Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[twomanywords]

I know this is a stretch, but what would happen if GA or CA decided at the last moment to scream out in court" I really did it!" just to save Casey? I get really nervous that they will do something illegal and disruptive to cause a real problem in the trial.
Thx

 

[AZlawyer]

Good morning! :coffeeup:

When the jury goes into the deliberation room, are they only allowed to take their notes with them? Let's say they want to clarify some piece of Dr. Vass's testimony, or listen again to the first phone call home--do they have to ask to have that brought to them, or is all the evidence provided in nice binders for them to review?

(And if it's not provided for them & they have to request it, why?)

TIA! :seeya:

All the admitted evidence will be available to the jury during deliberations. However, transcripts AFAIK are not available to jurors in Florida (or any US jurisdiction that I know of). So they could listen again to the first jail call home, if the recording is admitted as an exhibit, but they would have to rely on their notes re: testimony of witnesses.

Until about 10 years ago they weren't even allowed to take notes! The new way IMO is a vast improvement.

By motion/agreement, the SA states that they will not be bringing in the details of Casey's sex life with Tony R and TonE L, but merely that such an intimate relationship did exist.

What would happen if Baez questioned either of these young men on this topic? Would this open the door for the state to inquire more/deeper, or would they still be barred from discussing this? OR - would they object when Baez tried it the first time?

TY!

I'm not sure why Baez would do that, but sometimes he does stuff that doesn't make sense. :crazy:

If the SA objected, HHJP would sustain the objection and that would be the end of it. I suppose the SA might not object, in which case Baez would have "opened the door" and the SA could ask questions at least to the extent necessary to address whatever issue Baez brought up.

Or HHJP could always step in on his own without an objection and remind Baez that he had fought to keep that info out!

There is some talk on the threads about the A's doing an interview with InSession today in their home. Since they are witnesses of the State should they be discussing any portion of the case with media about the trial?

Sure, there is no reason they can't talk to the media.

I know this is a stretch, but what would happen if GA or CA decided at the last moment to scream out in court" I really did it!" just to save Casey? I get really nervous that they will do something illegal and disruptive to cause a real problem in the trial.
Thx

Mistrial and do-over!

 

[Caligram]

If the jury convicts ICA, will she immediately be transferred to a penitentiary even if appeals are immediately filed.

 

[AZlawyer]

If the jury convicts ICA, will she immediately be transferred to a penitentiary even if appeals are immediately filed.

Yes .

 

[LambChop]

So it is possible that JB's question to GA about not showing up for court may have been a warning to SA not to use the A's testimony for trial? Not sure why JB would have asked GA a question that involved GA breaking the law to save his daughter's life? What would be the point of putting it on the record?

 

[AZlawyer]

So it is possible that JB's question to GA about not showing up for court may have been a warning to SA not to use the A's testimony for trial? Not sure why JB would have asked GA a question that involved GA breaking the law to save his daughter's life? What would be the point of putting it on the record?

It was a terrible question. The answer GA gave would not impeach him if he says something to HELP the State--quite the contrary, because that would mean that his willingness to lie to save his daughter was OVERCOME by his need to tell the truth about whatever it is that helps the State.

But if he says anything to help the defense, the effect of his testimony will be evaporated by his statement that he is willing to lie, break the law, whatever to save his daughter.

 

[TimesPast]

If Drs Danziger and Weitz are allowed as guilt phase witnesses, can they also appear in the penalty phase? (presuming Casey is found guilty). If so, would it reduce their impact in the penalty phase that they had been defense witnesses in the guilt phase?

 

[LambChop]

Obviously JB is worried about this "parallel" investigation by the State so keeping that in mind would a mistrial help him by way of the statute of limitations running out if the State were waiting for this trial to be completed? Sorry, I'm talking about the parallel investigation for tampering.

 

[ANAM CARA]

Now that JP has denied mason's motion for a rehearing on the motion to suppress I read somewhere dt can file to have jp recuse ? is that correct ? and if it is, do they then have a hearing if jp refuses ?

