Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[gitana1]

First, I believe your understanding may be incorrect. So if you can point out the times where she has been questioned on her satisfaction with Baez, please do.

Second, the court can't force someone to accept another attorney, but the court can force her to acknowledge that her client is not qualified to handle the case before allowing him to proceed as her attorney.

This is more frequently seen when a person wants to represent themselves. In such a case, the court does a "Faretta Hearing" to insure the defendant is aware of the inherent pitfalls of self representation.

Judge Strickland, before he recused himself, asked casey a couple of times, if she was satisfied with her counsel, during pre-trial hearings. Because it happened more than once, it caught our attention over here at websleuths.

 

[rhornsby]

Judge Strickland, before he recused himself, asked casey a couple of times, if she was satisfied with her counsel, during pre-trial hearings. Because it happened more than once, it caught our attention over here at websleuths.

Again, I disagree, there was only one inquiry, which was at the behest of Ashton regarding financial conflicts: Video Link

With that said, please point out links to any videos or articles that suggest there were other inquiries.

 

[egnarts]

Thanks AZ!
And all of you for being here and replying so quickly to all questions.
You're amazing and wonderful to share your knowledge & time!

 

[Lera213]

RH,

First of all thank you for all you do. I agree with you most of the time when you are on TV even if I tighten my Jaw giving while you JB some hints. (laugh)

My question:

Prior and during the voir Dire ICA went behind close doors with the Judge and Attorney's. What do you suppose what went on in there?

1-Judge asking ICA if she is satisfied with Counsel

2-Plea deal

3-Instructions to her about her reactions

4-I have no freaking idea. *laugh*

 

[grandmaj]

How will this affect Casey Anthony's case?

Florida death sentence overturned as unconstitutional

http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2011/06/florida-death-sentence-overturned-as.html

In this case it appears this DP sentence was overturned as unconstitutional because the jury did not come to a consensus to recommend the DP based on an agreement of the aggravating and mitigating factors.

 

[AZlawyer]

How will this affect Casey Anthony's case?

Florida death sentence overturned as unconstitutional

http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2011/06/florida-death-sentence-overturned-as.html

In this case it appears this DP sentence was overturned as unconstitutional because the jury did not come to a consensus to recommend the DP based on an agreement of the aggravating and mitigating factors.

It will change nothing except that HHJP will have to ask the jury to make specific findings before recommending death. Hopefully he had already planned to do this; IMO it is an obvious requirement after the Ring case (US Supreme Court).

Would we the public know whether or not His Honor has said such a thing to the defendant behind closed doors?

I suppose that could have happened, yes. Certainly there have been sidebars and in-chambers conferences recorded by the court reporter for which no one in the media has ever requested a transcript.

 

[Just Jayla]

Again, I disagree, there was only one inquiry, which was at the behest of Ashton regarding financial conflicts: Video Link

With that said, please point out links to any videos or articles that suggest there were other inquiries.

Here you go, however, it is in reference to her check fraud charges, at about 2:45:

http://www.wftv.com/video/22335740/index.html

 

[RR0004]

Have not stepped foot in the courtroom yet, so have no idea what the jury is thinking.

Also, while I like Mark N, he lost his objectivity a long time ago. It really seems to me he is sweating a talking head angle hard. Next time your'e on Twitter, ask him when he last tried an actual case in front of a jury, I am willing to bet it was last century.

Ok...so who is doing the funny twitters with your name on it?
Duh me, I thought it was you.

 

[Whome?]

I have noticed that when ever the jury is being brought in or leaving, JB seems to target one(or more) of the jurors.I believe it to be Juror 4. Is this legal to do,smile,cater to one juror? With the hopes of hung jury? JMHO:waitasec:

 

[kellypr]

can this be brought up by Jeff Ashton:

State crime-lab chief to resign
Barry Logan, the embattled chief of the state Crime Laboratory, will step down in March.
By Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporter

Originally published February 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM | Page modified February 15, 2008 at 12:42 AM

"The embattled director of the State Patrol crime labs has resigned, accepting responsibility for allegations of sloppy work and fraud that jeopardized more than 100 DUI breath-test results in the past year."

and

"Logan's resignation comes just two weeks after a panel of King County judges ruled that the state toxicology lab — one of the two labs overseen by Logan — engaged in "fraudulent and scientifically unacceptable" practices while preparing and analyzing breath tests used to prosecute suspected drunken drivers. The judges called for the suppression of the tests and laid much of the blame on Logan, finding he bore "a good deal of the responsibility for [the lab's] shortcomings.""

There is much more. I don't understand why this guy is testifying about anything.

