this. The material terms of the Indictment with which Anthony was charged with FDM are:
Therefore, on the face of it, the Indictment charges Anthony with FDM under the "pre-meditated design" theory.
As, I understand it very few crimes have prescribed forms of Indictment by the Florida Statute. However, FDM does. Section 923.03 (2008) provides, again in material part, that:
Question 2: Assuming that Anthony can be convicted of FDM on the basis of chloroform dousing or similar, is the State tied to the "pre-meditated design" theory or can they still present "aggravated child abuse" as an alternative, fall-back theory.
-----
Sorry for such a long post. Just wanted to explain my reasoning before asking others to take the time to comment.
I just joined up after a bit of lurking. Hope that I don't make myself unpopular by saying that, taking a view of matters most unfavourable to the Defendant, I am not convinced that Casey Anthony intended to kill her child. Of course, whether or not she killed her child in some manner, whether she is a good mother and whether or not she is a "sociopath" are all different stories.
Anyway I hope some of you legal eagles could help me with this question.
QUESTION:Is the State required to prove that Anthony effected the death of Caylee "from a premeditated design to effect the death of... a human being" to secure a conviction of First Degree Murder (FDM)?
Now before you all jump on the bandwagon and say "Yes! Obviously", I would just like to explain my hang-up:
In short, it seems to me that the State can make out a case of FDM by simply showing that the Defendant killed Caylee whilst the Defendant was engaged in "Aggravated Child Abuse" (i.e. "chloroform dousing" without the intend to kill or some other form of abuse).
After reading into the case and flicking through the CBS "focus group" episode I got to thinking: could the State make out a case of FDM by simply showing that the Defendant caused the death of Caylee and that she did so either from a pre-meditated design or as a result of some form of "aggravated child abuse" (i.e. "chloroform dousing", or another form of abuse) and that which it was is irrelevant to whether or not the Defendant should be convicted of FDM (penalty may well be a different matter).
Here is my reasoning:
Obviously if the State proves unlawful killing and the "pre-meditated design" criterion then they have proved Murder in the First Degree under Floridian law. Paragraph (1)(a)1 of Section 782.04 (Murder) of the Florida Statute (2008) provides, in the material part that:
However, (1)(a)2.h. of the Murder section also provides, again in the material part, that
"Aggravated child abuse" is defined in Section 827.03 of the Florida Statute (2008) as occurring when a person:
The search for the definition of Aggravated battery takes leads to section 784.045, which provides, again in the material part, that:
So, as far as I can see (and I have neither studied nor practiced law in the USA) and have no idea on the relevant Floridian or Federal case law, a Defendant can be convicted of FDM on the basis of their unlawfully killing someone whilst "engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate" aggravated child abuse as defined above (or any of the other felonies prescribed by 782.04(1)(a)(2). As an aside the victim of the unlawful killing does not need to be the victim of the "aggravated child abuse" (or so it would seem from my reading of the statute) but that is not relevant in this case, interesting as it is.
The statute seems to provide various acts which constitute "Aggravated child abuse". However, I am tentatively assuming here that "chloroform dosing" even if just to "knock out" the child would constitute "aggravated child abuse" under Floridian law. However, I appreciate that this is open to the interpretation of the statute and certainly on some interpretations of the statute such "chloroform dosing" would not constitute "aggravated child abuse".
So there is my reasoning and really the basis of my questions to those US (and hopefully Floridian lawyers) or are on the forum. Can Casey Anthony be convicted of First Degree Murder even if the jury do not buy that Anthony killed Caylee from a "premeditated design" (essentially, set out to intentionally kill Caylee) but that the death of Caylee instead, may have resulted from a botched "chloroform dosing" on the part of Casey or something similar? What would the state need to prove? How practical is it?
If I am honest, looking through this case I kept thinking to myself: "Granted I have not seen all the evidence (the Defense have not put on their case yet and there is far too much) but although I think it is likely that Casey Anthony was involved in her death there is little evidence that Anthony intended to kill her child, it could just as easily be extreme negligence, treatment which constitutes stupid/bad parenting resulting in Casey's death, or 'sedation' (i.e. chloroform) gone wrong". And that's how this question came up. Please do not abuse me for this view it's just my honest opinion.
Another reason I ask this question is that Defence, the Media and indeed the CBS "focus group" seem to be working on the basis that the state requires to prove "pre-meditated design" to secure a FDM conviction. However, as far as I can tell all the state has to prove is that the Defendant unlawfully killed Caylee and did so either from "a pre-meditated design" or during the course of "aggravated child abuse"
--------
There is another issue connected to all this. The material terms of the Indictment with which Anthony was charged with FDM are:
Therefore, on the face of it, the Indictment charges Anthony with FDM under the "pre-meditated design" theory.
As, I understand it very few crimes have prescribed forms of Indictment by the Florida Statute. However, FDM does. Section 923.03 (2008) provides, again in material part, that:
Question 2: Assuming that Anthony can be convicted of FDM on the basis of chloroform dousing or similar, is the State tied to the "pre-meditated design" theory or can they still present "aggravated child abuse" as an alternative, fall-back theory.
