Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[Frigga]

AZLawyer... you do rock!

This is completely off topic but Ssejors... your great and powerful Ssej is so darn cute! I wanted to share that my husband and I landed in Holland too! Ours is the great and powerful Drake, he is 11, and the love of our life!

 

[Amil]

Do you know if the public can attend the Frye hearings?

 

[Frigga]

Do you know if the public can attend the Frye hearings?

I sure hope so Amil... we count on your descriptions and insights at all of the proceedings!

 

[Annegirl]

After the status hearing Friday, K Belich was questioning the defense. I have heard little bits and pieces and do not know this to be truth. But if one of the lawyers or anyone actually touched her person either by pushing her away or kicking her, can she files charges against that person?

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you know if the public can attend the Frye hearings?

A Frye hearing is just like any other motion hearing. I can't think of any reason it would be handled differently.

After the status hearing Friday, K Belich was questioning the defense. I have heard little bits and pieces and do not know this to be truth. But if one of the lawyers or anyone actually touched her person either by pushing her away or kicking her, can she files charges against that person?

Yes. I'm sure someone has it on tape!

 

[Ssejors]

AZLawyer... you do rock!

This is completely off topic but Ssejors... your great and powerful Ssej is so darn cute! I wanted to share that my husband and I landed in Holland too! Ours is the great and powerful Drake, he is 11, and the love of our life!

Hehe. I'm the great and powerful Ssej. That's hurricane hunter! Nice to meet you!

 

[Kentjbkent]

I think the argument will certainly be made (and therefore would delay an execution), but I doubt it will be a winning argument based on what I've seen so far. The question will be, what has JB done wrong that could have been done differently in a way that would actually affect the result of the trial?



If the experts back out because they simply won't support the defense arguments, I don't think JB will get more time. More time to do what? :waitasec: As for Dr. Spitz, if he can't write a report, then someone else can write a report based on his notes. It can't take much time, because there's no body to examine any more.

It's not an unfair trial if you just can't find any experts who will agree with you.



Why would she need a staff ID? Why not just click "Internet Explorer"?

But if her bond restrictions included not going on the internet, then it would be an ethics violation to help her circumvent the bond restrictions.

HHJP has said that they can't testify to anything that isn't in a report or in their depositions. So if the SA doesn't take their depositions, and they don't file reports, IMO they are out.



OK, if I understand what you're asking, if she sued JB for breach of fiduciary duty, and asked for the profits of this hypothetical book as damages, then would those damages be subject to seizure based on the "Son of Sam" law?

I think the answer is no. And even if the proceeds were seized, they might be paid to CA and GA as the closest things we've got to "victims." But there are so many "if"s in this scenario that I truly don't think it will ever happen.

It has been SO LONG AGO...but am I recalling correctly that the question of whether KC's bond restrictions included a restriction from the internet was answered when it was revealed that she was in contact with that little girl who got so involved with the case, she was hospitalized? (Cant recall her name but her grandmother is the one who started "running" with Murt....)

 

[AZlawyer]

It has been SO LONG AGO...but am I recalling correctly that the question of whether KC's bond restrictions included a restriction from the internet was answered when it was revealed that she was in contact with that little girl who got so involved with the case, she was hospitalized? (Cant recall her name but her grandmother is the one who started "running" with Murt....)

I recall that there was discussion about it, but I don't recall if we actually saw something in writing saying that she couldn't access the Internet while on bond.

 

[mitzi]

It has been SO LONG AGO...but am I recalling correctly that the question of whether KC's bond restrictions included a restriction from the internet was answered when it was revealed that she was in contact with that little girl who got so involved with the case, she was hospitalized? (Cant recall her name but her grandmother is the one who started "running" with Murt....)

Dakota is the girl, but I can't remember the grandmother's name...just that she was "dating" Murt.

 

[Purple Iris]

Dakota is the girl, but I can't remember the grandmother's name...just that she was "dating" Murt.

Lois ~ Another strange cast of well, people.......

 

[Katprint]

I recall that there was discussion about it, but I don't recall if we actually saw something in writing saying that she couldn't access the Internet while on bond.

I pay close attention to bail conditions so that I can have the court modify them as appropriate e.g. if the judge is ordering a DUI defendant to stay away from establishments that serve alcohol but the defendant works as a cocktail waitress then her place of employment can be exempted from the stay away order although she still has to refrain from consuming alcohol. I have seen internet restrictions as a condition of probation/parole where the crime had some connection to the internet i.e. identity theft, credit card fraud, etc. However, I have NEVER seen an internet usage bail bond restriction, other than as an included means of how the defendant should not contact the alleged victim i.e. stay X feet away from victim's home, stay X feet away from the victim's work, not call the victim, not contact the victim directly or indirectly or electronically, etc.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[logicalgirl]

I pay close attention to bail conditions so that I can have the court modify them as appropriate e.g. if the judge is ordering a DUI defendant to stay away from establishments that serve alcohol but the defendant works as a cocktail waitress then her place of employment can be exempted from the stay away order although she still has to refrain from consuming alcohol. I have seen internet restrictions as a condition of probation/parole where the crime had some connection to the internet i.e. identity theft, credit card fraud, etc. However, I have NEVER seen an internet usage bail bond restriction, other than as an included means of how the defendant should not contact the alleged victim i.e. stay X feet away from victim's home, stay X feet away from the victim's work, not call the victim, not contact the victim directly or indirectly or electronically, etc.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Katprint could I add that is a bail restriction with suspected pedophiles, at least here in Canada.

