Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[cleo612]

I think you bring up a very good point. The first thing a jury does when they go back to deliberate is to select a foreperson. It sounds like the jury is already looking to one or more members as such. That begs the question how did that occur if they haven't been discussing the case? How would anyone know that members of the jury want an exhibit list sent back with the evidence if it wasn't discussed? Apparently neither the SA nor the DT is concerned enough to ask for a mistrial or at least an inquiry into juror conduct. Perhaps both sides are pleased with the makeup of this jury and don't want to start all over again. DT must not believe anything the jury has done has been too prejudicial toward ICA.

Isn't it also possible that only one juror sent that note, without the input of the other jurors?

 

[RammerJammer]

A special thanks and shout out to all the knowledgeable lawyers who give so much time to this thread. You are all amazing. Thanks for your diligence and patience....huge thanks to AZ for all your answers, posts, and insights.

 

[Katprint]

Oh, I agree they need expert testimony to tell them it is the smell of decomp. But I think they can use their NON expert noses to tell them it is NOT the smell of paper boxes and empty soda cans.

Just like they need expert testimony to tell them that the dark band on the hair is a death band. But they can use their layperson eyes to say, "Well, obviously that's not Cindy's hair."

I truly don't mean to dog you, and you know I sincerely respect you, but...

Tonight, when I went took tonight's leftovers/food scraps out to the green waste/compost bin, a bunch of flies flew out when I opened the lid and the bad odor knocked me back a few feet. I do know, for a fact, that the terrible smell was not as bad as human decomp because I have smelled human decomp. (I wish that I did not know that smell. The first time I smelled that smell was my beloved deceased mother. Even though she died at 10 pm at night and her body was discovered by my brother the next morning at 4 am, we had to hire a special "crime scene decontamination" type team to remove the decomp smell from her bedroom carpet so we could sell the house.) However, if I had NOT smelled human decomp then I might not know that the various beef, chicken, pork and dairy foodstuffs rotting in there did not smell as bad. Also, my sons tend to spill milk in the back seat of my car and the sour milk smell can get pretty bad although again, not as bad as human decomp.

I do agree that my discarded junk mail, newspapers, empty cardboard boxes, empty bottles, etc. in our recycling bin do not give off any noticeable odor whatsoever. I am also aware that pizza left to dehydrate on the kitchen counter, inadvertently shoved under the coffee table or bed, or otherwise left lying around, dries out and doesn't rot. Dried-out pizza always gives me the impression that if could be eaten if only I would sprinkle it with water and stick it in the microwave, although I haven't experimented with this (although I confess to having sprinkled water on stale dinner rolls then microwaving them. Hey! That was a long time ago and I was a poor starving college student!)

Katprint
Who is pleased that her trash, compost and recycling bins will be picked up tomorrow
Always only my own opinions

 

[faefrost]

I know we have discussed at length how an attorney is pretty much absolutely immune from any civil action for anything that they say before the court or at trial. But how does this whole VT revelation play into that? What I mean is we know that a filing was at least prepared and publicly released in all conceivable likelihood by the author on the DT. (note that the stuff we see online does not have any indications that it was received by the court). So it's out in the public at a minimum before it was filed with the court at best, or at worst it will never be filed. It specifically names GA as being in contact with a violent convicted kidnapper. And as our own AZ so amazingly showed, it is incompetence in investigating of the highest degree.

So given that the document and claims are factually wrong, poorly researched, and not seemingly filed with the court, does the attorneys immunity from civil action still hold? Or if it does, does it open any of the signatories up to any ethical issues with the bar?

 

[AZlawyer]

In the case of Michael Fletcher, convicted of murdering his wife Leeann,an appeal was based on jury experimenting by reenacting what he said happened. The verdict was not overturned...would smelling the can be like that, maybe?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/court_wont_overturn_michael_fl.html

Well, that conviction wasn't overturned, because the court found there was nothing wrong with it. And I think there would be nothing wrong with the jurors smelling the can. I just see no basis for distinguishing between, e.g., the sense of smell and the sense of sight. But as Katprint correctly pointed out, it appears that HHJP disagrees with me and he is the one who counts.