 

[AZlawyer]

If Drs Danziger and Weitz are allowed as guilt phase witnesses, can they also appear in the penalty phase? (presuming Casey is found guilty). If so, would it reduce their impact in the penalty phase that they had been defense witnesses in the guilt phase?

Yes, they can testify in both phases of the trial. I don't see how it would reduce their impact in the penalty phase to have appeared in the guilt phase--they will just be testifying about Casey's mental issues, not presenting the actual theories of innocence or guilt.

Obviously JB is worried about this "parallel" investigation by the State so keeping that in mind would a mistrial help him by way of the statute of limitations running out if the State were waiting for this trial to be completed? Sorry, I'm talking about the parallel investigation for tampering.

I doubt it. There's a 3-year statute of limitations, and if there's a mistrial, the State might as well move forward and prosecute him (assuming he's even a target of the investigation, which I don't think we know) and let Casey get new counsel for the new trial.

Now that JP has denied mason's motion for a rehearing on the motion to suppress I read somewhere dt can file to have jp recuse ? is that correct ? and if it is, do they then have a hearing if jp refuses ?

They could have filed a motion to disqualify HHJP whether or not he denied the motion for rehearing. But there is no way HHJP will grant their motion to disqualify, because it would be a load of carp. They could immediately appeal his decision not to recuse himself, but IMO the appellate courts will ensure that the matter is addressed in an expedited manner so that the defense team cannot succeed in a ploy to delay the trial.

 

[TallyHo]

Assuming that Casey does not have to testify in order for her DT to introduce the PTSD/Abuse state of mind theory, exactly how will they do that?? Can one of those doctors just get on the stand and speculate that is what happened?

I know the DT in the Mary Winkler trial in Tennessee successfully used a similar defense as to why Mary shot her husband, a Church of Christ preacher, in the back. She was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter and served less than a year. She testified in her trial and her testimony was really important to the verdict, I think. I'm just still wondering how Casey's DT can try to pull the same thing off without her testimony. :crazy:

 

[TallyHo]

I just thought of another question that is related to the one I just asked.

Can Casey's DT float the PTSD/Abuse State of Mind theory without her approving it? My gut keeps telling me she will never admit to any involvement whatsoever, and will maintain that forever. My impression from watching her reaction in court when they were talking about that is that she was angry/concerned. Purely speculative here, but I wonder if they have to have her blessing to go down that road??

 

[logicalgirl]

If HHJP allows both Dr. Danziger and Dr. Weitz to testify in the guilt and penalty phase even with this late filing, will he also allow the SA to introduce their own experts who can testify to against PTSD?

And second question, would the SA need their own experts or could they just pick apart these experts reports and testimony?

 

[Jolynna]

Assuming that Casey does not have to testify in order for her DT to introduce the PTSD/Abuse state of mind theory, exactly how will they do that?? Can one of those doctors just get on the stand and speculate that is what happened?

I know the DT in the Mary Winkler trial in Tennessee successfully used a similar defense as to why Mary shot her husband, a Church of Christ preacher, in the back. She was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter and served less than a year. She testified in her trial and her testimony was really important to the verdict, I think. I'm just still wondering how Casey's DT can try to pull the same thing off without her testimony. :crazy:

What TallyHo asked.

Only my understanding of your "happy face/PTSD" theory is that the psychiatric experts would testify that because of KC's awful homelife (George's rages & Cindy's competative control issues),KC lies and doesn't show appropriate emotions. Therefore KC acts and looks guilty. But, she's really innocent and Caylee was kidnapped/choked/drowned/had a heart attack.

They wouldn't be saying she was in a disassociative fugue or that she thinks she is really a lawyer or that she acted happy for 31 days because she forgot Caylee was dead. It would be an abused woman ala Mary Winkler defense because like Mary Winkler, KC's behavior's would be explained by abuse. But, unlike Mary Winkler, KC would say she didn't do it. And that the 31 days and KC's demeanor were because of her upbringing, not her guilt.