 

[nums24]

I recall that there was discussion about it, but I don't recall if we actually saw something in writing saying that she couldn't access the Internet while on bond.

Here is ICA's original bond order: http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/files/caseyanthony01.pdf

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I recall that there was discussion about it, but I don't recall if we actually saw something in writing saying that she couldn't access the Internet while on bond.

I also recall, she could not have contact with any child under 12??? Yet, she was talking with Dakota, emailing Dakota, ICA just loves to break the rules..JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Macushla]

If the Defense decides to go with a SODDI defense, as opposed to simply trying to discredit everything the State says, could they do it without putting KC on the stand? Since she was the last person to have care and custody of Caylee, wouldn't she have to give some version of how she lost 'care and custody'? There would be no other way to introduce this version without KC. If they try to put Cindy or George on the stand to say KC told us........... that would be hearsay right? Or can they just keep asking questions like 'could someone else have.............' and try to bring in SODDI in that way?

Second question: If the defense does manage to get some or all of her statements thrown out, the State can call Det. Melich and Sgt. Allen to the stand to testify about what she told them, right? Or would they not be allowed to talk about what she said if her statements are thrown out? Along those lines, IF all her statements get tossed, for whatever reason, does this give her a clean slate to decide to come up with a different story such as SODDI? Which circles back to my first question.

Sure hope I have not confused anyone with this.

 

[AZlawyer]

If the Defense decides to go with a SODDI defense, as opposed to simply trying to discredit everything the State says, could they do it without putting KC on the stand? Since she was the last person to have care and custody of Caylee, wouldn't she have to give some version of how she lost 'care and custody'? There would be no other way to introduce this version without KC. If they try to put Cindy or George on the stand to say KC told us........... that would be hearsay right? Or can they just keep asking questions like 'could someone else have.............' and try to bring in SODDI in that way?

Second question: If the defense does manage to get some or all of her statements thrown out, the State can call Det. Melich and Sgt. Allen to the stand to testify about what she told them, right? Or would they not be allowed to talk about what she said if her statements are thrown out? Along those lines, IF all her statements get tossed, for whatever reason, does this give her a clean slate to decide to come up with a different story such as SODDI? Which circles back to my first question.

Sure hope I have not confused anyone with this.

They could do it without putting KC on the stand, but it will be difficult. They could stick with the "Zanny" story and badger the detectives about why they didn't check out every possible "Zanny," including people who didn't have that name and didn't live where KC said Zanny lived, just in case KC was being forced to talk in code. Or they could float another SODDI story and just hope the jury "fills in the blanks" on its own about how Caylee got to this person in the first place.

If any of KC's statements are thrown out, the detectives will not be able to repeat those statements on the stand.

However, KC would not have free rein to then make new statements that are inconsistent with those prior statements, because IMO if she does, HHJP will change his mind and will allow the SA to introduce those portions of the earlier statements that directly contradict the new statements. Also, what about the statements she made to Lee and Cindy before the police arrived? I don't see any way the defense is going to get a trial in which the "Zanny story" is never mentioned.

 

[grammieto5]

OK, if I understand what you're asking, if she sued JB for breach of fiduciary duty, and asked for the profits of this hypothetical book as damages, then would those damages be subject to seizure based on the "Son of Sam" law?

I think the answer is no. And even if the proceeds were seized, they might be paid to CA and GA as the closest things we've got to "victims." But there are so many "if"s in this scenario that I truly don't think it will ever happen.[/QUOTE]

Could the parents of Caylee's father, (if he were ever known) be considered victims also and be paid proceeds???

 

[faefrost]

OK, if I understand what you're asking, if she sued JB for breach of fiduciary duty, and asked for the profits of this hypothetical book as damages, then would those damages be subject to seizure based on the "Son of Sam" law?

I think the answer is no. And even if the proceeds were seized, they might be paid to CA and GA as the closest things we've got to "victims." But there are so many "if"s in this scenario that I truly don't think it will ever happen.

Could the parents of Caylee's father, (if he were ever known) be considered victims also and be paid proceeds???[/QUOTE]

And as an aside, could the JAC step in to seize any such profits?

 

[AZlawyer]

Trying to fix the quotes here--this was my original answer to someone:

OK, if I understand what you're asking, if she sued JB for breach of fiduciary duty, and asked for the profits of this hypothetical book as damages, then would those damages be subject to seizure based on the "Son of Sam" law?

I think the answer is no. And even if the proceeds were seized, they might be paid to CA and GA as the closest things we've got to "victims." But there are so many "if"s in this scenario that I truly don't think it will ever happen.

Could the parents of Caylee's father, (if he were ever known) be considered victims also and be paid proceeds???

Again, I think the proceeds of such a lawsuit would NOT be subject to seizure under the "Son of Sam" law. But if Caylee's father or (if he is really deceased) his parents came forward, proved paternity, and sought recognition as "victims" for something that WAS subject to seizure under the "Son of Sam" law, they would have a good argument.

And as an aside, could the JAC step in to seize any such profits?

Unfortunately, I have no idea what the rules are in Florida regarding what the JAC (i.e., the State of Florida) can recoup from a defendant. I suspect that there is some procedure whereby the State can recover expenses if an "indigent" defendant all of a sudden "comes into money" after the case is over.

 

[grammieto5]

Sorry AZlawyer, I'm not sure how I did what I did in post #197, thanks for making it right, and thanks for your answer.