Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[What'sThatClue]

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...????

Yes, indeed, I heard CM state that too.

Along the same line, what might be the point or strategy of proving that although KC murdered Caylee, someone else moved the body?

 

[AZlawyer]

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

Maybe Notice of Provision of Discovery? There are lots of them in the docket, I know, but unfortunately I don't think the online docket for this court tells you which side actually filed the document. Nevertheless, the media is all over these notices and IMO would have asked the state to release anything the defense reported having disclosed to the state. In addition, IMO, Baez would have faxed a copy of any such disclosure to the media without being asked.

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?

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...????

Yes, indeed, I heard CM state that too.

Along the same line, what might be the point or strategy of proving that although KC murdered Caylee, someone else moved the body?

I think what CM was trying to say (clumsily, I agree) was that, if there is evidence that someone else moved the body, that doesn't necessarily mean that Casey couldn't have killed Caylee, but it might lead a jury to have reasonable doubt about the murder charge. That's how I interpreted it, anyway. I don't think he meant it to sound like an admission of his client's possible guilt--it was an admission that the evidence he wanted to use wasn't direct evidence of innocence but only indirect evidence.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Do you think the jury will be allowed to view the car? If so do you think the "smell" will still be there for them to smell? Thanks for all your time.

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

I have a questions..
I spent hours last night combing thru the jail house letters between KC and Cookie.. KC just totally has NO clue what is really going on! She speaks of going on a RV trip (their RV ministry - LOL) and changing her name and hair color. OMG it was painful to read :banghead:

I almost felt bad for how completely out of touch KC is from reality. Does she REALLY think she's going to get out of jail? Does she have too much confidence in her legal team? Do they really think they'll get her off?
She mentions that the case is speculative, not circumstantial.

I guess my question is... WTH!

Oh and another thing.. in another letter KC admits how her lead defense lawyer (JB) will have her "teach" him stuff.. new findings and evidence.
Will this come up at court? Is an attorney allowed to tell their client (the defendant) what to say at trial? Apparently, it can't be true if he and KC take turns "teaching" each other!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Will anything ever come of Macaluso's nonsense claim about having proof that Casey couldn't have moved the body/the body was moved while she was in jail? I mean the other attorneys had to have known about this 'evidence' so why can't they be accountable for it?

 

[TrY]

Since the Casey takes a fall thread is closed I want to ask the question here:

Will Casey's handwritten statement on the Orange County Corrections Statement Form of the falling accident

http://www.wesh.com/download/2010/0603/23784742.pdf

be used as a known Casey Anthony handwriting exemplar and compared to the letters that she hand wrote to RA?

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you think the jury will be allowed to view the car? If so do you think the "smell" will still be there for them to smell? Thanks for all your time.

I doubt that they will be allowed to smell the car. Unless they have smelled human decomp before and can compare the 2 smells, it would be of no value for them to smell the car. The point is not that the car smells bad but that it smells like a decomposing body.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a questions..
I spent hours last night combing thru the jail house letters between KC and Cookie.. KC just totally has NO clue what is really going on! She speaks of going on a RV trip (their RV ministry - LOL) and changing her name and hair color. OMG it was painful to read :banghead:

I almost felt bad for how completely out of touch KC is from reality. Does she REALLY think she's going to get out of jail? Does she have too much confidence in her legal team? Do they really think they'll get her off?
She mentions that the case is speculative, not circumstantial.

I guess my question is... WTH!

Oh and another thing.. in another letter KC admits how her lead defense lawyer (JB) will have her "teach" him stuff.. new findings and evidence.
Will this come up at court? Is an attorney allowed to tell their client (the defendant) what to say at trial? Apparently, it can't be true if he and KC take turns "teaching" each other!

Not really a legal question...but yes, I agree that she seems to have a delusional level of confidence in her defense team. :waitasec:

Nothing will come up in court about the "teaching." First, yes, it is OK for an attorney to rehearse trial testimony with a client. Second, that would be a privileged communication. Third, I'm quite sure that is NOT what KC was talking about, because there is no way JB wants her to testify at trial. (Unless he is more incompetent than I thought.) I think he was giving her legal texts or something to review and "teach" back to him. Sounds like a waste of time to me.

 

[AZlawyer]

Will anything ever come of Macaluso's nonsense claim about having proof that Casey couldn't have moved the body/the body was moved while she was in jail? I mean the other attorneys had to have known about this 'evidence' so why can't they be accountable for it?

No. I'm pretty sure they mentioned in a document they filed not long after that that their "evidence" was the same as the State's evidence but they were just "interpreting" it differently. IMO TM was just talking about the TES (and non-TES) searchers who had looked around that general area when it was massively overgrown and mostly underwater and didn't happen to see the remains.

Anyway, no one is really going to press them to reveal this "evidence." If it exists, they'd better reveal it before trial, or they won't be able to use it. So (unless it taints the jury pool) who cares if they claim to have evidence and then don't reveal it?

