Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Leila said:
A question for one of our attorneys.......................

First a little background. In December 2005 my nephew was murdered by his then 19-year-old step-son in the state of Texas. The murder weapon was a baseball bat and the stepson was arrested at the scene of the crime - the family home. Shortly after his arrest he confessed to the crime.

Since the step-son had already confessed, there was no trial, but in August 2007 there was a week long sentencing hearing. There was testimony from from the defendant's family arguing for leniency, and my nephew's mother, brother, sister, and his son and two daughters from a prior marriage arguing for the maximum sentence (this wasn't a death penalty case).

Just before the case was to go to the jury, who would determine his sentence, the defendant's attorney told the court they wanted to plea bargain the sentence. The defense attorney and prosecution attorney conferred, and negotiated a sentence that everyone agreed on. As it turned out, the jury was polled and they all were leaning toward the sentence that was finally agreed on.

My question is: If Casey is convicted, can the defense ask to plea bargain the sentence during the penalty phase?
Click to expand...

There isn't much "wiggle room" for a plea with only 2 options--LWOP or death. IOW, there's no compromise that the 2 sides can reach.
 
AZlawyer said:
There isn't much "wiggle room" for a plea with only 2 options--LWOP or death. IOW, there's no compromise that the 2 sides can reach.
Click to expand...

Thanks AZLawyer! I can see that it would present a very limited range for negotiations.

In the Texas case, the law called for something like 10 - 25 years, so there was a lot of room for negotiation. We think the defendant thought he'd get the maximum - 25 years. A sentence of 15 years was negotiated, and there was something about special circumstances that he isn't eligible for parole until after 10 years.
 
A plea deal could involve pleading guilty to one or more lesser included offenses. If the lesser included offenses did not require an LWOP or death penalty, then there would also be room to negotiate a sentence. A plea deal can happen at any phase in the proceedings, including after trial and sentencing.
 
Themis said:
A plea deal could involve pleading guilty to one or more lesser included offenses. If the lesser included offenses did not require an LWOP or death penalty, then there would also be room to negotiate a sentence. A plea deal can happen at any phase in the proceedings, including after trial and sentencing.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Themis. The original question, as I understood it, was about a plea deal after a conviction for first-degree murder, but before the sentencing phase is concluded. I only do criminal work on appeal, so let me know if I'm incorrect that any plea would have to include a sentence for any charge(s) for which she was already convicted.
 
AZlawyer said:
She could still change her plea to guilty. But I believe the sentencing phase would still move forward with a jury, so her chances of getting LWOP vs. death will be about the same.
Click to expand...

Does she have to have to have an offer from the state to do that?
 
o/t

Welcome to our new members here on this thread. We are glad to have you. You are asking very bright questions. You are going to love it here at Websleuths and we are going to love having you!!!:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june:
 
If this has been asked and answered already, I apologize. If GA's Grand Jury testimony is kept private and not released, what will happen if he deviates from that testimony during trial? Will the SA be able to call him on the discrepancy? How will it be done? TIA!
 
Sooner Fan said:
Does she have to have to have an offer from the state to do that?
Click to expand...

To change her plea to guilty? No.

chefmom said:
If this has been asked and answered already, I apologize. If GA's Grand Jury testimony is kept private and not released, what will happen if he deviates from that testimony during trial? Will the SA be able to call him on the discrepancy? How will it be done? TIA!
Click to expand...

The SA will throw a fit and try to get the transcript released again. IMO, HHJP will allow it if he is told that the GJ testimony was directly in conflict with the trial testimony.
 
I have a question. I'm reading a book about a (federal) trial and re the testimony of a psychiatrist the author writes:

It was not the first time the expert had been invited by both sides to consult in the same case; indeed he prefers to speak to both sides before agreeing to testify for either. Eventually he decided to testify for the government because the law says that the findings of the government's experts are available to the defense if the government decides not to use them, whereas the reverse does not obtain.

does that apply in this case? the consulting w/ both sides and the use of discarded expert findings being a one-way street? mucho TIA
 
Originally Posted by chefmom
If this has been asked and answered already, I apologize. If GA's Grand Jury testimony is kept private and not released, what will happen if he deviates from that testimony during trial? Will the SA be able to call him on the discrepancy? How will it be done? TIA!
Click to expand...


AZlawyer said:
The SA will throw a fit and try to get the transcript released again. IMO, HHJP will allow it if he is told that the GJ testimony was directly in conflict with the trial testimony.
Click to expand...

Apparently several of us have been confused about this. ThinkTank did some successful digging on the 'Motion for George's Grand Jury testimony..' thread (see post #201) and discovered that JS has already granted the SA's motion.

