Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[faefrost]

I believe a jury would still be empaneled for the sentencing phase, but the judge makes the final sentencing decision. The jury just makes a "recommendation."

On the other hand, I doubt HHJP would impose death if a jury recommended LWOP.

Interesting, ty Az. So a judge can impose a death sentence without a jury specifically calling for it? I thought that was why even with a guilty plea there still has to be a sentencing phase before a jury to impose the DP? Or is that a state specific sort of thing?

 

[Oakley]

I have only twice in 16 years seen people get fined for contempt, and never seen anyone get jailed. Both people who were fined were lawyers who directly violated clear court orders.

So I would say there is almost no chance of Cindy being jailed for contempt. :snooty:

Do you believe Cindy is being given extra leeway cause of being a 'grieving grandma' or is it just that hard to be found in contempt? I am amazed at just how far she has pushed the envelope, so to speak!

 

[LambChop]

I think it was silly. Obviously the judge has to file it with the clerk anyway. :waitasec:

Yes, it should end up being released. But I doubt HHJP will waste any energy getting angry over this.

But didn't HHJP ask in court that he receive a copy of a notice prior to be filed with the clerk? So isn't that what JB has done, with the exception that they did not include a listing?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I have only twice in 16 years seen people get fined for contempt, and never seen anyone get jailed. Both people who were fined were lawyers who directly violated clear court orders.

So I would say there is almost no chance of Cindy being jailed for contempt. :snooty:

Got it. I'm afraid I'm a victim of a bit too much tv watching but ya never know...

 

[AZlawyer]

Interesting, ty Az. So a judge can impose a death sentence without a jury specifically calling for it? I thought that was why even with a guilty plea there still has to be a sentencing phase before a jury to impose the DP? Or is that a state specific sort of thing?

Actually, with the latest US Supreme Court ruling about a jury being required to find the aggravating facts, I suppose you would at least need the jury to agree that the aggravators used by the judge in imposing the DP are present--even if the jury disagrees about the ultimate sentence.

Do you believe Cindy is being given extra leeway cause of being a 'grieving grandma' or is it just that hard to be found in contempt? I am amazed at just how far she has pushed the envelope, so to speak!

No, I don't think she has been or will be given extra leeway. But people who are not lawyers behave "badly" in court all the time and are generally given several chances to "shape up" before anyone even starts talking about contempt.

But didn't HHJP ask in court that he receive a copy of a notice prior to be filed with the clerk? So isn't that what JB has done, with the exception that they did not include a listing?

I think HHJP just asked that he be given copies of whatever was filed with the clerk, which I'm sure is required by the rules anyway. He didn't ask that the CLERK be given copies of whatever was delivered to HIM.

AFAIK, HHJP did not agree to review this list of evidence "in camera," but JB is trying to get him to do it anyway. Since there is no reason whatsoever for the list to be kept secret, I doubt HHJP will fall for it.

 

[RR0004]

Actually, with the latest US Supreme Court ruling about a jury being required to find the aggravating facts, I suppose you would at least need the jury to agree that the aggravators used by the judge in imposing the DP are present--even if the jury disagrees about the ultimate sentence.



No, I don't think she has been or will be given extra leeway. But people who are not lawyers behave "badly" in court all the time and are generally given several chances to "shape up" before anyone even starts talking about contempt.



I think HHJP just asked that he be given copies of whatever was filed with the clerk, which I'm sure is required by the rules anyway. He didn't ask that the CLERK be given copies of whatever was delivered to HIM.

AFAIK, HHJP did not agree to review this list of evidence "in camera," but JB is trying to get him to do it anyway. Since there is no reason whatsoever for the list to be kept secret, I doubt HHJP will fall for it.

Maybe Jose wanted it to take a little bit longer to make it to the clerk so that we wouldn't have reading material over the weekend...lol.

 

[nums24]

What happens if the defense did/does not actually file a witness list naming the experts that they just had inspect the evidence? Can the SAO file for sanctions? Could their testimony not be allowed? These experts were not listed:

Dr. Selma Eikelenboom
Dr. Richard Eikelenboom
Nicholas Petraco

Thank you for your time and expertise!

 

[ThinkTank]

What happens if the defense did/does not actually file a witness list naming the experts that they just had inspect the evidence? Can the SAO file for sanctions? Could their testimony not be allowed? These experts were not listed:

Dr. Selma Eikelenboom
Dr. Richard Eikelenboom
Nicholas Petraco

Thank you for your time and expertise!

And now the Defense saying these experts want to TEST the evidence.
Can the experts TEST the evidence when they are not even on the Defense Witness List?
Prosecutors have not even had the opportunity to take depositions from these experts.

 

[AZlawyer]

What happens if the defense did/does not actually file a witness list naming the experts that they just had inspect the evidence? Can the SAO file for sanctions? Could their testimony not be allowed? These experts were not listed:

Dr. Thelma Eikelenboom
Dr. Richard Eikelenboom
Nicholas Petraco

Thank you for your time and expertise!

Don't they still have time before the final deadline to disclose experts?

