Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[The World According]

Will the jury respect the experts opinions or see them as hired guns?"Why don't we make a list for the Prosecution of all the books currently out by the defense lawyers/experts.

We know Professor Lyons just released a book.

Dr. Badden and his wife Linda Kenny Badden released a book this year.

Kathy Reichs the forensic anthropologist released a book, 206 Bones.

Dr. Werner Spitz is the author and editor of the textbook, Medicolegal Investigation of Death, now in its third edition and considered to be the authoritative textbook in this specialty, worldwide.

Dr. Lee has a book out currently too.

Do we really wonder how and why being involved in a high profile case that is covered nationally and internationally helps them? Pro bono? How about free advertising?

We see them often on news and cable shows giving commentary, even about this case. So they clearly enjoy the limelight. Do you think it will effect their credibility with the jury when the prosecutor asks them if they are currently peddling a book? Even Dominic is rumored to be co authoring a book with Brad, mom and pop! What do you think?

From Bean E "*Very* interesting comment from Richard Hornsby on his blog in regards to the experts:


Richard Hornsby says:
December 29, 2009 at 10:38 am

snippet

...the problem an expert witness list creates for Baez is two-fold.

1. It requires your experts to finally give their opinion – and an opinion is no good unless is supports your theory. If their opinion does not support your theory, you don’t list them.

2. It allows the State to inquire into how they are getting paid, by whom, and financial arrangements they have made, and media rights they have negotiated, etc. And if the experts are doing this “pro bono” the State can then go into ulterior reasons they agreed to work on the case – books that are coming out, etc.

3. Finally, when the State deposes an expert (or any attorney deposes the other sides’ expert) the opponent has to pay the expert what the expert charges the hiring attorney. So if these experts are not charging Baez, they are not allowed to charge the State.

Basically the witness list opens Pandora’s Financial Box for Mr. Baez."

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/...time/#comments



ETA: Please see Professional Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

If these experts began their work on the case pro bono, may they still asked to be paid going forward by the JAC ( according to the caps and limitations, of course)?

 

[Just Jayla]

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.

BBM...Thank you, you answered every facet of my round about question!

 

[AZlawyer]

If these experts began their work on the case pro bono, may they still asked to be paid going forward by the JAC ( according to the caps and limitations, of course)?

Yes, as long as JB did not promise that any of them were working pro bono in order to get approval for an out-of-state expert. And IIRC he did not make any such promises.

 

[notreallyaPisces]

I am new to this particular part of websleuths, and found my answer that I originally posted, so my apologies to AZ.
This is a great site and AZ you are a true educator. Thank you for all your input here.

 

[notthatsmart]

do prosecutors practice with witnesses like Charles C?

 

[AZlawyer]

do prosecutors practice with witnesses like Charles C?

That depends what you mean by "practice." Both the prosecutors and the defense lawyers will spend time with most or all of their witnesses to remind them of what kinds of questions they will be asked, to clarify any areas of their testimony that weren't fully examined in previous interviews, to instruct them in proper courtroom decorum, to give them advice like "listen to the question before you answer," "look at the jury," etc.

I only really "practice" in the sense of going through a complete mock examination if I have a "difficult" witness to work with, i.e., someone who gets angry, goes off on tangents, tries to direct the examination, or makes their own objections to questions (no Cindy is not the only witness in the world who does this lol).

Both kinds of "practice" described above are perfectly ethical.

If you mean "practice" in the sense of telling the witness to say something that the witness would not otherwise say, and rehearsing with them until they get it right, then the answer is no.

 

[5stars]

ICA has said in court she is happy with her defense team (JB). Can she come back on appeal and say she wasn't?She said that in front of(JS)not the judge now on the case. WOULD that be a loophole? I hope I explained what my question is.

 

[AZlawyer]

ICA has said in court she is happy with her defense team (JB). Can she come back on appeal and say she wasn't?She said that in front of(JS)not the judge now on the case. WOULD that be a loophole? I hope I explained what my question is.

Yes, she can say later that her lawyers screwed up, even if she said before that she was happy with them. She just has to add one of the following statements : I didn't know what my team was doing, I knew but didn't UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT of what my team was doing, and/or I WAS happy back then but THEN they started screwing up... Really, it's pretty darn easy to get around the defendant affirming "happiness" with her team.

It wouldn't matter which judge was on the case at the time, though.

 

[5stars]

Thank you ! I was thinking it was one of my dumb questions I have on this case.

 

[angeldust]

Sorry if this has been asked before and since im Scottish and have no understanding of the laws in America

What difference would it make if Roy Kronk had been told by a girlfriend where the baby was?