Isn't it also possible that only one juror sent that note, without the input of the other jurors?

Yes.

I truly don't mean to dog you, and you know I sincerely respect you, but...

Tonight, when I went took tonight's leftovers/food scraps out to the green waste/compost bin, a bunch of flies flew out when I opened the lid and the bad odor knocked me back a few feet. I do know, for a fact, that the terrible smell was not as bad as human decomp because I have smelled human decomp. (I wish that I did not know that smell. The first time I smelled that smell was my beloved deceased mother. Even though she died at 10 pm at night and her body was discovered by my brother the next morning at 4 am, we had to hire a special "crime scene decontamination" type team to remove the decomp smell from her bedroom carpet so we could sell the house.) However, if I had NOT smelled human decomp then I might not know that the various beef, chicken, pork and dairy foodstuffs rotting in there did not smell as bad. Also, my sons tend to spill milk in the back seat of my car and the sour milk smell can get pretty bad although again, not as bad as human decomp.

I do agree that my discarded junk mail, newspapers, empty cardboard boxes, empty bottles, etc. in our recycling bin do not give off any noticeable odor whatsoever. I am also aware that pizza left to dehydrate on the kitchen counter, inadvertently shoved under the coffee table or bed, or otherwise left lying around, dries out and doesn't rot. Dried-out pizza always gives me the impression that if could be eaten if only I would sprinkle it with water and stick it in the microwave, although I haven't experimented with this (although I confess to having sprinkled water on stale dinner rolls then microwaving them. Hey! That was a long time ago and I was a poor starving college student!)

Katprint
Who is pleased that her trash, compost and recycling bins will be picked up tomorrow
Always only my own opinions

True. In this case, though, Jose is saying that the smell literally came from boxes and empty cans. I think lay people can say, "OK that smell did not come from boxes and cans. Maybe rotting potatoes, maybe a dead body, maybe a lot of things but not boxes and cans."

I know we have discussed at length how an attorney is pretty much absolutely immune from any civil action for anything that they say before the court or at trial. But how does this whole VT revelation play into that? What I mean is we know that a filing was at least prepared and publicly released in all conceivable likelihood by the author on the DT. (note that the stuff we see online does not have any indications that it was received by the court). So it's out in the public at a minimum before it was filed with the court at best, or at worst it will never be filed. It specifically names GA as being in contact with a violent convicted kidnapper. And as our own AZ so amazingly showed, it is incompetence in investigating of the highest degree.

So given that the document and claims are factually wrong, poorly researched, and not seemingly filed with the court, does the attorneys immunity from civil action still hold? Or if it does, does it open any of the signatories up to any ethical issues with the bar?

Yes, the immunity includes filed documents. If a document is released to the media before filing, I think immunity would still apply because the media could have obtained a copy anyway once it was filed. If it is never filed, I don't think immunity would apply.

But I don't think anyone could sue for the statements made in that document in any event. There is nothing false in them except, most likely, the statement that VT and George communicated, and that statement was probably made in the good faith belief that it was true.

 

[lmcgill]

If GA got on the stand for the DT and changed his story and said he was in fact there when CA died would he be charged with a crime? TIA

 

[Apex-mom]

Will we get to see all the Photobucket pics that were agreed to via stipulations from both sides? It seemed to be a big packet w/alot of pages... do we know what the jury will see? Is that information, once received into evidence, published for us to access?

Many thanks to all of you incredibly smart lawyers!! Thanks so much for this forum!

 

[DIXIECAT]

I haven't seen this question to our respected attorneys: What factors are considered by Defense when they choose whether to make their OS before the State's CIC or immediately prior to the Defense's CIC? I would bet good money that JB and CM are wishing they had waited....

 

[AZlawyer]

If GA got on the stand for the DT and changed his story and said he was in fact there when CA died would he be charged with a crime? TIA

I can't imagine why he would do that. But in any event I haven't found a Florida criminal statute that would fit the facts alleged by JB. If there is one, I assume George's attorney would have advised him of that and, if George for some reason wanted to "confess" to this nonsense, I assume his attorney would advise him of the potential consequences of doing so.

