Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

GA and CA have counsel representing them in some capacity.

If the defense appears to be going in the direction of accusing GA of sexual abuse and/or complicit in Caylee's death, what would his counsel advise him to do on the stand and would they advise him to get separate counsel from CA to avoid conflict of interest?

Would it be his counsel's job to protect him from these accusations and advise him to be honest with the court and not cooperate in lying or taking the 5th for the defense?

Would his counsel be required to tell the court if they knew he was lying on the stand or would they resign if they knew he would agree to do this for the defense?

If the defense seems to be going in this direction, if I were joint counsel for CA and GA I would advise him to obtain separate counsel.

The advice ultimately given to him would depend upon a number of things, including his goal(s) as stated to his attorneys and whether or not he has any reason to be concerned about actual criminal prosecution. His attorneys might advise him to take the 5th but could not advise him to lie. If they knew he was going to lie, they should probably withdraw, citing ethical concerns.

This might be a bit premature considering we haven't seen the recently filed motions but why would they be filing the motion in reference to Karen Lowe? She testified about the hair banding. Isn't the purpose of Frye to determine whether it is admissable or not? And then in reference to a hearing for Dr Hall's testimony....didn't HHJP already rule that it was going to be admissible? So are they going to request that it not be allowed? Isn't that basically requesting him to reconsider his initial ruling? Hope all that makes sense.

There hasn't been a ruling on the hair banding motion yet, so I guess the defense team feels that it isn't too late to influence HHJP's thinking on this issue.

My understanding is that HHJP has not made any ruling on Dr. Hall's testimony except that his opinions do not need to meet the Frye standard. There might be any number of other objections to his opinions.

I think they have already requested that HHJP reconsider his ruling about Dr. Hall's opinions, and I think HHJP already denied that request. So if this new filing is just another disguised motion for reconsideration, HHJP may rock his chair right into orbit. :HHJP:

BBM...Could you expand on your reasoning? Because I would have to respectfully disagree. If that was the case, anyone in any murder case could do the same and cause a mistrial all the time could they not?

Would he not be simply ejected from the gallery and/or charged with OGA? Be banned from any future court appearence. An investigation into a claim of that nature would only result in no evidence to support his claim and reaffirm the evidence against KC. I just dont understand the mistrial possibility. Seems too easy of an tactic here or in any other trial.

Thank you for your time.

I don't like these hypothetical questions, because I think the chances of this actually happening are pretty tiny, but IF if if if in crazy-land George were actually to stand up in the gallery and shout, "I did it! I killed Caylee and framed Casey! Arrest me and let her go! I'm sorry Casey!" then I think that would create an indelible impression in the minds of the jurors that would directly impact their decision, was not subject to cross-examination, and could not be corrected by any instruction from the court to "ignore the outburst." Without looking at the case law, and certainly without having researched any Florida cases specifically, it seems to me that a mistrial would be the appropriate response to that situation.

AZ, I have a question regading the autopsy report. The report states "The posterior half of the sagittal suture appears to be in the beginning stages of premature synostosis". From everything I've read Caylee was not born with this defect and the information I have read strongly suggest premature synostosis can be evidence of child abuse. In your opinion will this be brought up during the trial?

I don't think so. I suspect that we are all misunderstanding this issue, as no one involved in the case seems the tiniest bit interested in it. I would like to read Dr. G's deposition, however, to see if there were any questions asked about it.

 

[Katprint]

We talked about this a couple of pages back in the context of George screaming his "confession" from the gallery. IMO this would cause a mistrial.

Maybe. I'm thinking the judge might question the jurors concerning any prejudicial effect on them and might go with strong jury admonitions to disregard the outburst.

Also, I don't really see how Casey would benefit from George or Cindy causing a mistrial. Casey would remain in jail pending the 2012 retrial and the offending parent would be banned from attending except when their testimony was required on the witness stand.

If George said this on the stand, I wouldn't be so sure. But it certainly wouldn't mean that KC would go free. I would expect the State to cross-examine him closely on this issue--did he put the body in KC's trunk? When? What did he tell KC about it? Does he even know where KC keeps her heart stickers? etc.--and then wrap up with his admission that he would do anything Jose asked him to do to save Casey.

Even if the jury believed that George killed Caylee, Casey could be convicted as George's accomplice. Two people can both be found guilty of the same murder even if only one of them did the hands-on killing.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Cher352]

Lawyers filed new two motions on Tuesday, claiming the FBI expert who examined a hair found in Casey's trunk and the doctor who examined plant growth at the scene where Caylee's remains were found are unreliable witnesses.

http://www.wftv.com/news/27363154/detail.html

Is it normal in other cases that this many motions are being filed with only a little over month left before the trial begins? Also is there any cutoff as to when motions can be filed or can they keep filing right up until the day the trial starts?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Is all evidence reciprocal?

I'm wondering if the hairs Dr. Lee found can be tested by the prosecution for death banding.

