Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was unaware I was required to verify myself as an attorney in order to participate and contribute That is the second post I have had deleted on this thread.
You can participate and contribute without being veriifed. the only thing you cannot do is post as an attorny and answer questions on threads specifically looking for attorney responses such as this one.

From the Expert Posters link in my signature:

>>If you do not wish to be identified as an expert in a certain area, we only ask that you refrain from answering questions that are specifically directed to those that have been verified as specialist in their area.<<

Sorry Lumberg,
 
Ok I got one: If a defense attorney had evidence proving their client innocent of the charges against them are there any moral, ethical, or legal obligations as a lawyer for said info to be released?

1.Such as not releasing said info would cause your client undo incarceration.

2.Create a greater burden on tax payers by prolonging the proceedings.
 
Ok I got one: If a defense attorney had evidence proving their client innocent of the charges against them are there any moral, ethical, or legal obligations as a lawyer for said info to be released?

1.Such as not releasing said info would cause your client undo incarceration.

2.Create a greater burden on tax payers by prolonging the proceedings.

I think I answered this one a few times lol. Short answer is if you have evidence that can really, seriously, without a doubt get your client out of jail you'd better tell the SA and get her out of jail.

But if you only have "evidence" consisting of, e.g., half-crazy people saying things that don't fit with the forensic evidence, then you're probably better off just disclosing what you have to under the rules (in this case, I believe that would include name and contact info of the witnesses, any statements made by the witnesses, etc.) and doing your best with this "evidence" in front of a jury.

If you have in-between "evidence"--i.e., not enough to clearly get your client out of jail, but enough to make the SA worry that they might not get a conviction--you could use it as leverage for a plea deal.
 
I think I answered this one a few times lol. Short answer is if you have evidence that can really, seriously, without a doubt get your client out of jail you'd better tell the SA and get her out of jail.

But if you only have "evidence" consisting of, e.g., half-crazy people saying things that don't fit with the forensic evidence, then you're probably better off just disclosing what you have to under the rules (in this case, I believe that would include name and contact info of the witnesses, any statements made by the witnesses, etc.) and doing your best with this "evidence" in front of a jury.

If you have in-between "evidence"--i.e., not enough to clearly get your client out of jail, but enough to make the SA worry that they might not get a conviction--you could use it as leverage for a plea deal.
ITA. Other than producing a live Caylee, pretty much everything else at this point is a matter of how reliable or unreliable is the other evidence.
 
Whether or not to plea to the sheet or a negotiated deal is always the sole decision of the defendant. Attorneys can only advise and attempt to persuade. The decision rests solely with the client.

Quite frankly, when dealing with the representation of defendants in the criminal trial courts, any attorney who doesn't keep detailed records of contacts and advice is not an attorney you would want to have. No common sense whatsoever if they don't keep such records. As to having a client sign such a document -- no requirement whatsoever. If this became the standard in the industry to defend against a client's claim of misrepresentation or legal malpractice what would criminal defense counsel do if they did advise a client to take a deal and the client refused to sign? In such a case, the client could refuse to sign -- go to trial in which the defense attorney did everything they were supposed to do and more -- and then the client claims malpractice because there was no signed legal rights advisement from the client in favor of the attorney? No, that is not malpractice. The courts would never stand for that becoming the sole proof of legal malpractice.
 
Ok I got one: If a defense attorney had evidence proving their client innocent of the charges against them are there any moral, ethical, or legal obligations as a lawyer for said info to be released?

1.Such as not releasing said info would cause your client undo incarceration.

2.Create a greater burden on tax payers by prolonging the proceedings.

Not releasing the info until trial is not going to gain anything -- not even surprise tactics. Courts would not allow trial by ambush. If the defense attempts to ambush the prosecution, the court could and might grant a delay so the prosecution can rebut the evidence. If there is clear and convincing evidence of her innocense, it would be released already. Anything else is just a defense position or argument on something.

Unfortunately, the burden on the taxpayer argument never gains any significant traction. Prosecuting cases is why the taxpayer funded criminal prosecution offices came into being. Now, the public defender bar is also taxpayer funded. I don't really see corruption in trying to keep cases going to milk the taxpayer. Investigation, discovery, preparation and the merits really do drive these cases. A lot of the delays are usually because the criminal forensic labratories are so backed up.
 
What types of information might the prosecution be permitted to withhold from the defense? I always thought they had to tell them everything they knew!
 
Until I actually see it, I won't assume that the reports are correct that the State has asked to withhold information from the defense as well as from the public. But if those reports are correct, here are some possibly applicable portions of the disclosure rules:

(1) "If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure." However, the court may also "prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing
material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause."

(2) "The court on its own initiative or on motion of counsel shall deny or
partially restrict disclosures authorized by this rule if it finds there is a substantial risk to any person of physical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment resulting from the disclosure, that outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure to either party."

(3) "On a showing of good cause, the
court shall at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit the party to make beneficial use of it."
__________________
 
You guys are awesome. I have another question. Since the trial date is set for mid 2011, and she only got a year of probation in the fraud case, could Casey possibly get out on bail before the trial starts? I really hope the answer is no.
 
You guys are awesome. I have another question. Since the trial date is set for mid 2011, and she only got a year of probation in the fraud case, could Casey possibly get out on bail before the trial starts? I really hope the answer is no.

Well, I have yet to see anything showing that the trial date was set, except for news articles written by reporters who have been notoriously wrong at times. :)

But in any event, she's being held without bond on the murder charge, right? The fraud plea can't change that.
 
Whether or not to plea to the sheet or a negotiated deal is always the sole decision of the defendant. Attorneys can only advise and attempt to persuade. The decision rests solely with the client.

