Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

Okay I have a question...I'm not sure exactly how to ask, but here goes:

Is there a legal mechanism of some kind in place to prevent people from 'playing games' to get a defendant off - such as Cindy or george or lee suddenly,surprisingly 'confessing' to something (or everything) in order to get Casey freed...

Such as if Cindy says she killed Caylee, then Casey gets set free, then there is not evidence to convict Cindy. I know it's far fetched, but with the lying, perjury, belligerence and game playing we've seen so far, I'm afraid to think of what we will see when the anthonys testify. They'll be doing everything they can to help out Casey.

Nothing would prevent one of the As from confessing at trial, but I think that would be a pretty dangerous game if he/she isn't really guilty.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have an important question (to me right now anyway!), but would appreciate if anyone who has worked in a legal background (doesn't have to be attorney) could answer....


In general, is a Case Manager for a law firm an attorney?

Is it a requirement requirement, or just desirable for case manager to be an actual attorney (or have specific legal background)

Guess what I am asking is...can anyone with good organizational skills, writing skills, be hired as a "case manager"?


(PS..not looking for a job :dance

No, if a law firm calls someone a "case manager" they're probably a paralegal, maybe with special skills in social work, etc. We had a "mitigation case manager" at a death penalty clinic where I worked during one summer of law school. It was her job to figure out how to make the defendants look pitiful.

 

[AZlawyer]

question from Seeking Justice: "Do you think there is any likelihood that George and or Cindy, will be charged with anything?
Thanks"

question from AutumnLover: "I really respect your opinion and I'm anxious to hear what you think of the Anthony's and how their behavior could affect the outcome of the trial. Specifically, do you think their credibility will be affected because of their conflicting stories to LE and behavior in the media (as well as number of appearances on TV)?

Thanks so much for answering. "

I don't think they will be charged with anything for the "mistruths." Someone's always lying--LE doesn't have time to chase them all down and prosecute them. But I think their credibility will definitely be damaged by the conflicting stories.

 

[AZlawyer]

I so appreciate your input!

About pro bono: when experts are flown in to inspect a case, who pays?

Even for a pro bono expert, you would almost certainly have to pay their expenses. Maybe that's why Lee quit--maybe they didn't reimburse him for his plane ticket!

 

[AZlawyer]

Wasn't sure where to post this, so thanks for this new thread! Wonder if any of our attorneys could expound or comment on whether there are similarities in this case, and a possible future appeal (if convicted) of KC?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9234765067865176425

This is a case that was taken under appeal for a defendant convicted of first degree murder in Florida. The appeal is based on alleged multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the criminal proceeding resulting in his conviction. Where I think it may be worthy of comparison is that the claims include the defense attorney's lack of hiring experts, lack of depositions, financial arrangements, as well as conflict in interest whereas the defense attorney's involvement potentially put him in the position of becoming a witness in the case. Very interesting read....

1. Delayed Disclosure Of The Murder Weapon.

Shortly after the shootings, Mr. Alessi's family hired attorney Huntley Johnson to represent Mr. Alessi at trial. In an early telephone conversation between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Alessi, Alessi informed Johnson that he was contemplating suicide. In response, Mr. Johnson told Mr. Alessi to "get rid of the gun" — the weapon Mr. Alessi had used in the shooting — which was obviously evidence in the murder case. Mr. Alessi followed his lawyer's advice and tossed or hid the gun in a storm drain. A week later, the two discussed the fact that Mr. Johnson would need to turn the gun over to the State. Mr. Alessi immediately agreed, and told Mr. Johnson where the gun was hidden. However, Johnson delayed his disclosure to the State for approximately four months.

At trial, the State argued that hiding the gun and delaying the disclosure of its location evidenced Mr. Alessi's consciousness of guilt. In response to the State's questions, Mr. Alessi attempted to explain that he was acting on the advice of counsel, but Mr. Johnson objected to the line of inquiry. At a bench conference, Mr. Johnson expressed his outrage that the State was pursuing this line of questioning, and the associated argument, when the prosecutor knew that Mr. Alessi had been acting on his advice and that he — not Mr. Alessi — was responsible for the long delay.

