Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[rotterdam]

Oh, I am so confused now. If Judge Strickland issued a specific order that probation must be served after KC's release from jail, who could trump that. Certainly not the DOC.
I would think only a higher Court could overrule a Judge's decision/ruling in his court . Or may be the Governor of Fla. can overrule.
I was always under the assumption that the Judge is the final authority/decision maker in any court room unless appealed to a higher superior court..... And his ruling must be obeyed period . I am totally lost.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Oh, I am so confused now. If Judge Strickland issued a specific order that probation must be served after KC's release from jail, who could trump that. Certainly not the DOC.
I would think only a higher Court could overrule a Judge's decision/ruling in his court . Or may be the Governor of Fla. can overrule.
I was always under the assumption that the Judge is the final authority/decision maker in any court room unless appealed to a higher superior court..... And his ruling must be obeyed period . I am totally lost.

It isn't necessarily the case that any one agency set out on a course to deliberately trump Judge Strickland. I do agree, though, that based on what has happened with the incredible-disappearing-probation, that it sure might look that way.
I did watch the video of that sentencing again. He definitely ordered that the probationary period begin upon release.

In fact, he withheld ajudication on some of the charges (for others he did enter the guilty findings) and explained that he was able to do that, under the law, by attaching the period of probation.

To make things even more confusing, Orlando local news has been all over the place on what is happening with Judge Strickland's Court ordered supervised probation.
It will be; it won't be, it is in the works; it isn't happening....and so forth.

The bottom line is that public frustration with the system is understandably off the charts. You know--Just in case the verdict wasn't quite enough--let's add to the outrage....

MH & :wolf:
sharing an opinion

 

[AZlawyer]

Oh, I am so confused now. If Judge Strickland issued a specific order that probation must be served after KC's release from jail, who could trump that. Certainly not the DOC.
I would think only a higher Court could overrule a Judge's decision/ruling in his court . Or may be the Governor of Fla. can overrule.
I was always under the assumption that the Judge is the final authority/decision maker in any court room unless appealed to a higher superior court..... And his ruling must be obeyed period . I am totally lost.

IMO it isn't so much a matter of the DOC "trumping" the judge's order, as of the inability to make the defendant serve a sentence twice--even if it was served the first time in error. So if Casey in fact completed her probation in jail--i.e., visited with a probation officer and whatever else she was required to do (probably not much!)--then she has served her sentence and cannot be made to serve it again.

 

[Katprint]

IMO it isn't so much a matter of the DOC "trumping" the judge's order, as of the inability to make the defendant serve a sentence twice--even if it was served the first time in error. So if Casey in fact completed her probation in jail--i.e., visited with a probation officer and whatever else she was required to do (probably not much!)--then she has served her sentence and cannot be made to serve it again.

On the other hand, sometimes there are typographical/paperwork/time calculation errors and inmates are released erroneously in which case they can be required to come back and finish up their sentence. IMO the prosecution should ask for a clarification hearing (if they have not already done so) concerning the issue of whether or not Casey served probation in jail. Specifically, the people who would have been supervising any probation, enforcing conditions of probation, meeting with probationers on probation, etc. should be asked whether or not Casey served probation in jail - regardless whether or not Casey or her defense team THOUGHT she was serving probation during her pretrial incarceration and/or bamboozled court/jail staff into believing Casey had served probation in jail.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[bonniez451]

Lawyers in the US still retain their First Amendment rights and can write about their thoughts/opinions. We can question the judgment, intelligence, laziness, failure to follow jury instructions, etc. of jurors.

