Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can we get your input on this recess?

Just as perplexed as everyone else, although I don't believe it's sickness and it's definitely not an appeal.

OK. I have been reading Richard Hornsby's most recent blog posting, "Could Judge Perry be wrong, Defense right?". In short Mr. Hornsby says that the Defense could be right about their argument over "piecemeal" jury selection and HHJP wrong. He cites, as authority, Perry v. State, 675 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) . This case, incidentally, may be the "just one" which HHJP and AZLawyer wanted.

Anyhow question to the lawyers: Why are the DT taking this point now as an interlocutory appeal when they have already made their objection and (I assume) preserved this point for appeal? Surely it is better for the defense (or at least ICA) for the DT to get on with this trial, not piss off HHJP anymore than they already have and try this case to conclusion. Should ICA get acquited then the DT and ICA have obtained the best result they could obtain and the matter is closed, if she gets convicted then they have a good shot of getting the verdict overturned and a second bite at the cherry?

The defense is not filing an interlocutory appeal nor can they.

HHJBP described some issues he has had to consider during jury election such as no courtroom available, paying the hotel bill in Orlando for jurors when the trial hasn't even started and overtime for Pinellas County employees. To me it sounded like an attempt to justify the frequent changes he has made to the jury selection process implying that the circumstances were such and he is authorized to use his disgression .
My question is - If the DT files an emergency appeal would the appeal court give HHJP an opportunity to respond to the appeal or would they only see the DTs' appeal and court minutes.

The defense is not filing an appeal. However, when emergency appeals are filed, if the appellate court requests a response at all, they will request a response from the trial court as the trial court is the respondent (although the trial court rarely responds).

Hasn't JB "shot himself in the foot" but asking for some personal time for a private matter? Here he is complaining about being rushed but this is a 1/2 day lost, JB rambles on and on and has a somewhat different approach about questions which indicates he is not properly prepared at times whereas AF asks the same questions and is more structured so we know exactly how long her questions will last. Is this normal?

We don't know what the "private matter" is so that's a hard question to answer. I don't think anything about this jury selection is normal--frankly I've never seen a defense team be given such leeway in it's questioning.

Early this morning, you probably know Lisabeth Fryer was in to argue with Judge Perry about the method of trial being unfair (if I understood). What was the outcome and what in the method of jury selection is unfair or unusual at this time?

The motion was denied. LF was arguing that the jury selection method was prejudicing KC's due process rights because the DT wanted to question all of the remaining potential jurors before they exercised their strikes. The selection method is very common and not unfair at all. I've tried over 100 cases using this exact jury selection method.

What is going on at the sidebar talks with JP and attorneys that is so private compared to the rest of the jury selection process?

In order for the court to close the proceedings to the public via a sidebar conference, the matter discussed has to involve matters that would be prejudicial in some manner if disclosed publicly or constitutionally protected.

Hello,Could Beaz just quit at this point in the trial? Also Could casey fire him at this point?
Wouldn't Beaz have to go before the courts and ask that he be taken off the case?Thank you for taking the time to answer.

If JB wanted off the case voluntarily he would have to make a motion --however, since he was paid before KC was declared indigent the motion would be denied. KC could try to fire him. Whether or not JP allowed it would be another story.
 
What happens if ICA takes a plea deal?
Confession?
No trial?
All over?
 
I've read some responses and I realize that it's already been suggested an appeal is unlikely. I've also read some of the case citings related to the jury selection, strike as you go, and waiting for a "full panel."

My question is this: if you assume for a second that Baez was crazy enough or had cause to start an "interlocutory appeal," then what is the process? Can you let us know what steps he could need to take and when?

And last question, do you think the due process objection to procedure, jury selection, full panel, etc. could just be a setup for a potential 1st degree appeal after the jury returns a verdict?

If this has already be explained, please post a link and I apologize.

Thanks.
 
What happens if ICA takes a plea deal?
Confession?
No trial?
All over?

If she takes a plea she will have to admit to the "facts" of the charge or charges for which she takes a plea. What those facts are would depend on a number of things. There would be no trial. It would be over.
 
I've read some responses and I realize that it's already been suggested an appeal is unlikely. I've also read some of the case citings related to the jury selection, strike as you go, and waiting for a "full panel."

My question is this: if you assume for a second that Baez was crazy enough or had cause to start an "interlocutory appeal," then what is the process? Can you let us know what steps he could need to take and when?

And last question, do you think the due process objection to procedure, jury selection, full panel, etc. could just be a setup for a potential 1st degree appeal after the jury returns a verdict?

If this has already be explained, please post a link and I apologize.

Thanks.

Well, if JB was clueless enough to file an appeal, it would be summarily dismissed. In any event, he would simply file a writ petition with the appellate court along with the court record pertaining to the issue raised (transcript, any written motions filed, etc.). Since a writ is seeking an extraordinary remedy he would need to file it as soon as the issue arose and before the issue became moot. All the objections the DT is making is to preserve the record on appeal. If you don't object, you can't appeal on that issue.
 
