Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

Yes, it's me again. As you can tell, I have been thinking about the trial a lot

Georg and Cindy are on both the State's witness list and the Defense's witness list. How is that going to work as to them watching the trial. I am assuming both sides will want to keep the witnesses out of the courtroom until after they testify. Since George and Cindy will be testifying for both, will the defense want them out of the courtroom until they are called by them after the State rests their case? Or will the defense ask them the questions they have for them while they are on the stand when called by the State? Can George and Cindy really be kept out of the courtroom for most of the trial this way?

The defense might have the option of questioning G&C while they are on the stand as "State's" witnesses (it would be up to HHJP), but I suspect the defense will want to call them separately to make it look like there are more "defense" witnesses lol.

Normally, regardless of whether they were on one list or both lists, they would have to stay out of the courtroom except when testifying. However, there are probably different rules for "victims" (who are often allowed to stay for the whole trial). The grandparents of a murdered child would likely be considered "victims"...except maybe when they're supporting the accused murderer. :waitasec: Again, it will be up to HHJP to decide if they are more like "victims" or more like "witnesses." I vote witnesses. :twocents:

 

[MissJames]

The defense might have the option of questioning G&C while they are on the stand as "State's" witnesses (it would be up to HHJP), but I suspect the defense will want to call them separately to make it look like there are more "defense" witnesses lol.

Normally, regardless of whether they were on one list or both lists, they would have to stay out of the courtroom except when testifying. However, there are probably different rules for "victims" (who are often allowed to stay for the whole trial). The grandparents of a murdered child would likely be considered "victims"...except maybe when they're supporting the accused murderer. :waitasec: Again, it will be up to HHJP to decide if they are more like "victims" or more like "witnesses." I vote witnesses. :twocents:

Do you see a possibility of the State arguing to keep them out,considering the way their stories have evolved? is it likely any of the A's will be declared hostile witnesses? TIA :tyou:

 

[Macushla]

Do you see a possibility of the State arguing to keep them out,considering the way their stories have evolved? is it likely any of the A's will be declared hostile witnesses? TIA :tyou:

To add to MissJames question: IF Judge Perry rules that they may attend the trial as 'victims' or rules they are witnesses and therefore can not be in the courtroom prior to their testimony, would HHJP allow either the State or the Defense to argue their 'side' prior to making a decision? Would the Anthonys be able to argue their side through a lawyer?

Just keep track of your billable hours when it comes to my questions and I will settle up with you the next time I am in AZ

 

[Solace]

Forgive me if I am repetitive, but i have been out with Satan's Stomach Virus.

I see that inmate Robyn will be a witness. Anyone know about Mila??? or was nothing said about her. Thanks so much

 

[Virtual Truth]

The defense might have the option of questioning G&C while they are on the stand as "State's" witnesses (it would be up to HHJP), but I suspect the defense will want to call them separately to make it look like there are more "defense" witnesses lol.

Normally, regardless of whether they were on one list or both lists, they would have to stay out of the courtroom except when testifying. However, there are probably different rules for "victims" (who are often allowed to stay for the whole trial). The grandparents of a murdered child would likely be considered "victims"...except maybe when they're supporting the accused murderer. :waitasec: Again, it will be up to HHJP to decide if they are more like "victims" or more like "witnesses." I vote witnesses. :twocents:

Hi AZ, love reading your comments...I'm not a lawyer, but just wanted to say that this must depend upon the rules of the state. I was a "victim" (aggravated sexual assault w/deadly weapon) in TX, and I was NOT allowed into the trial until my testimony which came last. So, here it doesn't matter if you are a victim if you have material testimony. At least, not for me 23 yrs ago. I hope someone can research FL rules to let us know the answer for the KC trial. Thanks...sorry I commented on Q&A for lawyers only... just wanted to add clarification to this. :innocent:

 

[sumbunny]

Are courtroom overflow rooms common with most big cases?

I wonder if HHJP will offer an adjoining courtroom with feeds?

 

[LambChop]

Are courtroom overflow rooms common with most big cases?

I wonder if HHJP will offer an adjoining courtroom with feeds?

Why not just stay home and watch it on TV? Wouldn't this just be an extra burden on the tax payers?

 

[chakti]

How would they keep the A's from watching a live stream like we all will be.
Will they be kept in a green room like real actors ????

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you see a possibility of the State arguing to keep them out,considering the way their stories have evolved? is it likely any of the A's will be declared hostile witnesses? TIA :tyou:

The State will probably invoke the exclusion rule as to all witnesses, and then the question will come up--possibly from the As' own lawyer--whether or not the As should be excepted from that rule as "victims."

The As will likely be declared hostile witnesses for the State if the SA requests such a finding. If they don't fit the bill, nobody would.

