Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

I don't know if this has been asked yet, but, if ICA decided to plead guilty rather than go to trial, would she be allowed to plead to involuntary manslaughter? Would the State keep the DP on the table if she confessed that she killed Caylee but it was an accident and she tried to cover it up? If she did decide to do this, confess, would the State be allowed to change the charge to involuntary manslaughter if they wanted too?

There are a couple of questions here. If KC "decides" to plea guilty--i.e., if it is not as a result of a plea agreement--then she can't plead to involuntary manslaughter, because she hasn't been charged with it.

However, if KC confessed to an accident and cover-up, and convincingly explained the evidence in that "confession," the State would likely agree to a plea agreement, which certainly would not include the death penalty, and could be based on lesser-included charges like involuntary manslaughter.

following up on Bern's question. If KC decides to plead guilty and does go with 'the accident which snowballed' story what are the options for sentencing? If the State backs off and allows her to plead to aggravated manslaughter or manslaughter, who decides on the length of the sentence? I am assuming the State will have a recommendation, but how much leeway would Judge Perry have in deciding how much time she should serve?

Again, if KC "decides" to plea guilty, the options for sentencing go all the way up to the death penalty, because of the charges she's facing.

If she reaches a plea agreement with the State, the judge would have the same leeway for sentencing as he would have for anyone else who was convicted of whatever charge(s) she pleads guilty to as part of the plea agreement.

 

[Mama-cita]

AZ, I read Judge Perry's ruling and found it to be eloquent, thorough, and with an abundance of supportive case law. Now that you've read his ruling, do you still believe he is likely to be turned over on appeal vis a vis the Universal interview? I'm not a lawyer but his ruling looked pretty iron clad to me, so I'd be interested in knowing whether you feel the appellate courts will be satisfied with his decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't justices pretty "judicious" about overturning their colleagues unless there is incontrovertible proof that the original ruling didn't properly apply standards of law? JBP seems to be an esteemed judge, don't know if that matters...I just do NOT want KC to get a second circus complete with "KCland"...barforama!

 

[jennyb]

LWOP is the abrieviated form of "Life Without Parole" So they mean the same thing.

LOL! I know that. My question is (and maybe it's silly)... You hear about Life Without the POSSIBILITY of Parole, which would be LWOPP and then there's Life Without Parole LWOP and I was wondering if there's a difference or if it's just certain states have different ways of saying it.

 

[logicalgirl]

LOL! I know that. My question is (and maybe it's silly)... You hear about Life Without the POSSIBILITY of Parole, which would be LWOPP and then there's Life Without Parole LWOP and I was wondering if there's a difference or if it's just certain states have different ways of saying it.

In Canada we have a Life Sentence Without The Possibility of Parole.......for 25 years! So thank you for asking this question Jennyb.

We have not had the death penalty in Canada for many years, so when I hear of some one who has been sentenced to life - I think "so what". You must be deemed to be a "dangerous offender" to stay in prison for Life in Canada.

 

[jennyb]

Thank you LogicalGirl. I didn't realize that about Canada although I assumed sentences were overall lighter there.

Hmmm... So what DOES LWOP in this country really mean? Is it less final than LWOPP or maybe it's just a turn of a phrase, (potato/potahto)... and they both mean the door slams behind you until you draw your last breath?

 

[strach304]

I don't recollect this being discussed but it may have been way back when JB asked for COV. Does that completely cover an appeal upon conviction for fair trial rule? Is the jury questionnaire voir dire also another safeguard for an impartial jury to be established to prevent juror bias? To be more clear what I mean is are there any other tactics used to try and have an impartial jury seated? If so what are they and could the defense later use any of those factors as an appeal issue?

I hope my questions make sense. I'm not always the best communicator.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, I read Judge Perry's ruling and found it to be eloquent, thorough, and with an abundance of supportive case law. Now that you've read his ruling, do you still believe he is likely to be turned over on appeal vis a vis the Universal interview? I'm not a lawyer but his ruling looked pretty iron clad to me, so I'd be interested in knowing whether you feel the appellate courts will be satisfied with his decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't justices pretty "judicious" about overturning their colleagues unless there is incontrovertible proof that the original ruling didn't properly apply standards of law? JBP seems to be an esteemed judge, don't know if that matters...I just do NOT want KC to get a second circus complete with "KCland"...barforama!