Forgive if already asked, but why couldn't the other attorneys just finish the day when JB left? Being a personal matter, it doesn't seem right for the taxpayers to have to pay the price of this delay. JB isn't technically the lead attorney anyway! TIA
 
Who would be allowed to give victim impact statements in this case? Is it limited to family members of the victim? TIA!
 
When the trial is moved back to Orlando, will Casey still be allowed to sit in the courtroom and "study" during recess????
 
If it comes out in trial that the A's knew that Caylee was gone, in the woods, and KC was responsible but set up foundations and sold T shirts, can and will the SA office charge them with anything? Can someone other than the SA office a law suite or charge into action?

Thank you for your time in answering my questions too!

Probably some type of obtaining money under false pretenses charge could be brought. But it won't be. I suppose a private individual who gave money to the As based on those false pretenses could bring a law suit, but just for the money they gave and maybe punitive damages--and the punitive damages could not be out of proportion to the money damages, so the lawsuit would not be a big one.

Okay, let me see if I can word this right...

--We all know there can be no smoking gun, no Perry Mason moment.


BUT...

Can there be a wow moment (sorta like JB says he will do only betta) in how the discovery is presented. All the info is there...like paint below the canvas in little piles...and the prosecution is going to take a brush and begin to paint a picture for all of us. (In a way that is the part that I am not looking forward to...I am not sure I can take JA explaining/painting the picture of what happened to that sweet girl)


OR

Can the prosecutors...do something like this...(it would be too nasty though and sounds more Hollywoodish)

JA takes a fact and makes a boo boo...JA knows that ABC happened...but states ADC or something a slip...

We have seen KC come unglued at strange points...shaking her head no...saying tell him to stop...etc....but been strangely distant during other graphic points, ie autopsy photos etc

Can the Jury take the defendants actions into consideration ie Diane Downs when they played the music that was playing when the children were shot

Don't know if that is clear enough...haven't had my coffee yet today...

I'm not sure the SA can come up with much of a "wow" moment that we haven't already figured out on WS.

The SA can't talk about the defendant's demeanor. But the jury will not need to be told to watch her, believe me. They will do this without any instruction at all.

If someone that is mentally incapable is accused sexual abuse and cannot mentally defend themselves, can a person who is mentally stable and psychologists be brought in to say that that did not happen?

I don't quite understand what you're asking, sorry. :(

I hope that this has not already been asked, but AF keeps asking potential jurors about them considering mercy. I would not have thought that mercy or the jurors ability to appy or not apply the concept of mercy would be a moot point during jury selection or any other time during the trial other than during a victim impact statement where I guess the person delivering it could ask the jury for mercy for the accused (not sure why they would want to do this in most cases...and completely see why they would want to in this case).

Is mercy a legitimate mitigating factor? Or is she asking this question for a reason other than a mitigating factor and I am just not understanding her?

Also the age question seems to bother me a lot. Casey was not a teenager when she committed this crime. She was a legal adult so why should/would/could her age play a role as a mitigating factor?

I believe HHJP explained the Florida law on this at some point. Sounds like the jury will not be instructed to consider mercy, but also will not be instructed not to consider it. It isn't really a mitigating factor.

Age can be considered as a mitigating factor even if the person is a legal adult. The reason it can be considered is because that's what the law is in Florida. ;)

With an AA male and an AA female already retained, can the State use a peremptory challenge on juror 3283?

Sure. And JB could still make his silly argument that it is a race-based challenge, and HHJP could still agree with the argument and refuse the challenge.

Forgive if already asked, but why couldn't the other attorneys just finish the day when JB left? Being a personal matter, it doesn't seem right for the taxpayers to have to pay the price of this delay. JB isn't technically the lead attorney anyway! TIA

I agree. I'm assuming it was something a little more than that. Why would CM need to explain it to Casey? Why couldn't the rest of the defense team carry on? Makes no sense to me.

Who would be allowed to give victim impact statements in this case? Is it limited to family members of the victim? TIA!

Yes.

When the trial is moved back to Orlando, will Casey still be allowed to sit in the courtroom and "study" during recess????

Probably. It doesn't appear that anyone is seriously worried that she will suddenly run around stabbing everyone with pens or anything.
 
Pardon me if this has been asked and answered. I stayed away from WS for some time after another case involving a Florida child because I just could not take it anymore; it was too close to home.

A friend of mine worked as a defense attorney for the Orange Co. public defender's office (he has since gone into private practice). During lunch not long ago we were talking about the case and he feels there is a big hole in the State's case. They cannot prove Caylee was murdered because of the conditions of the remains and the autopsy report could not cite a cause of death. He felt he could raise enough reasonable doubt over this issue to get Casey Anthony acquitted or at least convicted of a lesser charge. I would like to know what the attorneys on this thread think about this.