The irony of the Casey Anthony jury's failure to follow the jury instructions (for example, their statements that they considered George's supposed "accident" statement to his mistress as substantive evidence that an accident really occurred instead of as impeachment evidence only relevant to George's truthfulness as a witness) is that jury misconduct most often results in improper convictions, not improper acquittals. Jurors who hear about the defendant's seven prior convictions for armed robbery decide the defendant is a bad person thus they are more likely to convict him of unrelated welfare fraud charges. Or they believe that police officers never lie. Or they disbelieve alibi witnesses because those witnesses must be "biased" due to being friends of the defendant - nevermind that people generally spend time in the company of their friends rather than their enemies and there is nothing suspicious about perfectly normal behavior. Or they believe "where there's smoke, there's fire" and the defendant wouldn't have been arrested/charged/on trial if he weren't guilty. I could go on and on. I cringe when I hear people talking about how the system should be changed so that juries will convict more often, just because there weren't big enough guilty verdicts in this one freakish case.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

I was just saying on another part of the board on jurist not doing their job has innocents in prison and guilty on the street. I thought they would have like paperwork as in something equivelent to a point system as they went through evidence I know they are given instructions but it's not a system that a basis could be started from. Do you have any feelings on tweaking the jury system?

 

[Katprint]

I was just saying on another part of the board on jurist not doing their job has innocents in prison and guilty on the street. I thought they would have like paperwork as in something equivelent to a point system as they went through evidence I know they are given instructions but it's not a system that a basis could be started from. Do you have any feelings on tweaking the jury system?

Not the jury system per se. I don't know any way to FORCE people to be diligent, which is required for any system to be successful - not just with regard to our legal system. People can live in a democracy yet fail to educate themselves about the facts and issues nor bother to vote in the elections. People can have dental insurance which covers 100% of preventative dental care yet fail to get their teeth cleaned - for no additional cost - every six months. People can be given free public education up to 12th grade yet fail to attend classes or study.

The courts have their hands full just getting people to respond to their jury summons as required by law. Jury service is a pain in the butt. The jury pay in California is not enough to even pay for a day's parking in the San Francisco Bay area, much less anywhere near enough to reimburse jurors for their lost wages. I'd like to see jurors made more comfortable, maybe with free lunches and free parking, which might help the jurors feel more appreciated for the hard work they are [supposed to be] doing. The recent improvements to the reporting system where you check in electronically the day before to find out whether you REALLY have to physically report to the courthouse to serve on a jury - instead of spending 3 days sitting in uncomfortable chairs in the jury room without ever being sent to a courtroom - have lessened jurors resentment somewhat.

Also, California recently finished a couple of decades of major tweaks to jury instructions to turn legalese into plain English so they were easier to understand. It was clear from the interviews with the Casey Anthony jurors that they didn't even bother to try to read the complicated jury instructions they were given, much less try to understand them and follow them. Making sure the jurors can understand the jury instructions is critical tweaking IMO.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[lookieloo]

So when is Baez going to have to face the music for his behavior in court? Perry said there would be sanctions. Will we even know if and when it happens? Wish Perry would stick him in jail on charges so he could be stopped from staying at 5 star hotels while brokering deals.

 

[Suzie002]

Not sure if this has been asked before but if Casey were to do interviews and book deals down the road and still points the finger at GA and talks about molestation, wouldn't it be almost necessary for them to file suit against her for defamation, slander or something? Would a wrongful death suit work to exonerate GA?

 

[BuzzieCat]

Have there ever been any other cases of inmates serving their probation while in jail, that any of you know of? I just would be curious if this is a normal thing (even though it makes no sense to me)? Would whoever overrode Judge Strickland's orders and decided to send a probation officer to visit FCA in jail have thought they were following normal procedure?

 

[Schu7]

I should have asked this question here. Opps.

Would failing to show up for the Zenaida Gonzalez deposition be a breech of her probation here?

 

[mom2chloe]

Any idea what the previous charges that Judge Strickland deferred adjudication on might mean for KC? Since he has ordered her to serve 1 year probation, is there anything in these other charges that could add more time in jail or additional probation, restitution, etc.? TIA!

 

[Katprint]

Have there ever been any other cases of inmates serving their probation while in jail, that any of you know of? I just would be curious if this is a normal thing (even though it makes no sense to me)? Would whoever overrode Judge Strickland's orders and decided to send a probation officer to visit FCA in jail have thought they were following normal procedure?