The ruling is not "iron clad," because it is a careful balancing of the facts--there was no absolute answer. Because the SA did such a great job of presenting the facts, and the defense did a kind of crappy job of presenting their side, and HHJP did a great job of explaining his ruling, I think there is a better-than-average chance that the ruling will be upheld on appeal.

Appellate courts review different types of decisions with different levels of deference. Legal questions are reviewed "de novo" (from scratch), with no deference at all to the trial judge. Purely factual questions are reviewed with great deference and are hardly ever overturned. This issue IMO is one of the ones that falls in between--"application of fact to law."

LOL! I know that. My question is (and maybe it's silly)... You hear about Life Without the POSSIBILITY of Parole, which would be LWOPP and then there's Life Without Parole LWOP and I was wondering if there's a difference or if it's just certain states have different ways of saying it.

They are the same.

I don't recollect this being discussed but it may have been way back when JB asked for COV. Does that completely cover an appeal upon conviction for fair trial rule? Is the jury questionnaire voir dire also another safeguard for an impartial jury to be established to prevent juror bias? To be more clear what I mean is are there any other tactics used to try and have an impartial jury seated? If so what are they and could the defense later use any of those factors as an appeal issue?

I hope my questions make sense. I'm not always the best communicator.

HHJP is doing everything possible to cover this issue. However, on appeal the defense is likely to challenge the fairness of the process anyway, on any number of grounds, including the exact choice of venue for picking the jury and the media coverage. There is no way to completely prevent an appeal on this issue.

 

[jennyb]

Does an Appellate Court review the entire case, every document, every bit of everything from the moment it began through sentencing?

I can't imagine that kind of workload but then again it seems they would need to do that to rule fairly on an appeal. Even if the appeal issues are targeted to a certain aspect wouldn't they have to get a full understanding by reading the case in its entirety?

 

[AZlawyer]

Does an Appellate Court review the entire case, every document, every bit of everything from the moment it began through sentencing?

I can't imagine that kind of workload but then again it seems they would need to do that to rule fairly on an appeal. Even if the appeal issues are targeted to a certain aspect wouldn't they have to get a full understanding by reading the case in its entirety?

In AZ, at least, "death is different," and the entire record is reviewed for error. In other cases, only the issues raised by the parties are considered, and only those portions of the record cited by the parties are reviewed.

 

[countzero]

In AZ, at least, "death is different," and the entire record is reviewed for error. In other cases, only the issues raised by the parties are considered, and only those portions of the record cited by the parties are reviewed.

Thanks AZlawyer. So are we to understand, IF ICA is sentenced to life or LWOP her appeal would have to be very specific and only that or those issues would be reviewed by the Appellate Court?

 

[logicalgirl]

In Canada we have a Life Sentence Without The Possibility of Parole.......for 25 years! So thank you for asking this question Jennyb.

We have not had the death penalty in Canada for many years, so when I hear of some one who has been sentenced to life - I think "so what". You must be deemed to be a "dangerous offender" to stay in prison for Life in Canada.

Well Life Without Parole for 25 years just means you can apply for parole after 25 years, it doesn't mean you will automatically get it. For some it means they can apply and never get it.

Is this the equivalent in the States?

Oh oh - I think you have already answered this question - thank you.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZlawyer. So are we to understand, IF ICA is sentenced to life or LWOP her appeal would have to be very specific and only that or those issues would be reviewed by the Appellate Court?

Yes. But I bet there will be lots of issues raised anyway.

 

[biggirl]

AZ, I work for a Court of Appeals in my State, and if a def. is sentenced to death it goes straight to the Supreme Court and by passes us. If it is a "life" sentence, we get it first. Is it the same in Florida?? Thank you for all your help. You are a wonderful resource.

