Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > Caylee Anthony 2 years old

Notices

Caylee Anthony 2 years old Not reported missing for a month after she was last seen.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1676  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:18 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by LolaMoon08 View Post
If you were JA and LDB would you ask that all witnesses be gagged during the trial? Do you think, in a case like this, that a gag order during trial would make sure things run smoother?
Since the jury will be sequestered, I'm not sure I would care very much. But I'm a big free speech person.
__________________

"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1677  
Old 01-12-2011, 08:38 AM
Macushla's Avatar
Macushla Macushla is offline
Our Royal Himalayan Gopher Hounds
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orlando, FL area
Posts: 2,433
Skipping ahead to post trial (and conviction). If KC gets someone willing to appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel, would that term cover the whole defense team? Can one attorney (Baez) be singled out or does the whole defense team come under fire in that kind of appeal?
__________________
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Euripides
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Macushla For This Useful Post:
  #1678  
Old 01-12-2011, 11:47 AM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macushla View Post
Skipping ahead to post trial (and conviction). If KC gets someone willing to appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel, would that term cover the whole defense team? Can one attorney (Baez) be singled out or does the whole defense team come under fire in that kind of appeal?
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.
__________________

"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
  #1679  
Old 01-12-2011, 11:55 AM
beach's Avatar
beach beach is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
Posts: 13,640
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)
__________________
Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to beach For This Useful Post:
  #1680  
Old 01-12-2011, 12:06 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Beach View Post
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)
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.
__________________

"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
  #1681  
Old 01-12-2011, 12:10 PM
ZsaZsa ZsaZsa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Beach View Post
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)
Sorry, I have to say this. I hope they have good malpractice insurance...

Last edited by ZsaZsa; 01-12-2011 at 12:12 PM. Reason: typo
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to ZsaZsa For This Useful Post:
  #1682  
Old 01-12-2011, 12:29 PM
Solace Solace is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
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.
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.
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Solace For This Useful Post:
  #1683  
Old 01-12-2011, 02:18 PM
Macushla's Avatar
Macushla Macushla is offline
Our Royal Himalayan Gopher Hounds
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orlando, FL area
Posts: 2,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Euripides
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Macushla For This Useful Post:
  #1684  
Old 01-12-2011, 05:42 PM
TotallyObsessed's Avatar
TotallyObsessed TotallyObsessed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,108
Not a lawyer, but I found this....
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-distri...l/1480146.html
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TotallyObsessed For This Useful Post:
  #1685  
Old 01-12-2011, 07:26 PM
shotgun09 shotgun09 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 369
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?
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to shotgun09 For This Useful Post:
  #1686  
Old 01-12-2011, 08:52 PM
BChand BChand is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 463
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.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to BChand For This Useful Post:
  #1687  
Old 01-13-2011, 12:06 AM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgun09 View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BChand View Post
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.
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? ) 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.
__________________

"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
  #1688  
Old 01-13-2011, 12:33 AM
Itsy's Avatar
Itsy Itsy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 579
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?
__________________
Did you know that "Dammit, I'm mad" spelled backwards is "Dammit I'm mad" - well, I still am!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itsy For This Useful Post:
  #1689  
Old 01-13-2011, 12:50 AM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsy View Post
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?
No, it's not moot. He can always be paid back if the sanctions are reconsidered.
__________________

"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1690  
Old 01-13-2011, 12:53 AM
Itsy's Avatar
Itsy Itsy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 579
Thanks - I was hoping that would be the answer
__________________
Did you know that "Dammit, I'm mad" spelled backwards is "Dammit I'm mad" - well, I still am!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itsy For This Useful Post:
  #1691  
Old 01-13-2011, 09:21 AM
Snaz's Avatar
Snaz Snaz is offline
"Heavens to Habeas Corpus" ~ Legal Eagle Lion
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 1,176
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!!!
__________________
"Judge, Mr, Ashton is laughing at me..... " ~ Jose Baez, Closing Argument 7/3/11 (Paraphrased, of course!)
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Snaz For This Useful Post:
  #1692  
Old 01-13-2011, 09:26 AM
Kentjbkent Kentjbkent is offline
DELETE ACCOUNT
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaz View Post
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!!!
Has this motion been ruled on yet? (I am way behind.....)
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Kentjbkent For This Useful Post:
  #1693  
Old 01-13-2011, 12:00 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaz View Post
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!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentjbkent View Post
Has this motion been ruled on yet? (I am way behind.....)
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.
__________________

"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1694  
Old 01-13-2011, 12:02 PM
kaRN's Avatar
kaRN kaRN is offline
Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where the Mayor smokes crack
Posts: 4,410
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
__________________

Injustice for Caylee Marie Anthony.

Copyright that Cindy

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to get better. It's not. Dr. Suess
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to kaRN For This Useful Post:
  #1695  
Old 01-13-2011, 01:07 PM
ziggy's Avatar
ziggy ziggy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern Cal
Posts: 4,209
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)

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?
__________________
__________________
Disclaimer: while I have graduated law school and hold a JD, I am not yet licensed to practice. Therefore, if I say anything which could possibly be considered legal advice, or if I explain anything related to legal matters, rules of evidence, legal procedures, or anything related to law, please be aware that I do not yet hold a bar card and we have no attorney/client relationship. Please always, always talk to a personal attorney, and follow their directions. Please also follow the TOS in regards to all unverified posters. Thank you!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ziggy For This Useful Post:
  #1696  
Old 01-13-2011, 01:34 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaRN View Post
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
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
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?
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.
__________________

"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1697  
Old 01-13-2011, 09:15 PM
BChand BChand is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
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? ) 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.
BBM - Glad to hear you say that. I was wondering what magic powers he had also.

Thank you for your responses.
The Following User Says Thank You to BChand For This Useful Post:
  #1698  
Old 01-14-2011, 01:17 AM
BondJamesBond BondJamesBond is offline
Retired WS Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,906
Continue here:
Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
attorney questions, experts, legal questions, q&a, questions4attorneys, verified lawyers

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~* Kimster Zahra Clare Baker 69 07-20-2011 04:04 PM
Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~* Kimster Kyron Horman 458 06-28-2011 02:16 PM
Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers on the board Capri Haleigh Cummings 53 09-12-2010 04:36 PM
Legal Q&A Answers from VERIFIED Legal professionals only JBean Somer Renee Thompson 4 05-17-2010 02:40 AM
Legal Questions daisy7 Byrd and Melanie Billings 45 01-01-2010 08:18 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:13 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!