Thank you.
 
Pardon me if this has been asked and answered. I stayed away from WS for some time after another case involving a Florida child because I just could not take it anymore; it was too close to home.

A friend of mine worked as a defense attorney for the Orange Co. public defender's office (he has since gone into private practice). During lunch not long ago we were talking about the case and he feels there is a big hole in the State's case. They cannot prove Caylee was murdered because of the conditions of the remains and the autopsy report could not cite a cause of death. He felt he could raise enough reasonable doubt over this issue to get Casey Anthony acquitted or at least convicted of a lesser charge. I would like to know what the attorneys on this thread think about this.

Thank you.

He might have a point if it weren't for the duct tape,the remains being discarded like trash in the woods behind her house, and the tattoo, among other things.
 
are inmates allowed access to hair cuts., hair dyes, and make up for all hearings? not just the actual trial? are they allowed them for trial?
 
He might have a point if it weren't for the duct tape,the remains being discarded like trash in the woods behind her house, and the tattoo, among other things.

He felt that could be argued a couple of different ways. I don't agree with him but he went to college and law school and I went clubbing so what do I know?

I appreciate your time, thank you for answering me.
 
uh...I'm lost... :panic:

Anybody got a GPS?

I could have sworn I opened the the VERIFIED ATTORNEY Q & A THREAD.

You know...the one we all value because we drop in and ask a LEGAL QUESTION, then we patiently wait for one of our gracious VERIFIED ATTORNEYS to ANSWER our LEGAL QUESTION.

We also show respect and use our manners by not engaging them in debate and discussion because we are grateful for the time they donate here. :)

I'm going to back out and see if I made a wrong turn...hopefully that is the case.


eta: If you are missing a post, then it was not a legal question awaiting an answer from a verified attorney, it was an opinion expressed by someone who is not a verified attorney or it was engaging one of the attorneys in a debate. Think that covers it.
 
lol...let me rephrase my question :)

If "John" is mentally and physically incompetent and accused of sexual abuse, and John cannot take the stand, can John's relatives and doctors testify that John is incapable of sexual abuse.
 
He might have a point if it weren't for the duct tape,the remains being discarded like trash in the woods behind her house, and the tattoo, among other things.

Let me add to that. The coroner determined it was homicide. This was based on where the body was found, how it was found (triple bagged, duct tape stuck to skull and hair), the fact that the mother never reported the child missing, the approximate date of death and that Caylee had not been seen for 31 days prior to the approximate date of death. We do not need cause of death to prove homicide.

What does the state have in order to prove it was first degree murder?:

1. A child is missing.
2. Mother never reports the child missing.
3. Mother lies about the child's whereabouts for 31 days.
4. Mother states the child was kidnapped when pressed and threatened with police being called. However, no evidence of a kidnapper or a kidnapping is ever found.
5. The mother's car was abandoned by her. When it was picked up by the family weeks later, it reeked horribly of decomposition, specifically, in the trunk.
6. The mother not only lied to LE about facts that could lead to the discovery of her daughter, she also purposefully misled them to a phony job, a phony nanny and to phony homes where the fake nanny lived, via outrageous lies.
7. The mother never showed any fear or grief about her daughter's disappearance.
8. There is evidence that the mother likely looked up household weapons, neck breaking, shovels and how to make chloroform, months before Caylee disappeared.
9. High levels of chloroform were found in the trunk of her car.
10. She parked her car backwards in the driveway against the garage on a day after Caylee disappeared, and on the same day she borrowed a shovel from a neighbor.
11. Cadaver dogs hit on the trunk and the backyard in a couple of places.
12. There was evidence that some ground had been disturbed in the Anthony back yard.
13. In the time Caylee was missing, before she was reported as such, witness and photographic evidence show that casey showed no concern about the whereabouts of her daughter. Instead, she had sex, partied, danced and got a tattoo of the words "Bella Vita" or the good life, during that time period.
14. When casey was arrested, she showed no authentic concern for her daughter and instead showed repeated concern for herself, getting out of jail, being able to talk to her boyfriend instead of answering questions about Caylee, and jealousy over the family having chili and dining together and she showed anger and indifference over the family's concern about Caylee, rather than her own predicament. The mother smiled broadly when she was photographed by police the day her daughter was reported missing (or the very next day) and strutted in a sultry and arrogant manner with a slight smirk when she was arrested, showing no panic, fear or concern about her daughter:
0_62_071708_CaseyAnthony.jpg

