Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[SoCalSleuth]

Originally posted by: SoCalSleuth


The grand jury did not return an indictment for obstruction of justice so KC was not charged with it and the jury cannot return a verdict on it. KC was not charged with obstruction of justice re the pool accident cover-up because this story only came to light recently and there really isn't any evidence that it happened--GA denied it and KC hasn't testified to it.

In response to SoCalSleuth:


Ok, but now since JB is claiming that there was a pool accident which resulted in death, yet no phone call was made to police about the alleged accident and the death of her child. shouldn't Casey be charged with obstruction of justice if she's not found guilty of murder? In other words if there's no indictment for it, can she be charged with obstruction of justice, if this is found to be true during the trial, or do they need another trial to determine this, just because she was not charged with it initially?

I just read through the 2010 Florida statutes for Obstruction of Justice and unless I missed one, I don't see the alleged pool accident coverup meeting the elements of that crime. Also, how would we know if the jury found the pool accident scenario to be true? Just because she's acquitted of the charges doesn't necessarily mean the jury found the DT to be true--could be they found the SA didn't meet their burden.

Does GA have any way to clear his name after trial?
Can JB be sued for the things he has said about GA?

Absent writing a book and going on a nationwide speaking tour, he can't. No, JB can't be sued for the things he says in court--it's called the litigation privilege.

Everyone talks about the lawyers, the witnesses, the jury. It seems to me that one person also could have an influence on the verdict, and that is the Judge. Yes the Judge is fair and impartial. Still, HHJP has got to be beloved by this jury- he's gone out of his way for them and he's just naturally charming. I was thinking that the jury would not want to disappoint him. Can he pick his choice of case law if the jurors ask for answers on things? I think he could be of great assistance in preventing a hung jury too because of the trust and the "get the job done" that HHJP is an expert in instilling.

So here is my question: How much influence can a Judge have over a verdict if any?

A judge can have a great influence on a verdict. The way he treats the lawyers can have an effect, for instance, but JP seems to be pretty even-handed so far. In the event of a hung jury he could be persistent in asking them to hang in there. If jurors ask questions during deliberations the attorneys and the judge get together and try to agree on a response, if any, however, ultimately the judge decides what response to give the jurors. Not sure how to respond to the question of whether he can pick his choice of case law--this judge would choose to follow the most appropriate case law under the specific circumstances presented.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Ok please be patient with me, not sure how to word this and not sure if it has already been asked.
I understand that opening statements are not facts nor evidence. JB told the story about what happened to Caylee and ICA in her childhood. As I understand it, he can try to prove what he said or go around the edges to create reasonable doubt. But what if ICA gets on the stand and under oath says the same things he said in his opening statement? If ICA is convicted, could she appeal and win on the grounds that her Defense Team advised her to lie? Is it true that telling your client to lie is considered unethical conduct and Attorney Discipline, depending on the circumstances and severity, can be: admonition, reprimand, censure, suspension from practice, or disbarment?

Even if they didn't come outright and say "lie" but told her things like "so you think your father might have molested you when you were a child, well if only that was true it sure would help your case a lot etc" and slowly talked/ coerced her into going with their defense strategy. Could she win on appeal? And if so, what would the ramifications be for the Defense lawyers? Would JB, since he is the lead attorney, receive all of the possible discipline? Could ICA name every attorney, individually, that was ever on her defense team that participated in any conversations with her suggesting that she go with this line of defense, even if that was a hypothetical suggestion?

 

[ziggy]

I am stumped as well. The question does assume a fact not in evidence. The objection was proper--assumes facts not in evidence. Not sure why JP overruled the first objection--I was surprised as well. The second time the SA didn't object.

It happened again today. JB asked the neighbor is he was at the Anthony residence when Caylee drown in the pool? He is getting that in every chance he gets. I could swear the State objected under assumes facts not in evidence and Judge P overruled it. WTH? He should NOT be able to keep floating that story over and over to the jury as if it were the God's honest truth because I for one, don't believe it anyway. But what's up with JB's smarmy lawyer trick going unchecked by the judge?

 

[carole]

It happened again today. JB asked the neighbor is he was at the Anthony residence when Caylee drown in the pool? He is getting that in every chance he gets. I could swear the State objected under assumes facts not in evidence and Judge P overruled it. WTH? He should NOT be able to keep floating that story over and over to the jury as if it were the God's honest truth because I for one, don't believe it anyway. But what's up with JB's smarmy lawyer trick going unchecked by the judge?

I can't even fathom why he keeps asking that. Of course, they weren't there when it happened because it DIDN'T happen. Did Casey tell him someone else was there but she can't remember who it was, so he thinks someone will actually say they were there??

 

[savannahanna]

It happened again today. JB asked the neighbor is he was at the Anthony residence when Caylee drown in the pool? He is getting that in every chance he gets. I could swear the State objected under assumes facts not in evidence and Judge P overruled it. WTH? He should NOT be able to keep floating that story over and over to the jury as if it were the God's honest truth because I for one, don't believe it anyway. But what's up with JB's smarmy lawyer trick going unchecked by the judge?

