Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
jon_burrows said:
I thought JS gave JB a deadline (sometime in Feb) to come clean on the evidence he said would prove Casey didn't commit the crime. The time line came and went and I never heard another word. Did JB ever give this information? If not, why wouldn't JS enforce his order?

Tks.
Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:
Assuming that order was never modified, it would not be up to the judge to raise the issue. It would be up to the SA. Maybe the SA would rather just interpret the failure to file the disclosure as an admission that no such evidence existed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering my question, I have one more concerning the subject. I keep hearing the lawyers say something like 'just for the record'. I'm assuming one of the reasons they say this is to lay the ground work if they have to appeal. Shouldn't the SA state 'for the record' that since JB never met his deadline imposed by the judge, the court concludes no evidence exists? It seems odd that JB can be given an order, not comply, then everyone seemingly ignores the non response. Couldn't JB come back later and say I had the evidence but forgot to comply and no one reminded me. It seems odd because there have been so many minor issues brought up 'for the record' but this one (IMO) is huge. He states he has evidence that his client is innocent, the judge says show it to me, then nothing?
 
jon_burrows said:
Thanks for answering my question, I have one more concerning the subject. I keep hearing the lawyers say something like 'just for the record'. I'm assuming one of the reasons they say this is to lay the ground work if they have to appeal. Shouldn't the SA state 'for the record' that since JB never met his deadline imposed by the judge, the court concludes no evidence exists? It seems odd that JB can be given an order, not comply, then everyone seemingly ignores the non response. Couldn't JB come back later and say I had the evidence but forgot to comply and no one reminded me. It seems odd because there have been so many minor issues brought up 'for the record' but this one (IMO) is huge. He states he has evidence that his client is innocent, the judge says show it to me, then nothing?
Click to expand...

Even though the judge gave a specific disclosure deadline for this one type of evidence, in reality as long as the defense discloses it (if there is any such evidence) in enough time before trial for the State to respond to it, it will be allowed at trial. So it would just be a waste of the taxpayers' money to make a big deal out of this. Maybe the SA thinks the taxpayers' money is going to be wasted enough in this case. ;) :twocents:
 
Now that Casey has been declared indigent, will the state take any money that is put into her jail account? Seems like, since she is using tax dollars for her defense now, that any assets (like $100.00 added to her account from time to time), should be used by the state for the defense money instead of KC using it for cocoa and chips.
 
If a client tells a third party about atty-client info,is it still atty-client info?
 
Kathy1964 said:
Now that Casey has been declared indigent, will the state take any money that is put into her jail account? Seems like, since she is using tax dollars for her defense now, that any assets (like $100.00 added to her account from time to time), should be used by the state for the defense money instead of KC using it for cocoa and chips.
Click to expand...

I really don't know the answer to this one. It completely makes sense that any $ in her account in excess of the daily jail charge SHOULD be given to the State to defray the cost of her defense. But I don't know if this will actually happen, unless the amount in her account becomes so large on such a regular basis that it is no longer reasonable to call her "indigent."

5stars said:
If a client tells a third party about atty-client info,is it still atty-client info?
Click to expand...

The privilege is usually waived if the client reveals attorney-client communications to a third party.
 
Thank you azlawyer.It just puzzles me on Mr .Mason comment at the end of the hearing he said something in the docs. that was sealed could have that in it.When I was thinking it was only the notes passed to another inmate.
 
5stars said:
Thank you azlawyer.It just puzzles me on Mr .Mason comment at the end of the hearing he said something in the docs. that was sealed could have that in it.When I was thinking it was only the notes passed to another inmate.
Click to expand...

Oooooohh good point...she definitely might have revealed some privileged conversations in those notes. But I can't imagine how Mason thinks he's going to keep that infomation privileged, if so.
 
AZlawyer said:
Assuming that order was never modified, it would not be up to the judge to raise the issue. It would be up to the SA. Maybe the SA would rather just interpret the failure to file the disclosure as an admission that no such evidence existed.
Click to expand...

I have a follow-up to your answer in re. jon_burrows question.

Since Todd Macaluso was the attorney who made this proffer to the Court, considering that he has since withdrawn, is the rest of the defense team still responsible to submit this proof?

ITA with your suggestion about the SA strategy, I'm just curious as to whether the remaining members of the defense could still be held responsible.
 
..forgive me for asking--------i'm certain it's been asked before.

..regarding a plea deal.

..does the SA come forward with offer of a plea? more than once ?

..or can the defense------ASK-----for a plea deal ? even now?

..( and if the defense gets to ask for one now-----can the SA now say-----we offered a plea BEFORE there was a body, that was then , this is now-----------see you in court.)
 