 

[AZlawyer]

Since the Casey takes a fall thread is closed I want to ask the question here:

Will Casey's handwritten statement on the Orange County Corrections Statement Form of the falling accident

http://www.wesh.com/download/2010/0603/23784742.pdf

be used as a known Casey Anthony handwriting exemplar and compared to the letters that she hand wrote to RA?

I guess it could be. But I think they have plenty of known exemplars already.

 

[beach]

AZ, would you mind jumping over to this forum and clearing up a couple of questions in re. the Joran van der Sloot arrest (Peru) and pending extortion charges in the U.S. ? I summarized and linked everything in one post that you will need, I think.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5248701&postcount=376"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5248701&postcount=376[/ame]


TIA! :blowkiss:

 

[Kentjbkent]

Been searching where to ask this question and since this thread is for QUESTIONS and the answer probably lies in court doc somewhere....figured I would give it a shot here...

From Today's News...

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/04/for-van-der-sloot-the-end.html

Florida resident Casey Anthony was 22 when her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, went missing. Like van der Sloot, Casey told authorities multiple versions of the events surrounding her daughter’s disappearance. She first blamed a woman she claimed was her babysitter, though the two had never met (she admitted that she took her name out of the phone book).


Do any of you attorneys recall ever reading anything in court docs, discovery, etc that KC admitted she took Zenaida's name from a phone book????

Where in the heck did Newsweek get that info....or where in the heck have I been???

 

[AZlawyer]

Been searching where to ask this question and since this thread is for QUESTIONS and the answer probably lies in court doc somewhere....figured I would give it a shot here...

From Today's News...

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/04/for-van-der-sloot-the-end.html

Florida resident Casey Anthony was 22 when her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, went missing. Like van der Sloot, Casey told authorities multiple versions of the events surrounding her daughter’s disappearance. She first blamed a woman she claimed was her babysitter, though the two had never met (she admitted that she took her name out of the phone book).


Do any of you attorneys recall ever reading anything in court docs, discovery, etc that KC admitted she took Zenaida's name from a phone book????

Where in the heck did Newsweek get that info....or where in the heck have I been???

Newsweek is wrong. :banghead:

 

[logicalgirl]

Casey Anthony defense again argues against death penalty aggravators

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4889737.story

snipped:
The documents received by Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry's office Friday reiterate earlier arguments about the constitutionality of three aggravating circumstances that prosecutors want to use to win a death sentence.

One speaks about a capital felony — the murder — being committed while Anthony engaged in another felony, in this case aggravated child abuse.

The defense argues that when examining if an aggravator might be overbroad, "the Court looks to whether there is a risk that the statute will result in capricious or arbitrary imposition of death."

The legal team goes on to say this particular aggravator "fails to narrow the class of death eligible persons in a meaningful way, and thereby allows arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty."
__________________
My posts are my opinion only.

Posted yesterday in Todays News - AZLawyer, please tell me this doesn't make any sense to you either!
And in the manner of penalties, can you remind me why the Defense is admitting to aggravated child abuse rather than "just" capital felony - or is the difference "just" the death penalty?
Admitting to one offense while arguing another one seems to be a weird for the Defense to be doing after two years of shouting to the Heavens that "our client in innocent and we will prove it when we go to trial".

Any comments you have would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Just Jayla]

There has been indication in the past that John Morgan was going to depose some people, but we have not yet seen their depositions.
Is it likely that, instead of depositions, JM will call witnesses at trial and question them based solely on his study of prior LE interviews?
For example, LP-Would JM rely on LP's interview with LE to develop his line of questioning, without ever deposing LP himself? Is this untenable as a legal strategy?
He has a huge list of witnesses and saving time and money is important at this juncture, just wondering if legal minds would recommend skipping depos and using the available public records/media instead to develop a line of questioning at trial time.

 

[AZlawyer]

There has been indication in the past that John Morgan was going to depose some people, but we have not yet seen their depositions.
Is it likely that, instead of depositions, JM will call witnesses at trial and question them based solely on his study of prior LE interviews?
For example, LP-Would JM rely on LP's interview with LE to develop his line of questioning, without ever deposing LP himself? Is this untenable as a legal strategy?
He has a huge list of witnesses and saving time and money is important at this juncture, just wondering if legal minds would recommend skipping depos and using the available public records/media instead to develop a line of questioning at trial time.

We definitely saw his depositions of the A family. As far as his depositions of other witnesses, I don't know how we would get to see those unless he decided to release them, like he did with the Anthonys' depositions.

There's no need for Morgan to depose all the people on his witness list, and there is no chance that he intends to call all those people as witnesses anyway. It's just a CYA list. However, I think he needs to do some depos or informal interviews of witnesses at least to flesh out the theory that Casey picked his client specifically as the "nanny." IOW, he needs a "story" about how Casey knew about ZG's visit to Sawgrass. On the other hand, perhaps he and his client have already figured that one out on their own.

 

[Katprint]

Casey Anthony defense again argues against death penalty aggravators http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4889737.story

snipped:
The documents received by Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry's office Friday reiterate earlier arguments about the constitutionality of three aggravating circumstances that prosecutors want to use to win a death sentence.