To add to MissJames question: IF Judge Perry rules that they may attend the trial as 'victims' or rules they are witnesses and therefore can not be in the courtroom prior to their testimony, would HHJP allow either the State or the Defense to argue their 'side' prior to making a decision? Would the Anthonys be able to argue their side through a lawyer?

Just keep track of your billable hours when it comes to my questions and I will settle up with you the next time I am in AZ

Oh, yes, the SA, the defense, and the As' lawyer will all get a chance to say why they do or do not think the As should be allowed to stay for the whole trial, assuming there is a dispute in that regard.

Hi AZ, love reading your comments...I'm not a lawyer, but just wanted to say that this must depend upon the rules of the state. I was a "victim" (aggravated sexual assault w/deadly weapon) in TX, and I was NOT allowed into the trial until my testimony which came last. So, here it doesn't matter if you are a victim if you have material testimony. At least, not for me 23 yrs ago. I hope someone can research FL rules to let us know the answer for the KC trial. Thanks...sorry I commented on Q&A for lawyers only... just wanted to add clarification to this. :innocent:

Here's the Florida statute:

90.616Exclusion of witnesses.
—
(1)At the request of a party the court shall order, or upon its own motion the court may order, witnesses excluded from a proceeding so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses except as provided in subsection (2).

(2)A witness may not be excluded if the witness is:

(a)A party who is a natural person.

(b)In a civil case, an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person. The party’s attorney shall designate the officer or employee who shall be the party’s representative.

(c)A person whose presence is shown by the party’s attorney to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.

(d)In a criminal case, the victim of the crime, the victim’s next of kin, the parent or guardian of a minor child victim, or a lawful representative of such person, unless, upon motion, the court determines such person’s presence to be prejudicial.

So...looking at this rule, I would say the As are possibly the "victim's next of kin," as you wouldn't think the murderer would count...or the father if unknown.

And I assume their presence would not be "prejudicial" (to Casey--prejudice to the defense is the issue here). For example, I assume they can be counted on not to weep and scream "murderer" or "Justice for Caylee," etc. In fact, I don't think they will even need to be reminded. :innocent:

Are courtroom overflow rooms common with most big cases?

I wonder if HHJP will offer an adjoining courtroom with feeds?

I don't know what's common in that court, but I've seen that procedure followed here. But then I always wonder...

Why not just stay home and watch it on TV? Wouldn't this just be an extra burden on the tax payers?

Exactly.

 

[AZlawyer]

How would they keep the A's from watching a live stream like we all will be.
Will they be kept in a green room like real actors ????

For weeks? No. They will be on their honor. (LOL) But I bet Cindy will be unable to interrupt and say, "Well, like Lee said yesterday... blah blah blah..."

 

[LolaMoon08]

For weeks? No. They will be on their honor. (LOL) But I bet Cindy will be unable to interrupt and say, "Well, like Lee said yesterday... blah blah blah..."

You're the best! Just wanted to let you know that!

 

[jennyb]

I recall way back Brad Conway addressed the court on the issue of the Anthonys being present throughout the trial. It seemed quite premature at the time but now I think they had and HAVE doubts about their attendance as "victims" being granted. And for good reason. I hope the SA makes a motion regarding this very thing. And soon!

 

[jennyb]

For weeks? No. They will be on their honor. (LOL) But I bet Cindy will be unable to interrupt and say, "Well, like Lee said yesterday... blah blah blah..."

She'll be in her livingroom shouting at the screen... there's no evidence! NO EVIDENCE! in between slugs of water and chomps of gum. And pizza of course.

 

[goldleaf]

How would you phrase your opening statement? Can the State come out and say that ICA was the last person seen with Caylee and that she has given false statements about who had Caylee?

Can they say, "This is actually a very simple case, one day Casey had Caylee, the next day she did not, and Casey won't say why or what happened regarding her daughter's welfare?"

Many thanks for all the lawyers who take the time to answer all of our questions!

 

[AZlawyer]

How would you phrase your opening statement? Can the State come out and say that ICA was the last person seen with Caylee and that she has given false statements about who had Caylee?

Can they say, "This is actually a very simple case, one day Casey had Caylee, the next day she did not, and Casey won't say why or what happened regarding her daughter's welfare?"

Many thanks for all the lawyers who take the time to answer all of our questions!

I never spend less than a day drafting an opening statement, so I'm not going to try to write one for this case.

That said, certainly they will focus on the fact that there is zero evidence that anyone but Casey was in possession and control of Caylee, and that Casey's explanation(s) are nothing but lies.

But they will also have to focus on the evidence of MURDER vs. ACCIDENT-and-coverup. The primary things to emphasize IMO would be (1) duct tape, and (2) happiness/giddiness/carefreeness of Casey during the 31 days, starting within hours of "losing" Caylee. When toddlers die accidentally, their mothers, even if they are trying to cover up the situation, do not go out and joyfully rent movies about death and have sex with their boyfriends.

