Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
'Beach said:
As much as I am askeered to even type this out, here goes -

Suppose the defense never turns over the expert discovery as ordered and HHJP is pretty much forced (per the FRCP) to exclude them...

Would Casey have a decent appellate issue then for ineffective counsel? (on the grounds that her attorneys refused to comply with a court order)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have to say this. I hope they have good malpractice insurance...:innocent:
 
AZlawyer said:
Yes. But HHJP would not be forced to exclude the experts. He could impose stricter sanctions and even delay the trial if necessary to make sure that the state got the information it needs.
Click to expand...

Also, just fyi, someone posted, yesterday I believe, an interview with Hornsby where he says he believes the Universal Interview would be included, he believes, because KC was not under arrest. Doesn't mean he is right, just posting.

Also, was reading Lee's prosecution interview and they ask when KC was in the garage "was she free to move around" and Lee responds "yes". So I don't think she was handcuffed. I think her e-mail to Tony saying she was, was probably another lie.

Thanks.
 
AZlawyer said:
Even if one person is alleged to have been the main "ineffective counsel," the others are accused of ineffectiveness in not doing something about it. :banghead:
Click to expand...

I have to say, your answer gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside just imagining CM's reaction if someone does file an appeal based on ineffective counsel.
:skip::skip::skip:
 
Does this 'Mafia-like' behavior ( sending in a recently retired Judge...as an intimidating factor) and the ensuing Case law mentioned in Cheneys motion, happen often? These veiled threats to our Judges, are they noticed by the Bar? I know they are not direct, but clearly if the fine sleuthers here can figure it out, wouldn't the Bar as well?
 
Speaking of the case law referenced in the motion,(line 2 of the motion) what in the world does it have to do with the sanctions?

Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges

(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist.

Thank you.
 
shotgun09 said:
Does this 'Mafia-like' behavior ( sending in a recently retired Judge...as an intimidating factor) and the ensuing Case law mentioned in Cheneys motion, happen often? These veiled threats to our Judges, are they noticed by the Bar? I know they are not direct, but clearly if the fine sleuthers here can figure it out, wouldn't the Bar as well?
Click to expand...

BChand said:
Speaking of the case law referenced in the motion,(line 2 of the motion) what in the world does it have to do with the sanctions?

Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges

(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of these things were threats. My best guess regarding the presence of the retired judge was that he was being invited to join the pro bono dream team. (And how is a retired judge a threat to a sitting judge? :waitasec:) My best guess regarding the citation of the disqualification rule instead of the reconsideration rule at the beginning of the motion is that someone used the disqualification motion as a template. :loser:
 
As Baez took his check in Wednesday (wonder what time he did, lol), does this now make the motion moot? Or will HHJP still discuss it Friday - if he was going to in the first place?
 
Itsy said:
As Baez took his check in Wednesday (wonder what time he did, lol), does this now make the motion moot? Or will HHJP still discuss it Friday - if he was going to in the first place?
Click to expand...

No, it's not moot. He can always be paid back if the sanctions are reconsidered. :floorlaugh:
 
AZ, I have a question for you....

I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."

If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?

Is that rule different in every state?

TIA!!!
 
Snaz said:
AZ, I have a question for you....

I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."

If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?

Is that rule different in every state?

TIA!!!
Click to expand...

Has this motion been ruled on yet? (I am way behind.....)
 
Snaz said:
AZ, I have a question for you....

I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."

If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?

Is that rule different in every state?

TIA!!!
Click to expand...

Kentjbkent said:
Has this motion been ruled on yet? (I am way behind.....)
Click to expand...

I didn't think that motion had been ruled on yet, either. I think her sexual history immediately (maybe up to a couple of months?) before the "disappearance" is relevant to motive, and her sexual history while Caylee was "missing"--particularly within a few hours of the "kidnapping"--is relevant to show that her mental state was not that of a mother crazed with worry but that of a cold-hearted murderer who has been freed of a burden.
 
This has been on my mind for a while but the Jan 03 hearing really solidified the concern...

What happens if during the course of the months leading up to trial, one of the attorneys begins to show strong signs of early dementia and an inablity to focus on and comprehend written and spoken words? Is it the judge who must raise those concerns and have him/her removed from the case?
I ask because the person with failing faculties usually doesn't have the situational or self awareness to step away themselves.

Thanks :)
 
In this early video, Baez states how his client was cooperating with law enforecement (alluding to the interviews by police and Casey's statements now at issue in the motion to exclude them) and that she did not retain counsel until after she was arrested (inferring that she's just an innocent mom looking for her missing child and was aware that she COULD hire an attorney) [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQp_-iEJ5s[/ame]

Can this be used to impeach Baez during his pre-trial motion when he is now arguing that she was "in custody" and the statements were illegally obtained w/ Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues?

Or will this just be considered a "defense lawyer doing his thing" and carry zero weight?
 
kaRN said:
This has been on my mind for a while but the Jan 03 hearing really solidified the concern...

What happens if during the course of the months leading up to trial, one of the attorneys begins to show strong signs of early dementia and an inablity to focus on and comprehend written and spoken words? Is it the judge who must raise those concerns and have him/her removed from the case?
I ask because the person with failing faculties usually doesn't have the situational or self awareness to step away themselves.

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

I have seen this happen only once. In that case, the judge ordered the other counsel on the team to take over primary responsibility for the case and to file a report with the Bar notifying the Bar that Mr. X appeared to be no longer able to competently practice law. Mr. X retired shortly thereafter. :( Sad but necessary.

ziggy said:
In this early video, Baez states how his client was cooperating with law enforecement (alluding to the interviews by police and Casey's statements now at issue in the motion to exclude them) and that she did not retain counsel until after she was arrested (inferring that she's just an innocent mom looking for her missing child and was aware that she COULD hire an attorney) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQp_-iEJ5s

Can this be used to impeach Baez during his pre-trial motion when he is now arguing that she was "in custody" and the statements were illegally obtained w/ Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues?

Or will this just be considered a "defense lawyer doing his thing" and carry zero weight?
Click to expand...

Baez can't be impeached because he's not a witness. His "spin" or interpretation of the facts is irrelevant. In addition, it is not inconsistent for all these things to be true at once: Casey's statements were made voluntarily (you could call them "cooperating" if they had been truthful statements), Casey had not retained counsel at the time she made the statements but was aware she could have retained a lawyer, Casey was in custody at the time she made the statements, and Casey's statements cannot be used as evidence due to the failure to give Miranda warnings.
 
AZlawyer said:
I don't think either of these things were threats. My best guess regarding the presence of the retired judge was that he was being invited to join the pro bono dream team. (And how is a retired judge a threat to a sitting judge? :waitasec:) My best guess regarding the citation of the disqualification rule instead of the reconsideration rule at the beginning of the motion is that someone used the disqualification motion as a template. :loser:
Click to expand...

BBM - Glad to hear you say that. I was wondering what magic powers he had also.

Thank you for your responses.
 
Continue here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125267"]Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2[/ame]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 215 more.
Total: 4,234 (members: 216, guests: 4,018)

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
4,018
Total visitors
4,234
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,159
Messages
17,964,396
Members
228,706
Latest member
mhenderson
Back
Top