If she overheard it then Casey must have said it to someone and that means someone else is aware she killed the baby, if it was to her lawyer is it privilged even though she admitted the crime?

Would jose still be able to represent her knowing she killed her child? I thought defence lawyers didnt care whether you are guilty or innocent in fact i have heard it said that they dont even want to know, however, if you told them u had committed a murder would they not be at liberty to report it?



Thanks

 

[wonders]

AZlawyer I just wanted to say I am sorry. Your frustration level with this case must be higher than you have ever imagined it could be. I cannot imagine what it's like for you from your point of view as a lawyer. Again I'm sorry and I'm feeling bad for you. It must be akin to torture for you.

 

[tragco]

The news that Cheney Mason was taking on another high profile case seemed odd to me... but I wanted to know, as Lawyers go, how many "high profile" type cases would be considered too many? Is this actually normal or out of range?

TIA.

 

[kaRN]

Hi and TIA!!
Regarding the emergency hearing tomorrow.... Can the state object to allowing the defense their secret meeting with their experts and the evidence on the basis of Dr Lees track record of tampering with evidence in murder trials?? Why is he even allowed to be an expert ever again after that???? In cross examination is the prosecutor allowed to flat out ask him if he has ever tampered with evidence in a murder investigation to benefit a defendant?

 

[zoey]

Hi and TIA!!
Regarding the emergency hearing tomorrow.... Can the state object to allowing the defense their secret meeting with their experts and the evidence on the basis of Dr Lees track record of tampering with evidence in murder trials?? Why is he even allowed to be an expert ever again after that???? In cross examination is the prosecutor allowed to flat out ask him if he has ever tampered with evidence in a murder investigation to benefit a defendant?

along the same line....how common is it for defense or anyone to constantly request "special master" in cases???? Seems like every other motion they want this...wouldn't this also run along the same line as when they wanted to be at the crime scene???? tia

 

[AZlawyer]

What difference would it make if Roy Kronk had been told by a girlfriend where the baby was?

If she overheard it then Casey must have said it to someone and that means someone else is aware she killed the baby, if it was to her lawyer is it privilged even though she admitted the crime?

Would jose still be able to represent her knowing she killed her child? I thought defence lawyers didnt care whether you are guilty or innocent in fact i have heard it said that they dont even want to know, however, if you told them u had committed a murder would they not be at liberty to report it?

If RK and/or Dom Casey were acting on specific information about where to find the body, the importance lies in tracing that information to its source. If the ultimate source is Casey, then the prosecution's case is strengthened. If the ultimate source is someone else, then the defense's case may be strengthened.

Yes, Jose can still represent her even if he knows for sure she is guilty, and he could not reveal that information to anyone. However, it is not considered good strategy for a defense attorney to find out for sure whether their client is guilty, because (1) some defense attorneys cannot bluff and will give away this knowledge subconsciously to the jury, and (2) there would be ethical problems with certain trial strategies at that point--for example, JB would not be able to put Casey on the stand to testify that she has no idea what happened to Caylee if he knew it was a lie.

The news that Cheney Mason was taking on another high profile case seemed odd to me... but I wanted to know, as Lawyers go, how many "high profile" type cases would be considered too many? Is this actually normal or out of range?
TIA.

It's out of range for a "retired" guy lol. But normally it would depend on how much the schedules for the cases overlapped.

Hi and TIA!!
Regarding the emergency hearing tomorrow.... Can the state object to allowing the defense their secret meeting with their experts and the evidence on the basis of Dr Lees track record of tampering with evidence in murder trials?? Why is he even allowed to be an expert ever again after that???? In cross examination is the prosecutor allowed to flat out ask him if he has ever tampered with evidence in a murder investigation to benefit a defendant?

No, they can't object on that basis, because there is no question that SOMEONE will be supervising--either LE or the Special Master requested by the defense.

Tampering with evidence would not prevent you from ever acting as an expert again but would sure discourage people from wanting to hire you. In cross examination, he could be asked about it IF there was some suggestion that he tampered with evidence in this case.

along the same line....how common is it for defense or anyone to constantly request "special master" in cases???? Seems like every other motion they want this...wouldn't this also run along the same line as when they wanted to be at the crime scene???? tia

Sometimes I think JB just recently learned of the special master rule and now he's like a kid with a new toy--he wants to use it all the time.

It's not like the crime scene motion, though, because as I mentioned above they WILL be supervised one way or another, and in addition all the evidence they will be looking at has already been photographed, documented and analyzed by other experts, so it would be pretty tough to effectively tamper with it.