The goal of the opening should be to summarize the evidence showing: (1) this was not a kidnapping, and (2) this was not an accident. I would separate the 2 concepts very specifically, as some evidence supports one conclusion but not necessarily the other. For example, the "Bella Vita" tattoo is inconsistent with a kidnapping after which you believe your child is still alive, but is consistent with either accidental death or murder, depending on whether the message is "the life of my child was a beautiful life" or "now that I'm rid of my child I will have a beautiful life."

 

[beach]

Help, I am confused!

Re: today's news - the SA notice inventory of discovery turned over by the defense (apparently the cd/flash drive, etc..at the last hearing) -

I understand reciprocal discovery, but my understanding is that the defense would only be required to turn over exculpatory findings from experts they planned to call.

Considering the "01/24/2011 Inventory State of Florida's; of Discovery on Flash Drive Received 1/14/2011" and speculation regarding Joseph Stephens (molecular chemical imaging) could this be inculpatory?? Am I mistaken and they would have to turn over inculpatory evidence too? Joseph Stephens was very recently added (on the same day marked as "received" - Jan. 14!) as a SA expert.


I am so confused and I think it is because my interpretation was that the defense was only required to turn over exculpatory evidence. But if it were exculpatory, the SA wouldn't have been so quick to add him to their witness list, kwim?

 

[AZlawyer]

Help, I am confused!

Re: today's news - the SA notice inventory of discovery turned over by the defense (apparently the cd/flash drive, etc..at the last hearing) -

I understand reciprocal discovery, but my understanding is that the defense would only be required to turn over exculpatory findings from experts they planned to call.

Considering the "01/24/2011 Inventory State of Florida's; of Discovery on Flash Drive Received 1/14/2011" and speculation regarding Joseph Stephens (molecular chemical imaging) could this be inculpatory?? Am I mistaken and they would have to turn over inculpatory evidence too? Joseph Stephens was very recently added (on the same day marked as "received" - Jan. 14!) as a SA expert.


I am so confused and I think it is because my interpretation was that the defense was only required to turn over exculpatory evidence. But if it were exculpatory, the SA wouldn't have been so quick to add him to their witness list, kwim?

First of all, my reading of the discovery rule (3.220) suggests that, where the defense has opted in to reciprocal discovery, he or she must turn over ALL results of tests/experiments made by his or her experts, not just results favorable to the defense.

Second, the inventory of the flash drive has now been released and there wasn't much on it. Barely worth calling it "evidence" at all IMO.

Third, the defense wouldn't be releasing any results by Stephens--the SA would. He is an expert for the State, not for the defense.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

I have a question, and I am not sure if this has been discussed previously from an attorney's point of view, but here it goes:

What if this was an accident and KC simply panicked and tried to cover it up when she could not get in touch with her parents that day? I simply have a problem with the 'flurry' of phone calls on the 16th. It never bothered me before, but it has been haunting me lately...

In any case, what if KC and her attorneys just say something like, "Caylee drowned and KC did not know what to do, so she covered it up with all the stories...?"

I think all the evidence would fit, especially if KC was, well, kind of thankful for the absence of Caylee.

I mean, what would the charges be if that is the case?? I think she would be charged with negligence, if the baby ran outside while KC was on the computer, or whatever. Obstruction. But, what else?

Thanks for your answers

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question, and I am not sure if this has been discussed previously from an attorney's point of view, but here it goes:

What if this was an accident and KC simply panicked and tried to cover it up when she could not get in touch with her parents that day? I simply have a problem with the 'flurry' of phone calls on the 16th. It never bothered me before, but it has been haunting me lately...

In any case, what if KC and her attorneys just say something like, "Caylee drowned and KC did not know what to do, so she covered it up with all the stories...?"

I think all the evidence would fit, especially if KC was, well, kind of thankful for the absence of Caylee.

I mean, what would the charges be if that is the case?? I think she would be charged with negligence, if the baby ran outside while KC was on the computer, or whatever. Obstruction. But, what else?

Thanks for your answers

Depends on what kind of "accident" you're talking about. A drowning accident would probably be negligence. A running-over-with-the-car accident might be nothing, if the child was supposed to be inside the house with another adult and unexpectedly learned to open the front door at that moment. An accidental death caused by placing duct tape on your child's mouth and/or administering chloroform to her would be murder.

 

[momshrink]

This is my first time posting, but I am also confused about the flash disk JB submitted. It was reported that the defense turned over defense discovery evidence on a flash disk. But it seems to be mostly things copied from online sources according to Channel 2 news.

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/26597698/detail.html

It is reported that "various reports from media outlets, photos of law enforcement at the Suburban Drive crime scene, and nine unidentified photos labeled only with numbers."

I have followed this case from the beginning, lurking here as a guest until recently :crazy:
Now I am concerned that the trial may be delayed because the defense seems to have done even less than previously thought. Could this happen? Could Judge Perry require more of the defense than he is right now to ensure a trial that will not be overturned?