It can get a little complicated when someone is convicted of multiple crimes occurring on different dates.

Imagine a situation where a defendant is arrested for drug possession in January 2011, is convicted in April 2011 and is sentenced in June 2011 to time served, to complete a drug diversion program and 1 year probation. In July 2011, the defendant is arrested for a February 2011 burglary after a DNA or fingerprint match is discovered. (It can take a while for the crime lab to process forensic evidence.) The February 2011 burglary would not constitute a violation of the defendant's probation which did not begin until June 2011.

In my experience, the judge gives a specific date that probation is to end. If the defendant violates probation then the judge may revoke probation but if the violation was in a minor way (for example, if a random drug test comes back positive) then the judge may reinstate probation either to end as scheduled or to end on a certain date later than the originally scheduled date. There is ALWAYS some specific future date - it is always "February 1, 2012 at 9 am in Dept. 25" and never "come back in six months." My expectation would be that the probation would end on the date previously ordered unless that date was changed by a new order. I know that jails are capable of providing probation services (drug education classes, drug tests, meetings with probation officers, etc.) so the mere fact of incarceration would not necessarily interfere with probation.

OTOH I am not familiar with how things are done in Florida jails, just how things are done in California jails.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

On the other hand, sometimes there are typographical/paperwork/time calculation errors and inmates are released erroneously in which case they can be required to come back and finish up their sentence. IMO the prosecution should ask for a clarification hearing (if they have not already done so) concerning the issue of whether or not Casey served probation in jail. Specifically, the people who would have been supervising any probation, enforcing conditions of probation, meeting with probationers on probation, etc. should be asked whether or not Casey served probation in jail - regardless whether or not Casey or her defense team THOUGHT she was serving probation during her pretrial incarceration and/or bamboozled court/jail staff into believing Casey had served probation in jail.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

But when a prisoner is erroneously released and then sent back to jail, there's no argument that the prisoner has actually completed the sentence. Here, it appears that the probation department actually sent probation officers out to visit Casey at jail, to "verify her residence," :banghead: etc. So it sounds like she actually did complete the sentence of probation, albeit in an environment in which violation of probation was nearly impossible.

If the defense team had merely THOUGHT she completed probation, I agree with you that she could still be made to complete probation. But it looks like she ACTUALLY completed probation.

So when is Baez going to have to face the music for his behavior in court? Perry said there would be sanctions. Will we even know if and when it happens? Wish Perry would stick him in jail on charges so he could be stopped from staying at 5 star hotels while brokering deals.

Who knows? I am starting to doubt that HHJP is going to follow through on his threat.

If the media is doing its job, we should find out when (if) it happens.

Not sure if this has been asked before but if Casey were to do interviews and book deals down the road and still points the finger at GA and talks about molestation, wouldn't it be almost necessary for them to file suit against her for defamation, slander or something? Would a wrongful death suit work to exonerate GA?

It wouldn't be "necessary" for GA to sue her, but he could. Of course, he'd have to prove that she was lying, which would be tough to do.

GA and CA don't have standing to file a wrongful death suit against Casey, and in any event how would that prove GA didn't molest Casey??

Have there ever been any other cases of inmates serving their probation while in jail, that any of you know of? I just would be curious if this is a normal thing (even though it makes no sense to me)? Would whoever overrode Judge Strickland's orders and decided to send a probation officer to visit FCA in jail have thought they were following normal procedure?

I've never heard of it, but media reports quote DOC officials as saying that they do have procedures for supervised probation of current inmates.

I should have asked this question here. Opps.

Would failing to show up for the Zenaida Gonzalez deposition be a breech of her probation here?

If she's on probation at all, which I doubt, failing to show up for the depo would be a violation of a court order (if she is subpoenaed), which should, in turn, be a violation of probation.

Any idea what the previous charges that Judge Strickland deferred adjudication on might mean for KC? Since he has ordered her to serve 1 year probation, is there anything in these other charges that could add more time in jail or additional probation, restitution, etc.? TIA!