-----
Sorry for such a long post. Just wanted to explain my reasoning before asking others to take the time to comment.
beach
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 18,370
- Reaction score
- 4,471
Welcome uklaw! 
So happy you decided to join us and come out of lurkdom!
Thank you for such an astute, well-thought out, detailed post posing your question. We do have one member who is a verified criminal defense attorney licensed in Florida - his name is rhornsby. Not sure if he will drop by tonight, however most of the attorneys answering questions on this thread are pretty familiar with the FL Code and Rules by now. I feel confident they will be able to answer your questions. If they're not sure, they are kind and humble enough to say, "I'm not sure...maybe rhornsby will drop by and let us know."
Again, glad to have you with us!
:welcome5:
So happy you decided to join us and come out of lurkdom!Thank you for such an astute, well-thought out, detailed post posing your question. We do have one member who is a verified criminal defense attorney licensed in Florida - his name is rhornsby. Not sure if he will drop by tonight, however most of the attorneys answering questions on this thread are pretty familiar with the FL Code and Rules by now. I feel confident they will be able to answer your questions. If they're not sure, they are kind and humble enough to say, "I'm not sure...maybe rhornsby will drop by and let us know."
Again, glad to have you with us!
:welcome5:
Future Juror
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm another lurker with a question that's been bothering me lately! It's probably been asked somewhere and I missed it - although I try hard to read here everyday. If so, could one of you Super Mods whisk me off to the right place?
My question is about the pending charges against KC - specifically the (4) counts of Providing False Information to Law Enforcement.
Now that the DT openly admits she's a liar, do you think she will plead Guilty to these 4 counts just prior to the start of the trial? And if so, how would that effect the SA's case? If she's able to say "of course I lied to LE, I plead guilty to Charges 4,5,6,7" before the trial starts, then is the evidence of her lying and the related time lines no longer directly relevant to the other charges in some backwards legal way?
To a lay person like me, of course the lies are relevant, but now I'm wondering in the legal system, what evidence, witness or testimony might get tossed or suppressed if those charges are off the table during trial? Could all of her written and verbal reports (incl the end of the 911 call where she says the Nanny took her) be suppressed, as those clearly (primarily?) relate to those (4) charges? That whole legality of "no, we can't allow that" in regards to prejudicial evidence/testimony relating to the guilty party (err, defendant) always throws me for a loop and now I'm concerned that the cold, calm, 'happy' manner she had in her taped voice won't be heard at trial (among many other things).
As always, a HUGE THANKS to AZLawyer, Katprint, Rhornsby and everyone else for taking the time to answer these questions.
My question is about the pending charges against KC - specifically the (4) counts of Providing False Information to Law Enforcement.
Now that the DT openly admits she's a liar, do you think she will plead Guilty to these 4 counts just prior to the start of the trial? And if so, how would that effect the SA's case? If she's able to say "of course I lied to LE, I plead guilty to Charges 4,5,6,7" before the trial starts, then is the evidence of her lying and the related time lines no longer directly relevant to the other charges in some backwards legal way?
To a lay person like me, of course the lies are relevant, but now I'm wondering in the legal system, what evidence, witness or testimony might get tossed or suppressed if those charges are off the table during trial? Could all of her written and verbal reports (incl the end of the 911 call where she says the Nanny took her) be suppressed, as those clearly (primarily?) relate to those (4) charges? That whole legality of "no, we can't allow that" in regards to prejudicial evidence/testimony relating to the guilty party (err, defendant) always throws me for a loop and now I'm concerned that the cold, calm, 'happy' manner she had in her taped voice won't be heard at trial (among many other things).
As always, a HUGE THANKS to AZLawyer, Katprint, Rhornsby and everyone else for taking the time to answer these questions.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
We had some long discussions about this way back in 2008.
The short answer is that Casey can be convicted of Felony Murder (782.04(1)(a)(2)) if the jury determines that the death of Caylee occurred in connection with Casey's commission of a felony, such as Aggravated Child Abuse. And as long as the indictment charges both the underlying felony (Aggravated Child Abuse) and also First Degree Murder by Premeditated Design (782.04(1)(a)(1)), then the jury may be instructed on Felony Murder even though it is not specifically included in the indictment, according to a decision by the Florida Supreme Court.Casey can be convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse if she intentionally used a "deadly weapon" against Caylee, which IMO would include a cloth soaked in chloroform or anything similar, or "unlawfully caged" Caylee, which IMO would include leaving her in the trunk, or knowingly "abused" Caylee in an act that caused her great bodily harm (chloroform or leaving in the trunk would definitely constitute "abuse", and death is "great bodily harm").
The lies, even if admitted, are clearly relevant to the murder charge as evidence of "consciousness of guilt." Why did she lie? Because she knew she was guilty of murder and wanted to escape punishment.
atthelake
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,979
- Reaction score
- 25
AZlawyer's Avatar -
AZlawyer - Your quote at the bottom of each post of yours entrigues me. Do you have audio/video of such.....again.........it sums it all up for me yet you were two years ahead catching this phrase for ICA"
"I don`t want to be one of those thousands of parents that has to deal with the possibility ... of knowing that their child`s alive and that they`re with someone else. The thought of that every day makes me sick."
