Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

As a follow up to Snaz's question about the car - we've seen in jury trials where the jury is taken to the crime scene.

Will the jury be allowed to see and smell the car?

I doubt it, because the jurors probably will have no expertise in the smell of decomp. So what information would they gain by smelling the car?

OTOH, if I were the SA and if the car really DOES still smell--and not just a little bit--then I might argue that the jurors have common knowledge re: the smell of the type of kitchen trash that was in the trunk and ought to be allowed to smell the car in order to confirm for themselves that it smells nothing like kitchen trash.

IIRC the State retained a piece of the trunk carpet in a can--maybe the jurors will be allowed to open and smell the can for that purpose.

AZ, is it correct that the SA always sits nearest the jury box during trials? Is that a standard protocol nationwide, and if so, do you know why?

:tyou: in advance!

Yes. Because they have the burden of proof, they are given the advantage of sitting closest to the jury.

Hi AZ,

Discussions about the DT strategies and the two threads giving suggestions to both the SA and the DT have prompted my question.

From you experince, is it a common part of a lawyer's general strategy to annoy, bully, and interrupt (on both sides) through manners of objection, obsessive-compulsive habits like pen clicking, and cheap shots, during the hearings while there is no jury, only to change to a softer more likeable person while the jury is seated?

Will we see a drastic change in demeanor from both sides in front of the jury?

No, quite honestly I see the opposite tactic more often--calm and cooperative in pretrial hearings before the judge, and then bombastic and dramatic in front of the jury.

And piggybacking on ynotdivein's question, would it have anything to do with having the jury both feel a safe distance away from what could be a dangerous defendant, and so the jury could observe the defendant more objectively from a distance. And also, would the rights of the defendant play into this anywhere - such as more privacy to talk to their lawyer, etc. during the trial?

Or is it just a matter of court formality and doesn't represent anything in particular besides tradition? Thanks AZ.

No, it is not to make the jury feel safer or to give the defendant privacy--just to give the party with the burden of proof the opportunity to sit closest to the people they have to convince.

Will the jury see KC's written statement (nanny.... dropped Caylee off between.... work... )?

Will the jury see taped interviews - specifically the one where she talks about the Zanny's number being on the other sim card in her work phone, filing the report at Universal re:the phone not keeping a charge, etc.?

TIA

Based on the judge's recent rulings, yes, the jury should see these things.

 

[MissJames]

There are moments during hearings when Judge Perry schools JB on "lawyering" and has admonished both sides for behavior. Can he also address this with them privately? Can he meet with JB and CM ,or even JA ,to suggest they get it together?

 

[AZlawyer]

There are moments during hearings when Judge Perry schools JB on "lawyering" and has admonished both sides for behavior. Can he also address this with them privately? Can he meet with JB and CM ,or even JA ,to suggest they get it together?

He can and probably already has addressed this privately (with counsel from both sides present). IMO he will avoid singling out the DT lawyers whenever he can, to avoid accusations of bias. Also, he cannot have meetings with just one set of attorneys--this is called an ex parte communication and is a no-no.

 

[pip]

:seeya:AZ! Here's my burning question
What do you make of the depos for Mallory, MH, DC and a few others not being released as of yet? Do you think they have bombshells? Do you think they will be released before trial starts or can they during trial?

 

[AZlawyer]

:seeya:AZ! Here's my burning question
What do you make of the depos for Mallory, MH, DC and a few others not being released as of yet? Do you think they have bombshells? Do you think they will be released before trial starts or can they during trial?

IMO there are 3 likely explanations:

1. If these were investigative interviews rather than depos, they might not have been recorded or transcribed, in which case there would be nothing to release; or

2. The depos were transcribed, but the State has not ordered a copy so has nothing to release (the defense might have ordered a copy but has no obligation under the Sunshine Laws); or

2. The media requests filed under the Sunshine Laws have not made a blanket request for all deposition transcripts relating to this case, so the State hasn't released them.

The one explanation I can say with a high level of certainty is WRONG is the explanation that the State is "holding back" these depos until trial.

 

[Numbers]

I know I'm not a lawyer, but........

Florida's fiscal year runs from May 1 - April 30. They are running on fumes through until May, providing the legislature passes a new budget. Hence HHJP's trips to Tallahassee - fighting for more money in the budget..

Quoting myself because I was wrong (even though I did look it up, honest). FL fiscal year is June 1 - May 31.

My apologies to all. I'll go back to my corner now.

 

[ZsaZsa]

AZ- yet another Attorney has given notice of their plan to withdraw from this case..... what is your opinion/guess as to who is going now?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ- yet another Attorney has given notice of their plan to withdraw from this case..... what is your opinion/guess as to who is going now?

I'm as confused as anyone else. The motion title refers to "appointed" counsel, and I don't think Casey has any appointed counsel! :waitasec: Assuming there is just some error in the form used (wouldn't be the first time) or the clerk's entry of the motion title, my best guess would be CM. He doesn't seem to be having much "fun" IMO, and he and Casey seem to have a little strain between them. Maybe she fired him.

 

[Tiki]

If the FL governor denies the loan for the courts, what will happen to all the accused awaiting trial?