I don't think these people were on the list of experts to be paid for by the citizens of Florida, but there's nothing sanctionable about getting experts to work for free. Besides, they can have any number of consulting experts before listing the ones who will actually testify in court.

And now the Defense saying these experts want to TEST the evidence.
Can the experts TEST the evidence when they are not even on the Defense Witness List?
Prosecutors have not even had the opportunity to take depositions from these experts.

Yes, testing evidence has nothing to do with being on the witness list. Also, generally the SA would not be interested in deposing the defense experts until AFTER the experts have tested/examined/opined on the evidence.

 

[Tiki]

I have only twice in 16 years seen people get fined for contempt, and never seen anyone get jailed. Both people who were fined were lawyers who directly violated clear court orders.

So I would say there is almost no chance of Cindy being jailed for contempt. :snooty:

What about lying to police. Is lying on a 911 call lying to police?
Would anything happen if she testifies that she lied on that call to get the police to come faster (as she has said on national TV)?

TIA

 

[I Din Doot]

AZ, Thanks for your time. Could you enlighten us about spousal priveledge (or immunity). I remember BC invoked something like that at the JM deposition of CA when she was being a butt.

She obviously did her homework (studied discovery) but that didn't hide her "mental dimples".

TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

What about lying to police. Is lying on a 911 call lying to police?
Would anything happen if she testifies that she lied on that call to get the police to come faster (as she has said on national TV)?

TIA

I really don't think so, because the State has already taken the position that she told the TRUTH on that phone call. They can't very well prosecute her for lying on the phone call.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, Thanks for your time. Could you enlighten us about spousal priveledge (or immunity). I remember BC invoked something like that at the JM deposition of CA when she was being a butt.

She obvioulsly did her homework (studied discovery) but that didn't hide her "mental dimples".

TIA

Privileges like this are a matter of state law, and I'm not familiar with Florida law on the subject. But, in general, Cindy could not be forced to divulge private conversations she had with George--unless she had already told other people about them. E.g., maybe Cindy couldn't have been forced to say what George confided to her about the smell in the car, but if she ran to Gentiva and told all her coworkers "George said the car smelled like a dead body!" then all bets are off.

ETA: There's also a spousal immunity doctrine, which is separate from marital privilege, which might (depending on state law) mean that Cindy/George could not be forced to testify in a criminal case against the other. I really don't think either Cindy or George is in any serious danger of being charged with a crime, though.

What exactly was the context when BC made this objection?

 

[I Din Doot]

http://www.forthepeople.com/CAnthony-Depo.pdf

Page 133/134

"privelege, marital privelege"
"Same objection"
"Same objection"

If you can decipher context from this circus, I applaud you. (I already respect and thank you for the hours you have donated to us at WS).

Hope this will help figure it out. I had to reread that depo, BLAAAAA, to find it. I just knew that I read it there.

 

[drip~drop]

Is it permissable for the A's and the inmate to be texting secretly in court?
(well, not so secret when we can see it)
Are her lawyers allowed to pass notes to her family? (from the inmate?)

 

[cyberborg]

A LOT of documents were entered into evidence at today's motion hearing on the 911 calls on the basis it was just for this hearing. I naturally assumed, based on that that if the 911 calls were excluded that it would all be sealed.

Given that the Defense motion was denied and the 911 calls allowed into trial -- does all this testimony and documentation become public record and accessible via Sunshine Laws? There was good stuff in this hearing and it also sets a precedent for the trial.

 

[AZlawyer]

http://www.forthepeople.com/CAnthony-Depo.pdf

Page 133/134

"privelege, marital privelege"
"Same objection"
"Same objection"

If you can decipher context from this circus, I applaud you. (I already respect and thank you for the hours you have donated to us at WS).

Hope this will help figure it out. I had to reread that depo, BLAAAAA, to find it. I just knew that I read it there.

Yeah, BC was just saying that the only way Cindy would have known the answers to some of those questions is if George told her--and they don't have to divulge their private communications.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it permissable for the A's and the inmate to be texting secretly in court?
(well, not so secret when we can see it)
Are her lawyers allowed to pass notes to her family? (from the inmate?)

No. But apparently no one in Orlando cares about those rules.

 

[AZlawyer]

A LOT of documents were entered into evidence at today's motion hearing on the 911 calls on the basis it was just for this hearing. I naturally assumed, based on that that if the 911 calls were excluded that it would all be sealed.

Given that the Defense motion was denied and the 911 calls allowed into trial -- does all this testimony and documentation become public record and accessible via Sunshine Laws? There was good stuff in this hearing and it also sets a precedent for the trial.

It already is public record. I didn't get to see the hearing :banghead:, but I would guess that what they were talking about was that if something was admitted into evidence today, that doesn't mean it will necessarily be admitted into evidence at the trial. So, e.g., the defense might have agreed to allow some document into evidence today but will object to it at the trial.

 

[wonders]

Hi AZlawyer,

Today when Judge Perry asked Mason questions and after he blathered on to answer and then said "any more questions" to Judge Perry the way he did, I gasped out loud as I was stunned, I thought it was so disrespectful. Can you tell me your thoughts on this please?