 

[zoey]

If RK and/or Dom Casey were acting on specific information about where to find the body, the importance lies in tracing that information to its source. If the ultimate source is Casey, then the prosecution's case is strengthened. If the ultimate source is someone else, then the defense's case may be strengthened.

Yes, Jose can still represent her even if he knows for sure she is guilty, and he could not reveal that information to anyone. However, it is not considered good strategy for a defense attorney to find out for sure whether their client is guilty, because (1) some defense attorneys cannot bluff and will give away this knowledge subconsciously to the jury, and (2) there would be ethical problems with certain trial strategies at that point--for example, JB would not be able to put Casey on the stand to testify that she has no idea what happened to Caylee if he knew it was a lie.



It's out of range for a "retired" guy lol. But normally it would depend on how much the schedules for the cases overlapped.



No, they can't object on that basis, because there is no question that SOMEONE will be supervising--either LE or the Special Master requested by the defense.

Tampering with evidence would not prevent you from ever acting as an expert again but would sure discourage people from wanting to hire you. In cross examination, he could be asked about it IF there was some suggestion that he tampered with evidence in this case.



Sometimes I think JB just recently learned of the special master rule and now he's like a kid with a new toy--he wants to use it all the time.

It's not like the crime scene motion, though, because as I mentioned above they WILL be supervised one way or another, and in addition all the evidence they will be looking at has already been photographed, documented and analyzed by other experts, so it would be pretty tough to effectively tamper with it.

Thanks for answering these questions...this is the first case that I have realy seen---others have just been TV coverage only....

 

[Macushla]

I have a question or two about the letters to KC that have been released. Aside from the ones from George and Cindy I don't see any that would, in my opinion, have evidentary (did I spell that right) value. I don't think the State is going to introduce any of the letters into evidence at the trial. If they are not going to be used at trial - why are they still considered part of discovery? I am not talking about George and Cindy's letters, just the others. Is it par for the course for letters to prisoners awaiting trial to be copied like this? I was a little surprised when they were released because they really didn't seem to have anything to do with the facts of the case at all. Is it possible that the State 'found' them when doing their inventory and released them so the Defense could not claim they were 'keeping' things from the defense? I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the how and why of even amassing these letters. I would appreciate any insights you all might have on this.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question or two about the letters to KC that have been released. Aside from the ones from George and Cindy I don't see any that would, in my opinion, have evidentary (did I spell that right) value. I don't think the State is going to introduce any of the letters into evidence at the trial. If they are not going to be used at trial - why are they still considered part of discovery? I am not talking about George and Cindy's letters, just the others. Is it par for the course for letters to prisoners awaiting trial to be copied like this? I was a little surprised when they were released because they really didn't seem to have anything to do with the facts of the case at all. Is it possible that the State 'found' them when doing their inventory and released them so the Defense could not claim they were 'keeping' things from the defense? I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the how and why of even amassing these letters. I would appreciate any insights you all might have on this.

What needs to be released in discovery is MUCH broader than what will (or can) actually be used at trial. And what must be released upon request of the media is MUCH broader than what needs to be released in discovery.

In the case of KC, she may be planning to use the defense that Caylee was kidnapped by the Zanni Gang, who gave KC "instructions" to follow, and then killed Caylee in retaliation for Cindy calling the police. In addition, the defense has suggested that Caylee might have been killed while Casey was in prison. So, if I were the SA, I would think all letters to KC are potentially relevant and subject to disclosure, as they could be coded messages from the Zanni Gang or others involved with the "real killer." IOW, if the defense is going to suggest crazy, soap-opera worthy scenarios, then the SA must take a broader view of what should be disclosed. It is JB's own fault that the SA cannot simply look at these letters and say, "Oh, well, those are obviously irrelevant."

In addition, if someone from the media filed a public records request for these letters, they would have to be released regardless of whether they were at all relevant to the case. And at that point, the SA might as well call the documents "discovery" as well as a "public records release."

 

[Jomo]

Besides Cindy and George's letters to Casey, do you think that Tracy's (the LP's bond girl) letter to and money contribution to Casey while in jail would be important to present? How would you use that information if you were the prosecution?

Thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

Besides Cindy and George's letters to Casey, do you think that Tracy's (the LP's bond girl) letter to and money contribution to Casey while in jail would be important to present? How would you use that information if you were the prosecution?

Thanks

I doubt it'll come up. After reading her interview with LE, I don't think the defense will call her as a witness. And if the prosecution calls her as a witness (to say "Casey mentioned chloroform as a way to knock people out before the chloroform results on the trunk were released"), I don't see much point in either side raising the fact that Tracey pretended (?) to be on Casey's side in her letters.