I think JB is using that tactic that if a phrase is said often enough it will stick in juror's mind, kind of like a subliminal tape that leaves messages in your subconscious-also like the subliminal messages in TV ads. Heck, he just might be trying to see if he can hypnotize the jury!:waitasec: Maybe just another idea he pulled out of his "bag of tricks"!:innocent: JMO
Savannahanna

 

[Marina2]

For each count, the jury must return a verdict on the highest crime they can all agree upon.

So the could come back guilty on all counts, with count 1 being Murder and count 3 being agg manslaughter.

But they could not say guilty on count 1 as to 1st and 2nd degree murder (as the 2nd is subsumed anyway as a lesser offense.)

I've always been confused about how the state was going to present their case. Will they say Caylee's death was premeditated, (murder 1), a result of aggravated abuse (felony murder), or, (what I thought was a lesser included offense to murder 1) agg. manslaughter. Or, could they present all these scenarios and let the jury pick one. Now I see from RH's answer that she could be convicted of Murder as well as agg. manslaughter. How is it that Caylee's death can be both murder and agg. manslaughter if one requires premeditation and the other culpable negligence? Also, what is the sense in convicting of murder 1 and agg.manslaughter if the murder 1 conviction results in a life sentence anyway?

 

[Marina2]

Yesterday, when JB asked TL about a statement KC made to him (I'm assuming it was going to be about KC alleging sexual abuse by GA) the state objected. Objection sustained. JB followed with "It's an admission". The judge responded "It's self serving". What happened here and how or will the DT be able to get this statement in?

 

[2goldfish]

yesterday I was a bit confused that the state, after hearing JB admit that (whatever happened) ICA knew caylee was dead after the 16th of june. then I realised that OS are not evidence and they state must proceed on the basis of the evidence they have and statements that were given

so my question is......


IF the DT puts ICA on the stand for the "direct evidence" of the sex abuse & drowning scenario -


and IF the jury were to hang and the state had to retry -

would the state, the second time, have to do the same thing, as if ICA never took the stand, as if the first trial never occured?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Ok please be patient with me, not sure how to word this and not sure if it has already been asked.
I understand that opening statements are not facts nor evidence. JB told the story about what happened to Caylee and ICA in her childhood. As I understand it, he can try to prove what he said or go around the edges to create reasonable doubt. But what if ICA gets on the stand and under oath says the same things he said in his opening statement? If ICA is convicted, could she appeal and win on the grounds that her Defense Team advised her to lie? Is it true that telling your client to lie is considered unethical conduct and Attorney Discipline, depending on the circumstances and severity, can be: admonition, reprimand, censure, suspension from practice, or disbarment?

Even if they didn't come outright and say "lie" but told her things like "so you think your father might have molested you when you were a child, well if only that was true it sure would help your case a lot etc" and slowly talked/ coerced her into going with their defense strategy. Could she win on appeal? And if so, what would the ramifications be for the Defense lawyers? Would JB, since he is the lead attorney, receive all of the possible discipline? Could ICA name every attorney, individually, that was ever on her defense team that participated in any conversations with her suggesting that she go with this line of defense, even if that was a hypothetical suggestion?

Yes, she could raise on appeal that her attorneys told her to lie. She could even say that the lie was soooo lame that it amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. That's exactly what happened in this case and the conviction was reversed. (Altho there the case against him was very weak).
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/114/114.F3d.835.96-35049.html

Attorneys are not permitted to counsel their clients to lie. If KC raised that on appeal, the attorneys would deny it and it would be the word of an admitted liar vs. her attorneys and nothing would happen to them.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Can the SA tell the Court that JB sold (brokered the sale) of Caylee photos etc for a huge sum of money?
I am wondering since JB is about to question RMorales and I feel sure it will be brought up... and if he considers it something reprehensible shouldn't that disparity be revealed? He did compliment AL that he didn't make any money off the case.
Thanks

 

[txcoast]

Since the defense knew it would be claiming sexual abuse in their case... why were the prospective jurors not questioned about their experiences with sexual abuse/incest/molestation during jury selection? I would think that would have been something the State would have liked to have know.

 

[mom_in_il]

Quick question, and I apologize if it's been asked, will the jury know Casey is indigent?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

This may have been asked, and if so, I apologize -- so many posts to go through.

During JB's "opening statement", he said that ICA was sexually abused/molested by her father when she was younger -- blah blah blah (I do NOT believe that -- MOO MOO).

But anyway, my question is this: Why weren't the Jurors asked during the voir dire questioning IF the juror, or any family member or friend close to them, was ever "sexually abused" ?

Just SUPPOSE -- that there IS someone on the Jury who had been abused -- and say they "believe" JB's BS and ICA ... This could easily be believed by them.

