HHJP just stood, preparing to swear in the Jurors when JB objected to the current procedure- said (Paraphrased) that ICA did not have enough input or choice in selecting the Jurors that she would like to try her case.
Whaaat? Do the accused get to handpick? I thought that's why the DT just had the opportunity to do during the last week?
Based on reading the thread for this time period, I think what he was saying is that the defense (and state for that matter) should get to question a pool of potential jurors equal to the number of jurors (12) plus alternates (8 ??) plus strikes (20+ ??) before being forced to decide which strikes to use. I agree with him, and here's the "just one case" HHJP asked for: Griffin v. State, 502 So.2d 1350 (Fla. App. 1987).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17861842861004495917&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
IMO they will be able to stop anyone from selling Caylee merchandise regardless of whether they are marketing competing products. I think that "trademark" and "copyright" are imprecise lay terms for what is actually an exploitation of Caylee's "right of publicity."
Wikipedia has a good basic definition (although I am having trouble with the link):
"The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the Right of Publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction)."
Cindy and George may be jumping the gun by enforcing the property rights which belong to Caylee's estate since Casey is still Caylee's legal heir. Presumably they expect their threatened lawsuits would not go to trial until after Casey is convicted of murder or else they expect they can obtain a court determination based on a preponderance of the evidence that Casey more likely than not caused the unlawful death of Caylee, thus Casey's inheritance rights would be forfeited to them. Alternatively they may claim to be acting as Casey's authorized agents on this issue.
Katprint
Always only my own opinions
Hmmm I think you are exactly right, although that is some loose way of using the word "trademark." Here's the Florida statute on what you're talking about:
540.08 Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.--
(1) No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by:
(a) Such person; or
(b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness; or
(c)
If such person is deceased,
any person, firm or corporation
authorized in writing to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness, or if no person, firm or corporation is so authorized, then by any one from among
a class composed of her or his surviving spouse and surviving children. :waitasec:
(2) In the event the consent required in subsection (1) is not obtained, the person whose name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness is so used, or any person, firm, or corporation authorized by such person in writing to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness, or, if the person whose likeness is used is deceased,
any person, firm, or corporation having the right to give such consent, as provided hereinabove, may bring an action to enjoin such unauthorized publication, printing, display or other public use, and to recover damages for any loss or injury sustained by reason thereof, including an amount which would have been a reasonable royalty, and punitive or exemplary damages.
(3)
The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(a)
The publication, printing, display, or use of the name or likeness of any person in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes;
(b) The use of such name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness in connection with the resale or other distribution of literary, musical, or artistic productions or other articles of merchandise or property where such person has consented to the use of her or his name, portrait, photograph, or likeness on or in connection with the initial sale or distribution thereof; or
(c) Any photograph of a person solely as a member of the public and where such person is not named or otherwise identified in or in connection with the use of such photograph.
(4) No action shall be brought under this section by reason of any publication, printing, display, or other public use of the name or likeness of a person occurring after the expiration of 40 years from and after the death of such person.
(5) As used in this section, a person's "surviving spouse" is the person's surviving spouse under the law of her or his domicile at the time of her or his death, whether or not the spouse has later remarried; and a person's "children" are her or his immediate offspring and any children legally adopted by the person.
Any consent provided for in subsection (1) shall be given on behalf of a minor by the guardian of her or his person or by either parent.
(6) The remedies provided for in this section shall be in addition to and not in limitation of the remedies and rights of any person under the common law against the invasion of her or his privacy.
Az, AF is often asking potential jurors about their views on the concept of mercy. She is also ensuring that they know that victim impact statements should not be considered as an influence when rendering a judgement in the penalty phase.
What I am wondering is could she be paving the way for GA, CA and LA to get up and tell how awful it was to lose Caylee, but for them in the next breath to ask for mercy for ICA?
I am asking because I am not sure if they re allowed to do this. Apologies if this is a silly question. TIA
Yes, I think this is what she's doing.
Do we know how many strikes are available to both sides for alternates?
No, not really. Here's the rule:
RULE 3.350. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
...
(d) Alternate Jurors.
If 1 or 2 alternate jurors are called, each party is entitled to 1 peremptory challenge, in addition to those otherwise allowed by law, for each alternate juror so called. The additional peremptory challenge may be used only against the alternate juror and the other peremptory challenges allowed by law shall not be used against the alternate juror.
(e) Additional Challenges. The trial judge may exercise discretion to allow additional peremptory challenges when appropriate.
So maybe each side gets 8 extra peremptory challenges if there are 8 alternates?? :waitasec:
- so, my question is this-