 

[rhornsby]

Thank you LogicalGirl. I didn't realize that about Canada although I assumed sentences were overall lighter there.

Hmmm... So what DOES LWOP in this country really mean? Is it less final than LWOPP or maybe it's just a turn of a phrase, (potato/potahto)... and they both mean the door slams behind you until you draw your last breath?

In Florida, Life means Life. See Florida Statute 775.082 ("A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by death if the proceeding held to determine sentence according to the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death, otherwise such person shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be ineligible for parole.")

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, I work for a Court of Appeals in my State, and if a def. is sentenced to death it goes straight to the Supreme Court and by passes us. If it is a "life" sentence, we get it first. Is it the same in Florida?? Thank you for all your help. You are a wonderful resource.

Yes, it is the same in Florida (and AZ).

 

[SunnyinMO]

Is it 'normal' for attorney's to go after each other as seems to be the case here? I have been in several courts as a juror and as a spectator and I have never seen the lack of respect that I am witnessing in this case. Judge Perry hands out rules of decorum for his court and yet allows the Anthony's to chew gum, visually 'testify' from the gallery, reply rudely to attorney questions, tell a story instead of answer the question, and allows both defense attorneys lots of wiggle room as far as rudemess and disrespect goes. Am I the only person who finds this strange? Will he become stricter during the trial?

 

[angeldust]

Hi Mr Hornsby

I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

As a Criminal Defence Lawyer hypothetically if you had kc as a client and knowing what you know of the evidence, if your defense of her was successful and she got off on some form of reasonable doubt would you (i dont mean you as in personally you, i mean as a lawyer) would you be pleased and consider it a a great achievement or would you go home that night and worry that your client may kill again. What happens in these sort of situations?

 

[rhornsby]

Hi Mr Hornsby

I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

As a Criminal Defence Lawyer hypothetically if you had kc as a client and knowing what you know of the evidence, if your defense of her was successful and she got off on some form of reasonable doubt would you (i dont mean you as in personally you, i mean as a lawyer) would you be pleased and consider it a a great achievement or would you go home that night and worry that your client may kill again. What happens in these sort of situations?

I would have no problem sleeping if a jury of my client's peers, who heard all of the evidence, found a reasonable doubt as to my client's guilt; nor should you. Because our criminal justice system requires such an acquitall.

However, what you really meant to ask was how I would feel if a client got off on a technicality. I would answer that I would not feel bad as it was not me that let her off, I only pointed out the technicality. The jury is the one who chose to act upon it.

In any event, as it applies to this case, I have never thought Casey would be convicted of 1st Degree Murder. I think she will be convicted of a lesser crime, and that does not mean she got off. Only that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether she committed he greater crime.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it 'normal' for attorney's to go after each other as seems to be the case here? I have been in several courts as a juror and as a spectator and I have never seen the lack of respect that I am witnessing in this case. Judge Perry hands out rules of decorum for his court and yet allows the Anthony's to chew gum, visually 'testify' from the gallery, reply rudely to attorney questions, tell a story instead of answer the question, and allows both defense attorneys lots of wiggle room as far as rudemess and disrespect goes. Am I the only person who finds this strange? Will he become stricter during the trial?

Not "normal" like it happens in every case, but yes "normal" in the sense that most trial lawyers probably have at least one active case where the relationship among the attorneys is strained to this extent. Rude witnesses are certainly not rare either.

I think HHJP will be stricter at trial, when the jury is present.

 

[rhornsby]

Is it 'normal' for attorney's to go after each other as seems to be the case here? I have been in several courts as a juror and as a spectator and I have never seen the lack of respect that I am witnessing in this case. Judge Perry hands out rules of decorum for his court and yet allows the Anthony's to chew gum, visually 'testify' from the gallery, reply rudely to attorney questions, tell a story instead of answer the question, and allows both defense attorneys lots of wiggle room as far as rudemess and disrespect goes. Am I the only person who finds this strange? Will he become stricter during the trial?

I have been involved in cases just as contentious.