Below is the pdf link to JS's Order dated Oct. 6, 2009.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21218532/detail.html

The defense is asking for reconsideration, since JS did not address their joint request in their earlier motion. Their argument citing case law is on PDF pgs. 4 & 5, paragraphs 12-16 in the recent Motion for Reconsideration linked below. It is my understanding that this should be addressed at tomorrow's hearing.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23477589/detail.html


This piques my curiosity. Just wondering how HHJP could be expected to handle this. Will his decision be based on whether the SA found good cause and plan on using the GJ testimony to impeach GA if necessary?
 
gramcracker said:
I have a question. I'm reading a book about a (federal) trial and re the testimony of a psychiatrist the author writes:

It was not the first time the expert had been invited by both sides to consult in the same case; indeed he prefers to speak to both sides before agreeing to testify for either. Eventually he decided to testify for the government because the law says that the findings of the government's experts are available to the defense if the government decides not to use them, whereas the reverse does not obtain.

does that apply in this case? the consulting w/ both sides and the use of discarded expert findings being a one-way street? mucho TIA
Click to expand...

Yes, the State has to disclose its expert findings to the defense if the State's expert ends up supporting the defense. The defense is not under the same obligation.

beach2yall said:
Apparently several of us have been confused about this. ThinkTank did some successful digging on the 'Motion for George's Grand Jury testimony..' thread (see post #201) and discovered that JS has already granted the SA's motion.

Below is the pdf link to JS's Order dated Oct. 6, 2009.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21218532/detail.html

The defense is asking for reconsideration, since JS did not address their joint request in their earlier motion. Their argument citing case law is on PDF pgs. 4 & 5, paragraphs 12-16 in the recent Motion for Reconsideration linked below. It is my understanding that this should be addressed at tomorrow's hearing.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23477589/detail.html


This piques my curiosity. Just wondering how HHJP could be expected to handle this. Will his decision be based on whether the SA found good cause and plan on using the GJ testimony to impeach GA if necessary?
Click to expand...

I just saw the order on the other thread. If the SA has already determined that the grand jury testimony was not materially in conflict, and therefore will not be used at trial, I don't believe that the defense will get to see it. If the SA is going to use it at trial, IMO the defense will get a copy.
 
AZlawyer said:
I just saw the order on the other thread. If the SA has already determined that the grand jury testimony was not materially in conflict, and therefore will not be used at trial, I don't believe that the defense will get to see it. If the SA is going to use it at trial, IMO the defense will get a copy.
Click to expand...

Thanks and I was thinking the same.
 
To our WS esteemed legal professionals . . . if the KC defense team succeeds in getting new rulings (from Judge P) on previous rulings by Judge S, would this/could this jeopardize the ruling Judge S made on Jan 25th, for the money that KC admitted to stealing from AH? If I recall, Judge S. gave her time already served. Does that stand?
 
DaughterAlice said:
To our WS esteemed legal professionals . . . if the KC defense team succeeds in getting new rulings (from Judge P) on previous rulings by Judge S, would this/could this jeopardize the ruling Judge S made on Jan 25th, for the money that KC admitted to stealing from AH? If I recall, Judge S. gave her time already served. Does that stand?
Click to expand...

That ruling would be unaffected by the motion to disqualify JS, which was filed in the murder case only (and was filed after the fraud case was resolved). Also, the defense has requested reconsideration of only a handful of JS's rulings; it is my understanding that most or all of those requests were denied at the hearing yesterday.
 
Az I went through the docket and could not find anything from either side called Notice of Disclosure. Is there another name for it? thanks
 
Hi AZlawyer,

I have been thinking about what Mason said at the hearing (I don't remember exactly how he said it) when he talked about Caylee being placed where she was found after KC was in jail. He said something like "even if she did do it" **murder?**. What in this world was he thinking? What kind of backlash do you see coming for KC from him saying such a thing? Surely that statement wasn't lost on everyone, was it?
 
wonders said:
Hi AZlawyer,

I have been thinking about what Mason said at the hearing (I don't remember exactly how he said it) when he talked about Caylee being placed where she was found after KC was in jail. He said something like "even if she did do it" **murder?**. What in this world was he thinking? What kind of backlash do you see coming for KC from him saying such a thing? Surely that statement wasn't lost on everyone, was it?
Click to expand...

Okay...I totally heard that one too. TY for mentioning it...
To add to the above question by Wonders, AZ Lawyer, do you believe that the defense is going towards some type of mental defect defense...????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 187 more.
Total: 1,699 (members: 188, guests: 1,511)

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
1,511
Total visitors
1,699
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,802
Messages
17,959,116
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top