 

[Capri]

I'm as confused as anyone else. The motion title refers to "appointed" counsel, and I don't think Casey has any appointed counsel! :waitasec: Assuming there is just some error in the form used (wouldn't be the first time) or the clerk's entry of the motion title, my best guess would be CM. He doesn't seem to be having much "fun" IMO, and he and Casey seem to have a little strain between them. Maybe she fired him.

www.myclerk.myorangeclerk.com

04/04/2011 Motion
Defendant's; for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel
04/04/2011 Brief
in Support of Defendant's Motion for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel

AZ- could that just be the wording the DT used in their brief, and motion, so that's how it's recorded? If certainly wouldn't be the first time they used incorrect terminology (i.e. motion to supress the motion to supress)

 

[beach]

I'm as confused as anyone else. The motion title refers to "appointed" counsel, and I don't think Casey has any appointed counsel! :waitasec: Assuming there is just some error in the form used (wouldn't be the first time) or the clerk's entry of the motion title, my best guess would be CM. He doesn't seem to be having much "fun" IMO, and he and Casey seem to have a little strain between them. Maybe she fired him.

I tend to think it is DS for reasons I stated in the topical thread, but CM would be my 2nd choice. I also sense the strain between them (won't elaborate because I'm only speculating as to why). My question - if it is CM, could this be a delay tactic? And if so, would it work? Qualifying that with I realize AF is DP qualified...

 

[Joan (Canada)]

AZ are prosecutors "appointed counsel". I just find it strange the way it is worded. Do you thank that they would try to get JA booted because of his behaviour last week at the hearings. Not that I blame him, but I think Baez would do anything to get back at him. Maybe I'm way out there on this.

 

[JWG]

IMO there are 3 likely explanations:

1. If these were investigative interviews rather than depos, they might not have been recorded or transcribed, in which case there would be nothing to release; or

2. The depos were transcribed, but the State has not ordered a copy so has nothing to release (the defense might have ordered a copy but has no obligation under the Sunshine Laws); or

2. The media requests filed under the Sunshine Laws have not made a blanket request for all deposition transcripts relating to this case, so the State hasn't released them.

The one explanation I can say with a high level of certainty is WRONG is the explanation that the State is "holding back" these depos until trial.

BBM...and I vote for that as an explanation. Not everything has been released via Sunshine. In fact, some Sunshine requests seem to be ignored, or at least given the excuse "wow, that is complicated and will take some time, and we're awfully busy, so we'll get to it when we can." Certain computer files are what I speak of. :banghead:

 

[pip]

Is it entirely up to the State Prosecutors as to whether or not they offer a plea deal or can any 'higher up' State Office body request them to? Given the budget crisis and all.. just wondering if that decision can be made from above JA and LDB. Thanks!

 

[AZlawyer]

If the FL governor denies the loan for the courts, what will happen to all the accused awaiting trial?

I don't know.....

www.myclerk.myorangeclerk.com

04/04/2011 Motion
Defendant's; for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel
04/04/2011 Brief
in Support of Defendant's Motion for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel

AZ- could that just be the wording the DT used in their brief, and motion, so that's how it's recorded? If certainly wouldn't be the first time they used incorrect terminology (i.e. motion to supress the motion to supress)

Definitely a possibility. :floorlaugh:

I tend to think it is DS for reasons I stated in the topical thread, but CM would be my 2nd choice. I also sense the strain between them (won't elaborate because I'm only speculating as to why). My question - if it is CM, could this be a delay tactic? And if so, would it work? Qualifying that with I realize AF is DP qualified...

No, CM bailing out at this point will not affect the trial date. There are plenty of lawyers still involved.

AZ are prosecutors "appointed counsel". I just find it strange the way it is worded. Do you thank that they would try to get JA booted because of his behaviour last week at the hearings. Not that I blame him, but I think Baez would do anything to get back at him. Maybe I'm way out there on this.

No, prosecutors would not be called "appointed counsel." Also, a motion to disqualify the OTHER party's attorney would not be called a motion to "withdraw." And finally, there is no possible way to get the other party's attorney disqualified on the grounds that he yelled at you.

BBM...and I vote for that as an explanation. Not everything has been released via Sunshine. In fact, some Sunshine requests seem to be ignored, or at least given the excuse "wow, that is complicated and will take some time, and we're awfully busy, so we'll get to it when we can." Certain computer files are what I speak of. :banghead:

I know--very annoying!

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it entirely up to the State Prosecutors as to whether or not they offer a plea deal or can any 'higher up' State Office body request them to? Given the budget crisis and all.. just wondering if that decision can be made from above JA and LDB. Thanks!

I suppose someone higher up could "request" that the SA offer a deal. I don't know how sensitive the SA would be to such pressure. Also, no one could make Casey take a deal.

 

[chckmate22]

Morning AZ

How "normal" is it to have a revolving door on atty's?

 

[FaerieB]

How can Inmate Jackson get away with 'filing' this motion?? Are there no repercussions for this?

http://tinyurl.com/428tuz7

 

[wasalurker]

I just posted this in the other thread but probably belongs here.
Popping in cause this one really caught my eye. I'm thinking (maybe?) that CJ just did everyone a favor in regards to the "ineffective counsel" argument for appeals. Since this is written as a motion wouldn't the judge have to have a hearing on it? He would have to ask KC if in fact this was written on her behalf and if she feels that her counsel is "ineffective" or if she is still happy with the way they are defending her?

If she states that she is happy with her DT as of this date, then there goes the ineffective counsel appeal IMHO.
What do you think?

 

[Numbers]

Little tiny question: Does Judge Perry have to formally respond to CJackson's motion, or can he just file it under "Nutcase" and go on about his day?