..also, when baez "suddenly recalled",at the last moment, "ummmmm..errrr...uhhhhhhh..." that macaluso had also "donated " "70G to kc's defense.

..is it usual for a pro-bono, ( or any attorney for that matter ) to CONTRIBUTE to their client's defense fund ?
 
AZlawyer said:
Oooooohh good point...she definitely might have revealed some privileged conversations in those notes. But I can't imagine how Mason thinks he's going to keep that infomation privileged, if so.
Click to expand...

Very Good Question and Answer! My concern would be that if the jail facilitated or participated in this exchange of information with the other inmate in any way, does it make it easier for the information to be withheld due to the priviledge?

Sorry, don't know how to do double quotes, but AZLawyer's answer was to whether priviledge could exist in information that was given by the defendent to a third party (jail inmate).
 
butterfly1978 said:
TM probably contributed the funds because he needed someone to hide the cash while he was being investigated. Not many people will say Hey why dont I pay you so I can work for you.... Nope doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

I agree that a lawyer would rarely pay for the privilege of working on a case, and I believe his contributing the money was itself an ethical violation.

However, the bar investigations of Macaluso were opened in 2006 and 2007 for events occurring during those years, and Macaluso did not join Casey's team until 2009. Furthermore, although he was found to have misused funds, he made restitution of those funds in 2007. His stipulation with the California authorities can be reviewed here: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/06-O-14552-2.pdf

So I seriously doubt that the contribution of the funds was money-laundering.
 
reminder that this thread is for questions from members that should only be answered be verified lawyers.


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92404"]Professional and Local Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Please refrain from answering if you are not on the Expert poster list.

Feel free to respond to the answers but this is not for general chit chat.

If your post was removed it was for one of these reasons.
 
Someone asked a really good question on the indigent thread, I thought I would run over here and ask our legal people that same question: WHAT makes it more expensive to defend a DP case rather than a LWOP case? Witnesses need to be deposed in both types, experts hired, investigations done, where does all the extra money needed go? DP qualified attorneys - that I can see, but what else? I never gave it much thought until the poster brought it up. Wish I could remember the posters name so I could gvie them credit, but my mind is a blank!

ETA: Logicalgirl asked the question that got me thinking - went back and checked so I could give her credit!
 
I understand that defending a DP case is automatically more expensive because of the appeals that will be filed for years if the DP is imposed.

My more specific question is this:

With the DP back on the table do more witnesses need to be deposed than in a non DP case?

Someone else posted on another thread that because of the death penalty everyone would need to be deposed. The insinuation seemed to be that if the DP weren't on the table that less people would need to be deposed.

Could someone clarify whether there will need to be more people deposed than in a non DP case?

TIA!
 
beach2yall said:
I have a follow-up to your answer in re. jon_burrows question.

Since Todd Macaluso was the attorney who made this proffer to the Court, considering that he has since withdrawn, is the rest of the defense team still responsible to submit this proof?

ITA with your suggestion about the SA strategy, I'm just curious as to whether the remaining members of the defense could still be held responsible.
Click to expand...

Yes, the defense team as a whole is still responsible.

lauriej said:
..forgive me for asking--------i'm certain it's been asked before.

..regarding a plea deal.

..does the SA come forward with offer of a plea? more than once ?

..or can the defense------ASK-----for a plea deal ? even now?

..( and if the defense gets to ask for one now-----can the SA now say-----we offered a plea BEFORE there was a body, that was then , this is now-----------see you in court.)
Click to expand...

Either the SA or the defense can (but does not have to) initiate plea discussions, as many times as they want to.

lauriej said:
..also, when baez "suddenly recalled",at the last moment, "ummmmm..errrr...uhhhhhhh..." that macaluso had also "donated " "70G to kc's defense.

..is it usual for a pro-bono, ( or any attorney for that matter ) to CONTRIBUTE to their client's defense fund ?
Click to expand...

No no no no no. And normally it is unethical to do so.

MysticOne said:
Very Good Question and Answer! My concern would be that if the jail facilitated or participated in this exchange of information with the other inmate in any way, does it make it easier for the information to be withheld due to the priviledge?

Sorry, don't know how to do double quotes, but AZLawyer's answer was to whether priviledge could exist in information that was given by the defendent to a third party (jail inmate).
Click to expand...

If the jail or SA "participated" in the sense of "setting up" the situation in order to get statements from Casey, the letters will be excluded--not because of A/C privilege, but because they would violate Casey's 5th Amendment rights. If the jail official simply "faciliatated" communications on her own, I don't believe that the mere violation of jail policy would lead to the exclusion of the evidence, and it also would not affect the operation of the A/C privilege. If Casey "spilled" A/C privileged information in these letters, it will no longer be privileged.