Then, in its closing argument, the State argued, without objection, that Mr. Alessi's decision to hide the gun, and his delay in disclosing its location, further evidenced his consciousness of guilt.

I speculate if this is where the ongoing saga with Dominic Casey is playing out. It was stated by Hoover (I believe) that Baez supposively told DC NOT to contact LE if they were to discover the remains while looking at the wooded area off Surburban Dr in November. What was DC told? By whom? What role did JB play in this? Could this pave the way for appeal if convicted by KC?


2. Fee Arrangement And Decision To Forego Expert Witnesses.

The retainer agreement between the Alessi family and Mr. Johnson established a fee of $135,000, which included "any services of investigators, or experts employed by undersigned attorney." Mr. Alessi's family testified at the evidentiary hearing that Mr. Johnson told them that he would seek "police experts" to go through the case and offer re-enactments and testimony regarding bullet projectories [sic], and that he would "have all kinds of experts on this case."

I am curious as to whether KC entered into a similar retainer agreement with Baez, and that the initial amount was funded from the sale of pictures, videos shortly after she was bonded out by LP (remember all the visits to Baez office with loaded arms). Could this be why the "big guns" were initially brought on board (paid out of retainer fee) but all parties assumed that future licensing fees would continue to financially pay for the defense, but then the State shut that plan down by filing the motion? No more money, no more defense expert!

Additionally, Mr. Johnson's own investigator, Kirby Jordan, testified that early on in his involvement in the case, he recommended to Mr. Johnson that they secure expert testimony to support the defense theory that it was a reactionary shooting upon seeing Mr. Herron's gun. Mr. Jordan offered to locate an expert but Mr. Johnson said he would take care of it. About a month before trial, Mr. Jordan again asked about expert testimony. Mr. Johnson told Mr. Jordan that he would not be hiring experts because the Alessi family could not afford them. Mr. Jordan assumed that Johnson would ask the family for more money because "we all agreed that it was going to be a critical part of the case." Later, Mr. Johnson's explanation for not using experts shifted from lack of money to the fact that Mr. Johnson felt he had prepared the case without them, and did not think he needed one.In his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Johnson acknowledged the retainer agreement and that any money he would have spent on experts would have come from his fee. Mr. Johnson testified that he considered using experts, but explained that his decision not to hire an expert was strictly strategic, and had nothing to do with the fee arrangement. According to Mr. Johnson, his primary concern was that the State would hire an expert in response. Mr. Johnson testified that:
ased on the reports that we had and the fact that the State did not have [an expert], we felt like we could make the argument sufficiently with the photographs and with the reports [and] that [our defense] could not be contradicted unless they had an expert. And we didn't want to get into doing experts when we thought we could make the argument . . . without an expert.
Mr. Johnson testified that he explained his reasoning to Mr. Alessi, who agreed with the decision. Testimony from Mr. Johnson's law partner also supported Mr. Johnson's position that Mr. Johnson did not pursue an expert witness for reasons unrelated to the cost.

On various defense threads, we have discussed the lack of experts in this case, with the exception of one examination by Dr. Henry Lee. Does Mr. Baez have the same defense theory...that he doesn't need experts to counter the prosecution experts, but instead feels confident that he can debunk the state experts himself? Or do you think lack of funds do play into this? (BTW...appeal court sided with defense atty in this incident, citing it did not find experts were not hired due to conflict of interest (personal financial).

2. The Burnside and Cole Tests For Applying Sullivan.

The attorney in Cole had entered a retainer agreement providing that all deposition costs would come from his fee, and then deposed no witnesses. Based upon the trial court's finding that the attorneys' decision to forego depositions was unaffected by the fee arrangement, our court affirmed the denial order. Of course, in that case, the defendant had established a viable alternative defense strategy (deposing witnesses in preparation for trial), that was inherently in conflict with counsel's financial self-interest. Therefore, if this court had applied the two-part viable alternative test recited in Burnside, ad litteram (i.e., to the letter, or precisely), it would have reversed the denial order, and required a new trial in Cole.

It is my understanding that to date, Baez has conducted few depositions, apart from Kronk and the OCSD investigators. Do we know if Baez has more depositions scheduled, or is it a matter of finances? If Baez chooses to forego any additional depositions prior to trial, could this be a factor for KC in filing an appeal based on ineffective counsel?