 

[Intermezzo]

How does Brady V Maryland apply to adding new witnesses in THIS case? Namely a prosecutor, Lewis, not involved in the prosecution team in Florida V Anthony.

The DT wanting to add Prosecutor Lewis (who is not on the Team prosecuting Casey) saying he May have evidence? Does it have to do with Maya D who he prosecuted...how long ago?

Are they arguing using a broad interpretation of the ruling?

Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a civilian witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant

 

[AZlawyer]

Lawyers filed new two motions on Tuesday, claiming the FBI expert who examined a hair found in Casey's trunk and the doctor who examined plant growth at the scene where Caylee's remains were found are unreliable witnesses.

http://www.wftv.com/news/27363154/detail.html

Is it normal in other cases that this many motions are being filed with only a little over month left before the trial begins? Also is there any cutoff as to when motions can be filed or can they keep filing right up until the day the trial starts?

A motion just means you are asking the court for a ruling. So it is normal to ask for lots of rulings before, during, and after trial.

Is all evidence reciprocal?

I'm wondering if the hairs Dr. Lee found can be tested by the prosecution for death banding.

Not sure what you mean about the "reciprocal" question. The hair(s) found by Dr. Lee were checked, as were the additional hairs found by LE after he left, and none showed any signs of decomp.

How does Brady V Maryland apply to adding new witnesses in THIS case? Namely a prosecutor, Lewis, not involved in the prosecution team in Florida V Anthony.

The DT wanting to add Prosecutor Lewis (who is not on the Team prosecuting Casey) saying he May have evidence? Does it have to do with Maya D who he prosecuted...how long ago?

Are they arguing using a broad interpretation of the ruling?

Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a civilian witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant

Brady evidence just means evidence that helps the defense.

I just realized what the prosecutor is probably listed for. He probably has information regarding whatever Maya D was offered in exchange for her testimony against Casey. This info could be used to impeach Maya at trial...if the SA called her as a witness, which they have announced they will not do.

 

[lauriej]

..from the mark lipman press release, re: GA...

" we assert that we will not engage in idle speculation regarding either the defense strategy or the state strategy but make no mistake that any factual fallacy stated contrary to my client's well-being will be vigorously defended to every extent allowed by the law".

..is a "factual fallacy" a 'normal' legal term? and if so, what does it mean? TY...

 

[AZlawyer]

..from the mark lipman press release, re: GA...

" we assert that we will not engage in idle speculation regarding either the defense strategy or the state strategy but make no mistake that any factual fallacy stated contrary to my client's well-being will be vigorously defended to every extent allowed by the law".

..is a "factual fallacy" a 'normal' legal term? and if so, what does it mean? TY...

Yes, it is just another example of how many lawyers refuse to speak in plain English for fear that someone might understand them. :banghead:

"Factual fallacy" means LIE.

Translation of his statement: "I have no idea if anyone plans to throw George under the bus, but if they do we will fight back."

 

[Katprint]

Not sure what you mean about the "reciprocal" question. The hair(s) found by Dr. Lee were checked, as were the additional hairs found by LE after he left, and none showed any signs of decomp.

<respectfully snipped>

That is my recollection, too.

To the extent hairs were found in Casey's car that did NOT show any signs of decomp banding, those hairs prove nothing. As I have previously posted, I frequently used the soft, carpeted surface of my car trunk as a convenient place to change my children's diapers. They probably left some stray hairs behind (and I probably did too.) Since we are all still alive, none of those hairs could possibly show any decomp banding. Hairs without decomp banding are not particularly probative, except to the very minimal extent they may indicate that decomp was not occurring on those particular hairs.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

<respectfully snipped>

That is my recollection, too.

To the extent hairs were found in Casey's car that did NOT show any signs of decomp banding, those hairs prove nothing. As I have previously posted, I frequently used the soft, carpeted surface of my car trunk as a convenient place to change my children's diapers. They probably left some stray hairs behind (and I probably did too.) Since we are all still alive, none of those hairs could possibly show any decomp banding. Hairs without decomp banding are not particularly probative, except to the very minimal extent they may indicate that decomp was not occurring on those particular hairs.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Also might suggest that Caylee lost hairs while in the trunk and still alive, perhaps from panicky movements made while suffocating.

But this thread is for questions to lawyers, not sleuthing among lawyers, I suppose. :innocent:

 

[precious]

Don't know if this question has been asked ,but....if KC decides at any time during the trial to make a plea deal and the prosecution accepts , would she still be entitled to any appeals? Thank You.

 

[AZlawyer]

Don't know if this question has been asked ,but....if KC decides at any time during the trial to make a plea deal and the prosecution accepts , would she still be entitled to any appeals? Thank You.

There would still be some very limited things she could say on appeal--e.g., that the judge calculated the sentence incorrectly or the plea was involuntary.

 

[spyhouston]

In Florida a few years ago, the Justin Barber jury recommended the death penalty but the judge changed to LWOP. I'm wondering if the opposite can happen...if ICA gets LWOP, can the judge change to the death penalty?