The Jurors were "grilled" over and over about their views on the Death Penalty ...

So WHY wasn't "sexual abuse" questions asked by the DT to the Jurors during the questioning ? I understand that the defense did not want to give away their "AHA Moment" ... but really ...

I think it's "sneaky" ..... :banghead:

I hope this made sense ... Thank You !

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I know that opening statements are not to be considered evidence, but are closing statements? Are jurors asked to disregard both in weighing the evidence?

A closing argument is not evidence--it is the attorneys' opportunity to argue the evidence. The jury has already been instructed that the opening was not evidence. Generally, the judge does instruct the jury on the meaning of the closing arguments--not sure if this is done in Florida.

I can't even fathom why he keeps asking that. Of course, they weren't there when it happened because it DIDN'T happen. Did Casey tell him someone else was there but she can't remember who it was, so he thinks someone will actually say they were there??

No. It is an attempt to imprint this scenario in the juror's minds.

Yesterday, when JB asked TL about a statement KC made to him (I'm assuming it was going to be about KC alleging sexual abuse by GA) the state objected. Objection sustained. JB followed with "It's an admission". The judge responded "It's self serving". What happened here and how or will the DT be able to get this statement in?

An admission is just that--an admission. Self-serving admissions are not admissible because they are considered unreliable. IMO, it wasn't an admission.

yesterday I was a bit confused that the state, after hearing JB admit that (whatever happened) ICA knew caylee was dead after the 16th of june. then I realised that OS are not evidence and they state must proceed on the basis of the evidence they have and statements that were given

so my question is......


IF the DT puts ICA on the stand for the "direct evidence" of the sex abuse & drowning scenario -


and IF the jury were to hang and the state had to retry -

would the state, the second time, have to do the same thing, as if ICA never took the stand, as if the first trial never occured?

No, because the second time they would have KC's testimony at the first trial which they could use against her.

Quick question, and I apologize if it's been asked, will the jury know Casey is indigent?

No.

 

[Wagara]

Fast-forward to a conviction. Can GA file a civil suit against JB based on his opening statements and any harm they may have done to GA?

Thanks for all you all do!

ETA: I'm sorry, I just saw # 455.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Fast-forward to a conviction. Can GA file a civil suit against JB based on his opening statements and any harm they may have done to GA?

Thanks for all you all do!

ETA: I'm sorry, I just saw # 455.

No, attorneys enjoy a litigation privilege for things they say in court.

 

[zoomama]

If this has already been asked I apologize in advance for not reading all 20 pages of this thread.

If Jose Baez were to put Casey on the stand and ask her just one question such as, "Did you kill Caylee Marie Anthony?" Answer, "No", and then turn the witness over to the SA for Cross. What could they ask and how would they proceed? Wouldn't there by multiple objections that any other questions would go beyond the scope of direct?

I think I saw this done on an old Law and Order program years ago but I forget how it ended. Could this be a strategy for the Defense therby handicapping the SA for any in depth questions.

Thank you in advance.

 

[mikeysmommom]

I am lost WTH happened after the jury left today???Please help I am stressing out !!!!Is TL gonna be able to testify about no sexual abuse from George ???TYVM

 

[thwarted]

Can someone answer a question for me? I was under the assumption that the jury would be aware that ICA was a convicted felon. Have I missed this? I thought earlier on it was mentioned that when she went to trial it would be stated. I know they probably won't go into detail but is there a certain time that this can be brought up.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

If this has already been asked I apologize in advance for not reading all 20 pages of this thread.

If Jose Baez were to put Casey on the stand and ask her just one question such as, "Did you kill Caylee Marie Anthony?" Answer, "No", and then turn the witness over to the SA for Cross. What could they ask and how would they proceed? Wouldn't there by multiple objections that any other questions would go beyond the scope of direct?

I think I saw this done on an old Law and Order program years ago but I forget how it ended. Could this be a strategy for the Defense therby handicapping the SA for any in depth questions.

Thank you in advance.

Such a question would open the door for the SA to ask her any question to prove that she did kill her daughter.

I am lost WTH happened after the jury left today???Please help I am stressing out !!!!Is TL gonna be able to testify about no sexual abuse from George ???TYVM

I believe the reason for the testimony was to lay the foundation so that he could testify that GA DID abuse her sexually. However, he testified that KC never told him that GA did so. JB brought out that at his second deposition TL testified that he couldn't remember if it was physical abuse or sexual abuse. Not sufficient IMHO to support the questions JB has been asking him about the "big secrets". The judge didn't make a ruling but I'm pretty sure he will not let JB ask him if KC told him that GA sexually abused her. Been sitting here scratching my head as to why the SA didn't ask for this beforehand.

Can someone answer a question for me? I was under the assumption that the jury would be aware that ICA was a convicted felon. Have I missed this? I thought earlier on it was mentioned that when she went to trial it would be stated. I know they probably won't go into detail but is there a certain time that this can be brought up.

KC would have to testify.