The types of fee arrangements employed in this case, and in Cole, are so susceptible to claims of conflict and questions regarding the ethics of the attorney's strategic decisions at odds with his or her own financial interests that an attorney should probably expect an ethics inquiry by the Florida Bar with respect to any case for which this type of fee arrangement is used. In fact, this type of fee arrangement is so obviously prone to allegations of ethical lapse that the supreme court may want to consider barring it altogether in criminal cases.

Comments, opinions from our lawyers?

The only criminal work I've done post-law school is pro bono assistance with appeals. I wish rhornsby were here. But I think a criminal lawyer is actually within his "ethical" rights (using the word "ethical" in the special way criminal defense lawyers use it!) to find the body and not tell LE about it--as long as he doesn't have anyone touch/move/alter anything.

I'm not going to speculate about possible fee arrangements that would create ethical problems for JB. I can't figure out, though, why he would agree to take the case based on Casey's payment of $1400, which would pay for less than a day of work. And did he actually get the $1400? If so, where did it come from? And if not, why did he stay on the case? Is this $1400 the same as the $14,000 that Cindy heard Casey mention to Tony on the phone the morning of 7/16/08, and one version is mistaken? $14,000 would be a better retainer, at least for the relatively minor charges Casey was facing at the time.... The whole thing makes no sense. :waitasec:

 

[RR0004]

Thank you, AZ for taking the time to answer all these questions. Very much appreciated!

And Happy New Year everyone...from the East Coast!

 

[JBean]

Reminder this is a Q&A for lawyers responses. I moved some of the discussion to a new thread and removed posts that were not responses from an attorney.

 

[JSR]

I have an important question (to me right now anyway!), but would appreciate if anyone who has worked in a legal background (doesn't have to be attorney) could answer....


In general, is a Case Manager for a law firm an attorney?

Is it a requirement requirement, or just desirable for case manager to be an actual attorney (or have specific legal background)

Guess what I am asking is...can anyone with good organizational skills, writing skills, be hired as a "case manager"?


(PS..not looking for a job :dance

No a case manager doesn't have to be a licenced attorney. Most of the time case managers are only found in large law firms. And in many cases a case manager can be interchanged with a paralegal. Depending on the state you may be required to have a certificate to do such work. In my opinion it would be extremely difficult to be a case manager/paralegal without any background in the legal field. Especially if the area of law is litigation.

 

[Novice Seeker]

I've been suspicious for some time that Baez's intent is to delay, delay, delay this case for as long as he can. Retaining a DP certified attorney is a prime example. It took the SA's office going before the judge to force Baez to get off his butt and bring a DP lawyer in. As of now, the defense has yet to take any depositions of individuals that even we as sleuthers know should be deposed. Baez is still yet to submit the defenses witness list which means it going to take hauling him in to answer to Judge Strickland why. Then, there's AL who agreed to join the team despite her busy teaching schedule which she freely uses as a crutch to postpone anything she can.

So, my question is will Baez be allowed to continue his delay tactics? Does the State have any recourse in putting a stop to this??

Novice Seeker

 

[RR0004]

I hope it is ok to answer part of NS's question...if not, please remove.

The Judge gave Baez to 2/1 to hand over his witness list.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I've been suspicious for some time that Baez's intent is to delay, delay, delay this case for as long as he can. Retaining a DP certified attorney is a prime example. It took the SA's office going before the judge to force Baez to get off his butt and bring a DP lawyer in. As of now, the defense has yet to take any depositions of individuals that even we as sleuthers know should be deposed. Baez is still yet to submit the defenses witness list which means it going to take hauling him in to answer to Judge Strickland why. Then, there's AL who agreed to join the team despite her busy teaching schedule which she freely uses as a crutch to postpone anything she can.

So, my question is will Baez be allowed to continue his delay tactics? Does the State have any recourse in putting a stop to this??

Novice Seeker

BBM.

The lack of depositions taken by the defense has me puzzled. I understand that it is a defense tactic to delay, delay, delay, but they can't be neglecting the deposition process in order to drag the trial date out...can they ? How can the defense claim they need more time when they have had plenty of it and done nothing ?