15. There is evidence via witness statements that the mother was jealous of her daughter, of her daughter's connection with the grandma, of her daughter's role as the new princess in the family and there is evidence that the mother was angered by and deeply resentful of her parents' reluctance to allow her to leave the baby with them while she partied and refused to work, that she was forced to care for the "little snothead" as a result and that her parents were beginning to call her to account for her lying about work and failure to work and her theft of their property and that of her elderly grandparents.
16. There is evidence that her then boyfriend did not allow the mother to have Caylee in his bed or to spend the night and that he did not want kids but that if he ever had children, he would only want boy children. This is the only person the mother wanted to talk to when she was arrested.
17. The mother never called 911 or asked anyone for help to report any kind of accident or other problem with Caylee, at any time.
18. Caylee was found triple bagged and duct taped with rare tape found in the parent's home and in a laundry bag that matched laundry bags in the family home. She was found in the woods only houses from where casey resided at the time.
19. In almost three years, the mother has never disclosed that there was any kind of accident and instead, steadfastly held to the story that a woman who does not exist, took her child. This is despite a grand jury indictment and charges of first degree murder and the decision by the state to seek the death penalty for the same.
20. The mother emptied her myspace or facebook of hundreds of photos of Caylee right before she disappeared.

ETA: Any one of those things may not prove premeditated murder. But in my professional opinion, it is likely enough when most of it is taken together.
 
lol...let me rephrase my question :)

If "John" is mentally and physically incompetent and accused of sexual abuse, and John cannot take the stand, can John's relatives and doctors testify that John is incapable of sexual abuse.

If "John" is mentally incompetent such that he could not assist in his defense then John would not be competent to stand trial and there would be no trial. In any event, I don't believe there is a doctor capable of determining whether or not someone is capable of sexual abuse--you can be mentally incompetent and capable of sexual abuse; nor would relatives be able to render an opinion on the matter.
 
If "John" is mentally incompetent such that he could not assist in his defense then John would not be competent to stand trial and there would be no trial. In any event, I don't believe there is a doctor capable of determining whether or not someone is capable of sexual abuse--you can be mentally incompetent and capable of sexual abuse; nor would relatives be able to render an opinion on the matter.

I think the poster might have been referring to Casey's grandfather. There has been speculation that, since he used to babysit her when she was very young, that he abused her. Thus her PTSD, her stealing from him, and her acting out.

If they aimed the bus at him during the trial, and he is so old and fragile now, who could defend him?
 
I think the poster might have been referring to Casey's grandfather. There has been speculation that, since he used to babysit her when she was very young, that he abused her. Thus her PTSD, her stealing from him, and her acting out.

If they aimed the bus at him during the trial, and he is so old and fragile now, who could defend him?

OK, so the issue is not that the person was mentally incompetent at the time of the alleged abuse, but NOW?

The first question, I guess, is who will testify to these "facts" in the first place? I suppose it would have to be Casey (in the penalty phase). (BTW, I'm assuming this is complete and total speculation and there is not a shred of evidence to support that this ever happened or that the defense team has any inclination to suggest it ever happened!)

The second question is, who would testify on behalf of the State that these facts did NOT happen? One option would be to not put on any testimony in response to those specific allegations. It isn't as if the jury is likely to believe or take into consideration the unsupported and self-serving allegations of a known liar. Option 2 would be to have someone with actual knowledge about the situation testify: e.g., Grandma Shirley could say that Grandpa didn't babysit the kids on his own or Cindy could say that Casey was always happy to visit her grandparents and never even slightly apprehensive.
 
I think the poster might have been referring to Casey's grandfather. There has been speculation that, since he used to babysit her when she was very young, that he abused her. Thus her PTSD, her stealing from him, and her acting out.

If they aimed the bus at him during the trial, and he is so old and fragile now, who could defend him?

OK, so the issue is not that the person was mentally incompetent at the time of the alleged abuse, but NOW?

The first question, I guess, is who will testify to these "facts" in the first place? I suppose it would have to be Casey (in the penalty phase). (BTW, I'm assuming this is complete and total speculation and there is not a shred of evidence to support that this ever happened or that the defense team has any inclination to suggest it ever happened!)

The second question is, who would testify on behalf of the State that these facts did NOT happen? One option would be to not put on any testimony in response to those specific allegations. It isn't as if the jury is likely to believe or take into consideration the unsupported and self-serving allegations of a known liar. Option 2 would be to have someone with actual knowledge about the situation testify: e.g., Grandma Shirley could say that Grandpa didn't babysit the kids on his own or Cindy could say that Casey was always happy to visit her grandparents and never even slightly apprehensive.

Aha, I was unaware of that! (Actually I thought it an odd question as applied to this case). Just would like to add to AZ's post that the SA could also bring out the fact that she didn't mention it in her letters while she did accuse GA and LE; and further never mentioned it to anyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
3,088
Total visitors
3,167

Forum statistics

Threads
595,541
Messages
18,026,104
Members
229,678
Latest member
ghosthrough
Back
Top