One speaks about a capital felony — the murder — being committed while Anthony engaged in another felony, in this case aggravated child abuse.

The defense argues that when examining if an aggravator might be overbroad, "the Court looks to whether there is a risk that the statute will result in capricious or arbitrary imposition of death."

The legal team goes on to say this particular aggravator "fails to narrow the class of death eligible persons in a meaningful way, and thereby allows arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty."
__________________
My posts are my opinion only.

Posted yesterday in Todays News - AZLawyer, please tell me this doesn't make any sense to you either!
And in the manner of penalties, can you remind me why the Defense is admitting to aggravated child abuse rather than "just" capital felony - or is the difference "just" the death penalty?
Admitting to one offense while arguing another one seems to be a weird for the Defense to be doing after two years of shouting to the Heavens that "our client in innocent and we will prove it when we go to trial".

Any comments you have would be greatly appreciated.

In arguing against the death penalty aggravators, the defense is NOT admitting to aggravated child abuse nor admitting that Casey caused Caylee's death. In a nutshell, the defense is trying to argue in the abstract how a murder could occur in a way which may constitute a death penalty aggravator yet not be egregious enough to justify imposition of the death penalty, and thus is "overbroad."

One such scenario might involve two heroin dealers who get into a argument about the quality of the heroin or the boundaries of their drug territories or the division of the drug proceeds, then one shoots/stabs the other in the head killing him instantly. Although technically this would qualify for the death penalty not only as a murder during commission of a felony but also as a murder for gain, a reasonable argument could be made that it is not the "worst of the worst" type of murder for which the death penalty is reserved.

The problem is, this case doesn't involve two heroin dealers; the victim was an innocent toddler. Additionally, the "aggravated child abuse" which can reasonably be inferred from the evidence is nightmarishly horrific. Assuming the jury believes Casey bound Caylee's wrists with duct tape then used three more strips of duct tape across Caylee's nose and mouth to suffocate Caylee, it doesn't get much worse than that. Even if the jury merely believes that Caylee died after being drugged and/or strapped in her carseat or locked in Casey's car trunk while Casey went in to have fun with her boyfriend, that is probably bad enough to pass constitutional muster for imposition of the death penalty.

IMO the best the defense can hope for is to get some special jury instructions and jury verdict forms submitted, to force the jury to clarify the grounds for imposing the death penalty.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[beach]

We definitely saw his depositions of the A family. As far as his depositions of other witnesses, I don't know how we would get to see those unless he decided to release them, like he did with the Anthonys' depositions.

There's no need for Morgan to depose all the people on his witness list, and there is no chance that he intends to call all those people as witnesses anyway. It's just a CYA list. However, I think he needs to do some depos or informal interviews of witnesses at least to flesh out the theory that Casey picked his client specifically as the "nanny." IOW, he needs a "story" about how Casey knew about ZG's visit to Sawgrass. On the other hand, perhaps he and his client have already figured that one out on their own.

I think Morgan recently stated he intended on deposing Robyn Adams, KC's jailhouse penpal. Not sure if they have already formally subpoenaed her yet.

 

[AZlawyer]

Casey Anthony defense again argues against death penalty aggravators

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4889737.story

snipped:
The documents received by Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry's office Friday reiterate earlier arguments about the constitutionality of three aggravating circumstances that prosecutors want to use to win a death sentence.

One speaks about a capital felony — the murder — being committed while Anthony engaged in another felony, in this case aggravated child abuse.

The defense argues that when examining if an aggravator might be overbroad, "the Court looks to whether there is a risk that the statute will result in capricious or arbitrary imposition of death."

The legal team goes on to say this particular aggravator "fails to narrow the class of death eligible persons in a meaningful way, and thereby allows arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty."
__________________
My posts are my opinion only.

Posted yesterday in Todays News - AZLawyer, please tell me this doesn't make any sense to you either!
And in the manner of penalties, can you remind me why the Defense is admitting to aggravated child abuse rather than "just" capital felony - or is the difference "just" the death penalty?
Admitting to one offense while arguing another one seems to be a weird for the Defense to be doing after two years of shouting to the Heavens that "our client in innocent and we will prove it when we go to trial".

Any comments you have would be greatly appreciated.

It does make sense to me--by which I mean that I understand the arguments being made, not that I agree with them.

The defense is definitely not admitting to agg. child abuse or anything else by filing these motions, as noted by another poster above.

 

[logicalgirl]

It does make sense to me--by which I mean that I understand the arguments being made, not that I agree with them.

The defense is definitely not admitting to agg. child abuse or anything else by filing these motions, as noted by another poster above.

Thanks AZLawyer - I did read several other articles after I posted that question that explained what the defense was saying - in an "as if" situation. I guess I am just tired of the defense trying to come up with arguments which to the untrained eye, seem to be same old same old.

It seemed until they started undertaking depositions again, that the only work they were doing was "no death penalty" work, rather than on the actual case, for guilt or innocence or degree of guilt, such as accidental, or from neglect, rather than premeditated. I think I just have PTS syndrome re: ICA, before the trial instead of during the trial or afterwards.