Will we get to see all the Photobucket pics that were agreed to via stipulations from both sides? It seemed to be a big packet w/alot of pages... do we know what the jury will see? Is that information, once received into evidence, published for us to access?

Many thanks to all of you incredibly smart lawyers!! Thanks so much for this forum!

It is a big file, and it was released a long time ago. There were download links in the Photobucket thread at one point, and then later new links were posted, but I don't know if any of the links are still good.

I haven't seen this question to our respected attorneys: What factors are considered by Defense when they choose whether to make their OS before the State's CIC or immediately prior to the Defense's CIC? I would bet good money that JB and CM are wishing they had waited....

No, they needed to do the OS at the beginning in this case. (The factors, in this case, would include the length of time between the State's OS and the state's resting its case, and the risk that the jury would have no alternative scenario to consider while hearing some very persuasive evidence against Casey.)

The decision to do the OS up front was not a bad decision. The bad decision was what was SAID in the OS.

 

[Susanlee]

Is there a chance the SA is just acting like they don't want the paternty test mentioned? Can they say down the road that the reason for the tests was that ICA told so many lies, they decided to keep a step ahead of her and test GA, LA, maybe even the family dog? (okay, the last part was just for comic relief)

 

[AZlawyer]

Is there a chance the SA is just acting like they don't want the paternty test mentioned? Can they say down the road that the reason for the tests was that ICA told so many lies, they decided to keep a step ahead of her and test GA, LA, maybe even the family dog? (okay, the last part was just for comic relief)

No, I'm pretty sure they really really didn't want the paternity test mentioned. Also, the FBI agents only specifically asked for LA to be tested as a potential father. The fact that GA can be excluded as the father comes from comparing his, Casey's and Caylee's DNA profiles that were tested against other evidence. IMO they should have done the same for LA--just waited for the DNA charts to come out re: testing on other evidence compared to family members, and then quietly compared the DNA profiles of LA, Casey and Caylee. There was no need to ask for him to be tested "for paternity" when they could look at the charts and determine paternity for themselves.

 

[ascerbic]

Is there anything positive you can say about JB's handling of this case?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is there anything positive you can say about JB's handling of this case?

1. His skills have improved since the beginning of this case.

2. He is passionately committed to defending Casey Anthony.

 

[ascerbic]

1. His skills have improved since the beginning of this case.

2. He is passionately committed to defending Casey Anthony.

JB seems to have lots of energy, too.

In TV trials, not trials on TV, one hears, "We will stipulate as to the expertise of the witness" . . . . could they?

 

[AZlawyer]

JB seems to have lots of energy, too.

In TV trials, not trials on TV, one hears, "We will stipulate as to the expertise of the witness" . . . . could they?

Sure.

 

[Solace]

Interested in your opinion AZ of Jose constant ingratiating smile to the jury. I find it hilarious every time I see him do it. Do you think the jury finds it real?

 

[AZlawyer]

Interested in your opinion AZ of Jose constant ingratiating smile to the jury. I find it hilarious every time I see him do it. Do you think the jury finds it real?

I can't imagine they do.

 

[BD1]

So the things that were stipulated to like photobucket and the timecards of the Anthony's (and were the cell pings also?)...those are entered into evidence, but no one testified about them. Does that mean the jury will go sleuthing into those records by themselves if they have questions once in deliberations?

 

[wonders]

I know I keep asking stupid questions but I have a need to know from professionals.

Is the defense making a big deal out of Lee not being the father of Caylee in order to make the jury think George is?
If so can the state ask if the fathers id be unsealed?

 

[kathyn2]

Is Baez or the defense team allowed to put George Anthony on the stand and pummel him with accusations that have no basis? Somehow that seems so wrong. Could he sue them for defamation or something else? It seems it should be against the law to do that unless KC gets on the stand and accuses him first.