 

[Numbers]

From what I understand, the defense is asking to call two shrinks to counter that Casey's actions showed consciousness of guilt. I don't care if they try to blame PTSD, ADHD, UNICEF, or Abe Lincoln, it boils down to an interpretation of her mental state.

How can this be divorced from a mental health defense?

 

[beach]

In Florida a few years ago, the Justin Barber jury recommended the death penalty but the judge changed to LWOP. I'm wondering if the opposite can happen...if ICA gets LWOP, can the judge change to the death penalty?

Bumping AZ's answer to this question. It was buried a few pages back.

The jury decides guilty or not guilty. The jury then finds whether the specified aggravating circumstances exist and recommends a penalty (LWOP or death, for a death-eligible 1st degree murder), then the judge decides whether or not to accept the jury's recommendation. In Florida, it is my understanding that the judge can even reject a jury's recommendation of life and sentence the defendant to death instead.

 

[AZlawyer]

From what I understand, the defense is asking to call two shrinks to counter that Casey's actions showed consciousness of guilt. I don't care if they try to blame PTSD, ADHD, UNICEF, or Abe Lincoln, it boils down to an interpretation of her mental state.

How can this be divorced from a mental health defense?

A "mental health defense" would be if the defense team said, "Casey did kill Caylee, but she can't be held responsible for her actions due to her mental health problems."

With this mental health evidence, the defense will be, "Casey didn't kill Caylee; her behavior afterward was due to her mental health problems, not because she had killed her daughter and was happy about it."

 

[logicalgirl]

A "mental health defense" would be if the defense team said, "Casey did kill Caylee, but she can't be held responsible for her actions due to her mental health problems."

With this mental health evidence, the defense will be, "Casey didn't kill Caylee; her behavior afterward was due to her mental health problems, not because she had killed her daughter and was happy about it."

To clarify - and beyond the statement you've just made about her behavior afterward due to mental health problems - will the defense be saying that she knew her daughter was missing or dead, (but SODDI) and that caused the mental health problems or ICA just happened to have these mental health problems at this time and it is absolutely coincidental because she did not know her daughter was missing or dead or????:banghead:
I can't quite figure out how this is going to fly......:waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

[/B]
To clarify - and beyond the statement you've just made about her behavior afterward due to mental health problems - will the defense be saying that she knew her daughter was missing or dead, (but SODDI) and that caused the mental health problems or ICA just happened to have these mental health problems at this time and it is absolutely coincidental because she did not know her daughter was missing or dead or????:banghead:
I can't quite figure out how this is going to fly......:waitasec:

I think the theory will have to acknowledge that Casey knew Caylee was missing OR dead. There would be no need for mental health experts if the defense was going to be "Casey was happy and carefree because she thought Caylee was fine and living at Zanny's place." The experts are needed to explain why Casey was acting in a way that would, quite frankly, otherwise be inconsistent with whatever the defense theory is.

If the tattoo is coming into evidence (and didn't HHJP overrule the objections thus far on the tattoo?) then they'd better say she knew Caylee was dead, because Casey admitted the tattoo was "Caylee related," and your toddler being kidnapped does not equate to a "beautiful life"--whereas your toddler dying by accident or being killed by someone else could explain a tattoo memorial to HER "beautiful life."

IMO (best guess) they will say that Casey had a pre-existing mental condition caused by whatever (probably her parents), which caused her to behave abnormally in response to a traumatic event involving Caylee's death.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think the theory will have to acknowledge that Casey knew Caylee was missing OR dead. There would be no need for mental health experts if the defense was going to be "Casey was happy and carefree because she thought Caylee was fine and living at Zanny's place." The experts are needed to explain why Casey was acting in a way that would, quite frankly, otherwise be inconsistent with whatever the defense theory is.

If the tattoo is coming into evidence (and didn't HHJP overrule the objections thus far on the tattoo?) then they'd better say she knew Caylee was dead, because Casey admitted the tattoo was "Caylee related," and your toddler being kidnapped does not equate to a "beautiful life"--whereas your toddler dying by accident or being killed by someone else could explain a tattoo memorial to HER "beautiful life."

IMO (best guess) they will say that Casey had a pre-existing mental condition caused by whatever (probably her parents), which caused her to behave abnormally in response to a traumatic event involving Caylee's death.

Sorry one more question and thanks for your quoted answer - very helpful.
So - the defense doesn't have to say how ICA knew Caylee was dead? ICA doesn't have to get on the stand and say how she knew Caylee was dead? Seems to me this might be a big black pit the defense is about to fall into..or no?

 

[Numbers]

Sorry one more question and thanks for your quoted answer - very helpful.
So - the defense doesn't have to say how ICA knew Caylee was dead? ICA doesn't have to get on the stand and say how she knew Caylee was dead? Seems to me this might be a big black pit the defense is about to fall into..or no?

Piggybacking on LG's question:

How would they introduce the information that Casey knew Caylee was missing/dead?