Quite frankly, when dealing with the representation of defendants in the criminal trial courts, any attorney who doesn't keep detailed records of contacts and advice is not an attorney you would want to have. No common sense whatsoever if they don't keep such records. As to having a client sign such a document -- no requirement whatsoever. If this became the standard in the industry to defend against a client's claim of misrepresentation or legal malpractice what would criminal defense counsel do if they did advise a client to take a deal and the client refused to sign? In such a case, the client could refuse to sign -- go to trial in which the defense attorney did everything they were supposed to do and more -- and then the client claims malpractice because there was no signed legal rights advisement from the client in favor of the attorney? No, that is not malpractice. The courts would never stand for that becoming the sole proof of legal malpractice.

Hi Themis!
Some of us have wondered if JB may have tried to isolate KC in order to gain control over the amount of info and advice she recieves. She stopped seeing family or visitors when the initial jail tapes were released. JB fought to keep KC out of the hearings ,but lost. Early on Lee warned KC that she may not be getting their letters ,that JB would do what was in his own best interest.
If JB is advising KC that they have a good chance of aquittal (or any chance,for that matter),could KC claim bad representation if she is convicted?
There is no doubt in my mind that JB and AL are probably using this case for PR purposes. They are media hounds IMO.
 
sorry to be a pill but please do not respond to legal questions if you are not a verified lawyer. I got a lot of complaints when we had a handful of posters doing that, so I have to be hard nosed about it. thanks

Since new posters don't always know the rules, perhaps it would be kind to include the word "verified" to refer to SME's in the title of the thread. Maybe even with an asterisk with a link or boilerplate sentence to refer folks to where to look or how that process is accomplished should they be unfamiliar with our technicalities.
 
Since new posters don't always know the rules, perhaps it would be kind to include the word "verified" to refer to SME's in the title of the thread. Maybe even with an asterisk with a link or boilerplate sentence to refer folks to where to look or how that process is accomplished should they be unfamiliar with our technicalities.
LOL they should know the rules if they read them :) I even carry this rule in my signature.

but I took your advice and have adjusted the title and added the link. thanks cecy.
 
I have another question because of new developments. I wonder if Casey even knows she might be in jail for another year and three months yet. Could she protest this some kind of way if she doesn't like it? I can't imagine her being okay with being locked up even longer now before the trial starts. Or is she is just stuck waiting and there's nothing she can do about it?
 
I have another question because of new developments. I wonder if Casey even knows she might be in jail for another year and three months yet. Could she protest this some kind of way if she doesn't like it? I can't imagine her being okay with being locked up even longer now before the trial starts. Or is she is just stuck waiting and there's nothing she can do about it?
It is called bail. As I recall, she is currently being held without bail so she's just stuck waiting.
 
Hi Themis!
Some of us have wondered if JB may have tried to isolate KC in order to gain control over the amount of info and advice she recieves. She stopped seeing family or visitors when the initial jail tapes were released. JB fought to keep KC out of the hearings ,but lost. Early on Lee warned KC that she may not be getting their letters ,that JB would do what was in his own best interest.
If JB is advising KC that they have a good chance of aquittal (or any chance,for that matter),could KC claim bad representation if she is convicted?
There is no doubt in my mind that JB and AL are probably using this case for PR purposes. They are media hounds IMO.
Your question is about "ineffective assistance of counsel."
The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution grants a right to counsel. There is no language in that amendment about effective or ineffective assistance of counsel (and there is no language about who has to pay that counsel). Cases decided by the courts have decided that if counsel is so ineffective as to deprive the defendant of the Constitutional right to counsel, the case can be reversed on that ground. I can't really do a laundry list of what constitutes "ineffective assistance of counsel." There is a key case that was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1984 that discusses this. It is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). If you do a web search you can find the case. This post would be too long if I started quoting it. Basically, if you look at things that were not ineffective assistance of counsel compared to what was ineffective assistance of counsel you can start to get a picture of what constitutes a violation of the Constitutional right and the Due Process rights. Counsel's falling asleep during a trial was NOT ineffective assistance of counsel, but making an argument that admitted a defendant's guilt without the defendant's consent was ineffective assistance. That would be because it is solely a defendant's right to decide to plead guilty! What you have described in your scenario above, would not, in my humble opinion, be ineffective assistance of counsel. It might be an error in judgment (or maybe under the circumstances it might be good judgment) but not ineffective assistance of counsel.
 
So I guess she doesn't have a choice either way. Well, I guess if she disliked it enough she could fire her lawyers, but she did say she didn't have a problem with them. I wonder if that sentiment is now changing...
 
Until I actually see it, I won't assume that the reports are correct that the State has asked to withhold information from the defense as well as from the public. But if those reports are correct, here are some possibly applicable portions of the disclosure rules:

(1) "If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure." However, the court may also "prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing
material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause."

(2) "The court on its own initiative or on motion of counsel shall deny or
partially restrict disclosures authorized by this rule if it finds there is a substantial risk to any person of physical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment resulting from the disclosure, that outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure to either party."

(3) "On a showing of good cause, the
court shall at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit the party to make beneficial use of it."
__________________
So does this mean that we may not ever see what the SA wants to keep under wraps with the current motion?
 
1) "If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure." However, the court may also "prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing
material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause."

And could that portion mean that this "materials and information" may have nothing to do with this case at all?
 
So does this mean that we may not ever see what the SA wants to keep under wraps with the current motion?

As I read the motion, the state says the information and materials are discoverable, and they want to delay their release, not prevent it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
4,099
Total visitors
4,299

Forum statistics

Threads
592,437
Messages
17,968,913
Members
228,768
Latest member
clancehan
Back
Top