Is my understanding close? If not please explain, because I've been posting on other threads that is what your "happy face" theory is <based on my understanding of your previous posts not any desire to misrepresent>.

 

[AZlawyer]

I just thought of another question that is related to the one I just asked.

Can Casey's DT float the PTSD/Abuse State of Mind theory without her approving it? My gut keeps telling me she will never admit to any involvement whatsoever, and will maintain that forever. My impression from watching her reaction in court when they were talking about that is that she was angry/concerned. Purely speculative here, but I wonder if they have to have her blessing to go down that road??

First of all, there's no reason for the "PTSD/Abuse/State of Mind theory" to involve admitting any guilt. Casey's defense team could deny guilt and assert that Casey's state of mind caused her to act strangely even though she was innocent.

It's kind of an ethical question how much of the defense presentation Casey has to "approve." The general rule is that the client decides the goal (acquittal, I assume) and the facts, but not the strategy. So it depends what she's told them about the "facts," I suppose.

Assuming that Casey does not have to testify in order for her DT to introduce the PTSD/Abuse state of mind theory, exactly how will they do that?? Can one of those doctors just get on the stand and speculate that is what happened?

I know the DT in the Mary Winkler trial in Tennessee successfully used a similar defense as to why Mary shot her husband, a Church of Christ preacher, in the back. She was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter and served less than a year. She testified in her trial and her testimony was really important to the verdict, I think. I'm just still wondering how Casey's DT can try to pull the same thing off without her testimony. :crazy:

The doctors will not present the defense theory of what happened. The lawyers will do that, if Casey doesn't testify.

If HHJP allows both Dr. Danziger and Dr. Weitz to testify in the guilt and penalty phase even with this late filing, will he also allow the SA to introduce their own experts who can testify to against PTSD?

And second question, would the SA need their own experts or could they just pick apart these experts reports and testimony?

The SA could present their own experts or just attack the defense experts--their choice.

 

[AZlawyer]

What TallyHo asked.

Only my understanding of your "happy face/PTSD" theory is that the psychiatric experts would testify that because of KC's awful homelife (George's rages & Cindy's competative control issues),KC lies and doesn't show appropriate emotions. Therefore KC acts and looks guilty. But, she's really innocent and Caylee was kidnapped/choked/drowned/had a heart attack.

They wouldn't be saying she was in a dissassociative fugue or that she thinks she is really a lawyer or that she acted happy for 31 days because she forgot Caylee was dead. Like Mary Winkler, KC's behavior's would be explained by abuse. But, unlike Mary Winkler, KC would say she didn't do it. She just didn't and isn't acting right because of her problem--caused by her upbringing.

Right?

Yes, the theory I suggested to the defense (sorry again :banghead was that Casey is innocent but acts strangely (i.e., guilty) because she is a little messed up in the head from being raised by the As.

 

[JWG]

If KC were to take the stand in her own defense, having been called by her own attorneys, how limited in scope would the state's cross-examination be? Would it be limited to the specific areas of questioning JB used with KC, or could they go beyond that to any aspect of the case?

 

[AZlawyer]

If KC were to take the stand in her own defense, having been called by her own attorneys, how limited in scope would the state's cross-examination be? Would it be limited to the specific areas of questioning JB used with KC, or could they go beyond that to any aspect of the case?

In Florida, cross-examination is limited to the scope of the direct examination. Fla. Stat. 90.612(2). However, the SA can cross-examine to show she's a liar, because that would be relevant to ANYTHING she testified to on direct.

 

[texas77878]

I don't know that this belongs here but... Ok - so my granddaughter lives in Tampa. I've thought about going to visit her and maybe drive up to Orlando for a day or two of court watch. do you think I could get in?

 

[Bittiness39]

Could the fact that Caylee's remains were found with clothes BUT NOT underwear NOR diapers (Lee said she wasn't potty trained and was in diapers still) prove a non-accident? Or at least show that she was changed after her demise? If she had been swimming...wouldn't you expect her to be found in a swimsuit? IMO, she was clearly changed after death. This could totally be why the Defense feels they need a SODDI...