 

[Novice Seeker]

I hope it is ok to answer part of NS's question...if not, please remove.

The Judge gave Baez to 2/1 to hand over his witness list.

That's what I think is going to happen. But, isn't the time Judge Strickland gave Baez more than generous for Baez to submit his witness/expert list? Which IMO for lack of better words helped Baez in his strategy. What timeframe is Judge Strickland going to give him to do what he should have already been doing, take depositions? At what point does the Judge say enough of this behavior and force Baez to get his butt in gear?

One last question(for now) isn't the manner in which Baez has handled this case so far grounds enough for KC to come back later and ask for a retrial on the grounds of infeffective counsel??

Novice Seeker

 

[Kentjbkent]

That's what I think is going to happen. But, isn't the time Judge Strickland gave Baez more than generous for Baez to submit his witness/expert list? Which IMO for lack of better words helped Baez in his strategy. What timeframe is Judge Strickland going to give him to do what he should have already been doing, take depositions? At what point does the Judge say enough of this behavior and force Baez to get his butt in gear?

One last question(for now) isn't the manner in which Baez has handled this case so far grounds enough for KC to come back later and ask for a retrial on the grounds of infeffective counsel??
Novice Seeker

FYI
Your answer may be in reading the appeal case that I referenced on the first page of this thread.....

 

[LambChop]

Depositions cost money. If there is nothing the defense feels will help in KC's defense why waste their time in redoing them when they have copies of the depositions done by SA. My guess is that they will just try to shoot holes through some of the testimony. KC has attempted to throw under the bus the only people who originally said they felt she was a good mother, JG, AH, RM. KC has made her own bed. JMO So if the reason is money, would this be the best way to handle it??

 

[The World According]

A question from CeCy for one of our lawyers. So if I understand things correctly, DC has no special privilege in court regarding any relationship other than that with an attorney. If JB was present at any conversation, that is covered by confidentiality. If JB was not, and DC's concurrent "contract" kicked in with someone else, it would not. DC's lawyer kept mentioning the two types of contracts DC entered into (with an officer of the court and with private citizen/s) as if they were the same, but IIRC, LDB made special mention that they don't consider anything DC did outside the relationship with JB to have any binding privilege in court, particularly regarding a capital case like this. Please, faefrost, or any one of our attorneys step in and correct me if I've misunderstood.
__________________

 

[The World According]

How could Baez have misunderstood his privacy agreement so much?[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Van3fh26WY[/ame]

 

[The World According]

It is coming up soon. What do you predict?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kaoyq7deMRg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[AZlawyer]

A question from CeCy for one of our lawyers. So if I understand things correctly, DC has no special privilege in court regarding any relationship other than that with an attorney. If JB was present at any conversation, that is covered by confidentiality. If JB was not, and DC's concurrent "contract" kicked in with someone else, it would not. DC's lawyer kept mentioning the two types of contracts DC entered into (with an officer of the court and with private citizen/s) as if they were the same, but IIRC, LDB made special mention that they don't consider anything DC did outside the relationship with JB to have any binding privilege in court, particularly regarding a capital case like this. Please, faefrost, or any one of our attorneys step in and correct me if I've misunderstood.
__________________

I have never heard of any PI/client privilege in any state.

 

[impatientredhead]

I have never heard of any PI/client privilege in any state.

A PI that has a legitimate contract with the attorney would be covered under work product for any knowledge he has about the case due to that role, no? Like the office staff of the defense that would be taking calls and have access to documents?

But a PI that is under contract to a private citizen (George and Cindy) is not under the umbrella of work product and therefore has no protection or limitation of questioning?

 

[AZlawyer]

A PI that has a legitimate contract with the attorney would be covered under work product for any knowledge he has about the case due to that role, no? Like the office staff of the defense that would be taking calls and have access to documents?

But a PI that is under contract to a private citizen (George and Cindy) is not under the umbrella of work product and therefore has no protection or limitation of questioning?

Yes, if the PI was working as part of the defense "team" he should be covered by the A/C privilege and/or work product (depending on what the issue is). So there is no "PI privilege," but a PI, like anyone else assisting an attorney, might be covered by privileges relating to attorneys.

But if the PI was working for George and Cindy, there is no privilege I know of.