Macushla said:
Someone asked a really good question on the indigent thread, I thought I would run over here and ask our legal people that same question: WHAT makes it more expensive to defend a DP case rather than a LWOP case? Witnesses need to be deposed in both types, experts hired, investigations done, where does all the extra money needed go? DP qualified attorneys - that I can see, but what else? I never gave it much thought until the poster brought it up. Wish I could remember the posters name so I could gvie them credit, but my mind is a blank!

ETA: Logicalgirl asked the question that got me thinking - went back and checked so I could give her credit!
Click to expand...

DP cases are more expensive mostly because of automatic appeals, because the lawyers' diligence is more likely to be questioned down the road, and because the appellate courts will be going over everything with a fine-toothed comb to ensure there was no error.

FeelSoOld said:
I understand that defending a DP case is automatically more expensive because of the appeals that will be filed for years if the DP is imposed.

My more specific question is this:

With the DP back on the table do more witnesses need to be deposed than in a non DP case?

Someone else posted on another thread that because of the death penalty everyone would need to be deposed. The insinuation seemed to be that if the DP weren't on the table that less people would need to be deposed.

Could someone clarify whether there will need to be more people deposed than in a non DP case?

TIA!
Click to expand...

I think the defense should do more depositions than they have done so far, but I've never heard of any rule that "everyone" must be deposed in a DP case. Some people are just not important or controversial witnesses. The critical thing is that you should know what each witness is going to say. With all the written and recorded witness statements already taken in this case, I doubt "everyone" will be deposed.
 
My main question is- will Cindy, George & others who have lied be called as witnesses? We have seen the tapes & heard the lies. Will bits & pieces of their comments on tapes be used with the defense & prosecution using what they wish instead of them being on the stand? We have also seen how volitale they are as well. Is this what would be called a " hostile witness" when they argue back and don't answer & etc. like they did in the Zanny questioning?
What are the chances that Cindy & George will be found & charged with - deliberately giving false information/evidence & more? Will they have to serve any jail time?

Who is going to be charged & go to jail (besides Casey) - Cindy, George, Jose Baez?

Unfortunately, this case will become one for the text books (both law & psych).
 
AZlawyer said:
I really don't know the answer to this one. It completely makes sense that any $ in her account in excess of the daily jail charge SHOULD be given to the State to defray the cost of her defense. But I don't know if this will actually happen, unless the amount in her account becomes so large on such a regular basis that it is no longer reasonable to call her "indigent."


The privilege is usually waived if the client reveals attorney-client communications to a third party.
Click to expand...

(my Bold)
What is this daily jail charge, is it common among most jails?

What happens if you balance is zero? I would suppose you get the basic hygiene items and nothing more, right?
 
Psycho babble said:
My main question is- will Cindy, George & others who have lied be called as witnesses? We have seen the tapes & heard the lies. Will bits & pieces of their comments on tapes be used with the defense & prosecution using what they wish instead of them being on the stand? We have also seen how volitale they are as well. Is this what would be called a " hostile witness" when they argue back and don't answer & etc. like they did in the Zanny questioning?
What are the chances that Cindy & George will be found & charged with - deliberately giving false information/evidence & more? Will they have to serve any jail time?

Who is going to be charged & go to jail (besides Casey) - Cindy, George, Jose Baez?

Unfortunately, this case will become one for the text books (both law & psych).
Click to expand...

Generally, you don't get to call witnesses through videotapes. I believe CA and GA will be called by the State as witnesses, and will be confronted with their inconsistent prior statements if they are stupid enough to lie on the stand. The SA may very well ask for CA, especially, to be treated as a "hostile witness" so they can ask her leading questions.

I really doubt anyone else will be charged or go to jail. The State can't afford to get distracted by these side issues.

Cher352 said:
(my Bold)
What is this daily jail charge, is it common among most jails?

What happens if you balance is zero? I would suppose you get the basic hygiene items and nothing more, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, the daily charge is common, and I assume there is one in this case, because Casey's jail account sometimes has a negative balance, and I don't know any other way to get a negative balance. ;)

If your balance is zero, you get only the "necessities" that everyone gets.
 
I have a question re: students helping an attorney with a trial.
If there is an attorney using the students for various tasks, giving them info, even if it isn't direct but a leading thought so to speak does that nulify the privledge?
I hope I explained what I mean well enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 3,321 (members: 84, guests: 3,237)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
3,237
Total visitors
3,321
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,394
Messages
17,968,318
Members
228,766
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top