 

[Capri]

Pulling this over from another post by AlwaysShocked, for some lawyer-take on it:

Not being familiar with "lawyerspeak" I will be awaiting hearing what both our "board lawyers" and the experienced lawyers on the TV shows have to say about the Lippman/Tuckman brouhaha.

Being very familiar with "doctorspeak" I can say that oftentimes when a doctor speaks to a patient/family members about a serious condition, it is often extremely significant what the doctor DOESN'T say.

Ex: When the CAT scan indicates what appears to be a cancerous tumor, if the doctor says "This is a highly treatable cancer. We will begin treatment immediately" that is different than the doctor saying "This is a cancerous tumor. We will begin treatment immediately". See the subtle difference?

If you have not been standing there listening to doctors making these kind of statements to patients/families for a long time you are not going to pick up on the difference.

I think lawyerspeak is similar and we will need to have another experienced attorney or two or three to decipher Mr. Lippman's latest statement.

What I suspect is going on is that Mr. Lippman went very, very close to the line in his conversation with Reporter Tuckman and now does not want to be accused of betraying client confidentiality.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6739763&postcount=373"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.06.22 - Breaking News Folks! George and Cindy Anthony think Casey is guilty!!![/ame]

 

[beachbumming]

I have noticed that when ever the jury is being brought in or leaving, JB seems to target one(or more) of the jurors.I believe it to be Juror 4. Is this legal to do,smile,cater to one juror? With the hopes of hung jury? JMHO:waitasec:

Yes it is legal to look at jurors and make eye contact with certain ones or all of them when you speak. Both SA and DT are looking at jurors throughout the trial to see what evidence they are responding to, their facial expressions and body language. Each side has a feeling as to which jurors are on their side, the other side or maybe in the middle. By directing attention to specific jurors attorneys are trying to persuade them to their side.

 

[Dragonlady]

CA did not testify today as to what was in her depo, can she be charged with perjury?

 

[Snaz]

Mark Lippman has stated that his clients just want to know the truth. And while they do not agree with anything the defense said in their opening statement, they do not want the State to obtain their ultimate goal, which is the death penalty for their daughter. They also said they would do whatever they could to keep the State from obtaining their goal.... or words to that effect.

What I would like to know is can the State, in rebuttal, ask Cindy if she made the comment that she would do whatever she could to keep Casey from receiving the death penalty? Since Mark Lippman repeated it, I "assume" that it is no longer privileged information between attorney and client. And can LDB ask her, if her answer if yes, "Does that include lying?" (Or something like that )

ETA: I tried to find the article that included Lippman's comments, but I was unable to find it. Maybe someone has a link to it.

TIA!!!

 

[wallflower67]

When testifying for the prosecution, did Cindy really say anything that helped them? Wasn't it more to put identified items into evidence? If they can prove she impeached her testimony, I know it will hurt the defense, but will it hurt the prosecution too?

In other words, is there any way the prosecution can reasonably get around Cindy's testimony today???

 

[monique]

I'm wondering if the State can argue to bring in Cindy's work records at this late date due to JP's ruling with regard to disclosure. Can they argue that Cindy changed her testimony from what she said in her depo as a reason to allow them to bring in this new evidence in order to impeach her?

 

[GennyMac]

Could the prosecution move to hold CA in Contempt, charge her with Perjury, or would it simply be easier to Impeach her?

We know that Cindy's work records are already part of the evidence the state has, but if they can prove her testimony today was an outright lie by subpoena of further records (i.e. time cards, computer activity, meeting schedules, phone records, or security entry/exit records), wouldn't they have enough to charge her with either Contempt or Perjury ?

Would the value of doing so outweigh the resources or amount of effort required?

Thank you so much for all of your time, assistance, and patience with non legal eagles like me !

 

[elfie]

How are the measurements of the duct tape in relation to Caylee's skull not material? The State published to the jury hypothesized superimposed images of the tape in relation to her skull & face before decomposition.

I was really surprised by HHBP's ruling. Will this issue be revisited?

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

During Cindy Anthony's testimony today she brought up Casey being charged with Check Fraud. Did that open the door for the State to bring in Casey's previous convictions?

 

[snowdaze]

I know the jury is picked on the basis of their lack of knowledge in this case. Which means they missed the A's "show on the road" media tour. Being as these searches were part of the SA case, this was never corrected by CA on national TV before today. This doesn't make sense to me. She was quick to point out the pizza box smell in the trunk, but not this? Their daughter has been sitting in jail for 3 years and they didn't feel the need to point out this discrepency before today? My question is can the SA bring this up in court?