Only if she violates her probation--which, IMO, she has already successfully completed.

 

[Suzie002]

It wouldn't be "necessary" for GA to sue her, but he could. Of course, he'd have to prove that she was lying, which would be tough to do.

GA and CA don't have standing to file a wrongful death suit against Casey, and in any event how would that prove GA didn't molest Casey??

Wow, I didn't think about that. So basically she can say whatever she wants about that and it's just her word against his. The same holds true for her saying he hid the body and orchestrated the cover up? That's a scary thought that people can make such accusations and get away with it. Thank you for answering my question even though I don't like the answer! lol

 

[rotterdam]

Since Judge Strickland apparently does not want his ruling disobeyed and is playing hardball, can the DT still appeal his ruling from way back then, or is there a statute of limitation to appeal such ruling and that has since expired. Or is it really a non issue since I believe , she pleaded guilty. Or does latest date as of August 1, 2011 overrules here, even though Judge Strickland did not change his ruling , just a more concise explanation of his original intent..

 

[happynanny]

AZ, Would you have any insight, has to how Judge Perry felt about the Verdict? Thank You for all your wonderful work on this Board.

 

[Tiki]

HHBP is HHSS's "boss", right?
so isn't it likely they would have spoken before SS filed this order?
tia

.

 

[AZlawyer]

Since Judge Strickland apparently does not want his ruling disobeyed and is playing hardball, can the DT still appeal his ruling from way back then, or is there a statute of limitation to appeal such ruling and that has since expired. Or is it really a non issue since I believe , she pleaded guilty. Or does latest date as of August 1, 2011 overrules here, even though Judge Strickland did not change his ruling , just a more concise explanation of his original intent..

There was no need to appeal the original order--the defense team had no problem with it and Casey complied with it. IMO this new order will certainly be challenged in the appellate courts ASAP.

AZ, Would you have any insight, has to how Judge Perry felt about the Verdict? Thank You for all your wonderful work on this Board.

No more than anyone else does.

HHBP is HHSS's "boss", right?
so isn't it likely they would have spoken before SS filed this order?
tia

.

Normally a judge would not speak with his presiding judge before issuing an order, but in this case I would think HHSS would have done so.

 

[Katprint]

But when a prisoner is erroneously released and then sent back to jail, there's no argument that the prisoner has actually completed the sentence. Here, it appears that the probation department actually sent probation officers out to visit Casey at jail, to "verify her residence," :banghead: etc. So it sounds like she actually did complete the sentence of probation, albeit in an environment in which violation of probation was nearly impossible.

If the defense team had merely THOUGHT she completed probation, I agree with you that she could still be made to complete probation. But it looks like she ACTUALLY completed probation.

That is EXACTLY the critical issue! What will control: What the judge ordered on the record? What the judge subjectively intended his order to mean? What the probation interpreted the judge's order to mean? What actually makes sense (i.e. probation in the sense of discovering whether the defendant is capable of controlling themself)?

It's not that I disagree with anything you have posted - it's that this situation is an ugly mess and it is difficult if not impossible to definitively state what happened/is happening/should happen. I interpret the prosecution's statement to the media as basically saying, we aren't asking for clarification because we are done with this freakish case and we have much better uses for our limited resources that to continue chasing this wild goose.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[rotterdam]

Since KC was convicted on the lying charges, is it not unusual that those convictions did not include a probationary period. Even misdemeanors quite often have a probationary period, ,I thought. Or was there not a probationary period because the judge choose the maximum penalty if I recall.

Also if probation was served in jail, which I still consider ridiculous, but I guess it is an easy gig for the probation department, how on earth could that run concurrent with prison/jail sentence since that jail time for the lying charges was applied to time served., concurrent to the same time as the so called probation time . That alone should invalidate the probation time if really served and would not be double jeopardy. Maybe I am dense, I just do not get it. Everybody seem to be covering up for their errors except Judge Strickland. Another year in jail and credit for the probation time sounds just right to me.