Casey Anthony , August 14, 2008
AZlawyer - Your quote at the bottom of each post of yours entrigues me. Do you have audio/video of such.....again.........it sums it all up for me yet you were two years ahead catching this phrase for ICA"
"I don`t want to be one of those thousands of parents that has to deal with the possibility ... of knowing that their child`s alive and that they`re with someone else. The thought of that every day makes me sick."
Casey Anthony , August 14, 2008
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
She made this statement at the August 14, 2008 jail visit with her parents. There was a "long version" and a "short version" of this visit released by the media, and I think the statement was only in the "long version." I'll try to find it.
ETA: Sorry the original link (Fox Orlando was the longer link) is broken now.
atthelake
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,979
- Reaction score
- 25
She made this statement at the August 14, 2008 jail visit with her parents. There was a "long version" and a "short version" of this visit released by the media, and I think the statement was only in the "long version." I'll try to find it.
ETA: Sorry the original link (Fox Orlando was the longer link) is broken now.
Understood. From the beginning, I kept all links religiously in one spreadsheet, and now - most of them are not functional. I would ask what are best for links, (I think I know the one that is premier) but more appropriate/within WS guidelines to move my questions to another thread. You are fab with your time! Thanks.
atthelake
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,979
- Reaction score
- 25
AZ etc......She left her purse in the car on purpose I believe to have the car stolen. This, to me, was the one item that put the nail in her. THE ONE! She even went days with inconveniences (e.g she couldn't put deposit on the keg etc. in the next few days when she partied........) What young person would leave their purse in plain view, and NEVER mention or try to get.....to me.......was left at a place for the ONLY purpose of it being visible at a check cashing place, and hoping that it would be stolen with her car,,,,,,,putting the blame on someone else. This to me.....is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer! I haven't seen this discussed, so perhaps the had been put to rest. I've not ever seen this brought up in legal - is this something that they have enough info on for the trial to put forth? To me, once I learned of this, this was the end for me!
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
Not really a legal question, I guess, but Casey did not leave her purse in the car. She left what Cindy called "one of her work purses," which was a bag with some papers in it, including Amy's resume, which Casey had promised to pass on to someone at Universal.
It is true that she did not have her driver's license with her a couple of times, including when Tony was looking for a new apartment--which was before Casey abandoned the car--and when Will was getting supplies for the 4th of July party--which was after Casey abandoned the car.
Paintr
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,964
- Reaction score
- 41
Is all the evidence that will be used at trial released by now? Whether we have seen it or not, has both sides, the SA and DT seen everything the other is going to present? Is there a deadline when all evidence must be revealed to the opposing lawyers?
Thank you kindly for all your answers and your patience.
Thank you kindly for all your answers and your patience.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
Is all the evidence that will be used at trial released by now? Whether we have seen it or not, has both sides, the SA and DT seen everything the other is going to present? Is there a deadline when all evidence must be revealed to the opposing lawyers?
Thank you kindly for all your answers and your patience.
There are always exceptions to disclosure deadlines. The best I can say at this point is that, most likely, everything that will be used at trial has been disclosed. If it hasn't, the judge will want a darn good reason for the failure to disclose (e.g., "we just found out about this even though we were not slacking off") and will make sure that the other side has enough time to prepare to respond to the new evidence (e.g., depose new witnesses) before trial. If there is no good reason for the delay and/or the other side will not have time to deal with the new evidence before trial, HHJP will not allow the evidence to be used at trial.
I feel like the citizens of Oz when they state "lets ask the Wizard (insert AZLawyer), he'll (she'll) have the answers".
What do you think the chances are of this ah..motion being granted??
"To prohibit any reference to photographs and social behavior of Ms. Anthony that occured within the "31 days", as such conduct is irrelevant and inadmissable as to consciousness of guilt......"
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27662775/detail.html
What do you think the chances are of this ah..motion being granted??
"To prohibit any reference to photographs and social behavior of Ms. Anthony that occured within the "31 days", as such conduct is irrelevant and inadmissable as to consciousness of guilt......"
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27662775/detail.html
wonders
My opinion's may not alway's be right but they are
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,354
- Reaction score
- 30
I have a strange question if I may.
Casey stated that Caylee had been missing for 31 days. It seems to me that she was well aware of how many days Caylee had been dead. Can the state use that in some fashion to help convict her? Gosh I hope you can make heads or tails of my question.
Thank you.
Casey stated that Caylee had been missing for 31 days. It seems to me that she was well aware of how many days Caylee had been dead. Can the state use that in some fashion to help convict her? Gosh I hope you can make heads or tails of my question.
Thank you.
bananarama
Seeking Justice for the little ones without a voic
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 0
Aren't there several items of discovery that are sealed, that we hopefully will learn about at trial?:dunno:
In this latest motion asking for the photos to be kept out isn't Mason confirming for us when exactly Caylee died when he states that the photos were taken "subsequent to the alleged crime".... as we do know the date when the Fusian photos were taken...?
- Status