Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

thanks for your answer. my other question now is, if she said she did all that stuff because she just didnt want to get in trouble and just wanted to go on living her life could a jury buy that and what is the stiffest penalty she could get. i hope this doesnt sound silly.

Could a jury buy it? Sure. Do I think a jury is likely to buy it? No. Also, I don't think Casey would approve of her defense presenting a theory that makes her look like a horrible person.

I suppose if the jury buys a defense story in which Caylee dies of natural/unavoidable causes, for which medical attention would not have helped, and Casey is just so selfish and uncaring that she covers up the death in order not to interrupt her party schedule (and applies duct tape immediately, just in case the body is ever found, to make it look like a kidnapping)...then the only thing that such a jury would convict her for would be lying to LE. I don't know what the usual sentence is for that in Fla., but I would guess a few years at most.

 

[Paintr]

Is it possible for a defendent in an upcoming case (ie KC) to bring civil suit against a member of LE (ie Yuri Melich) who led the investigation into the defendent's case?

:waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it possible for a defendent in an upcoming case (ie KC) to bring civil suit against a member of LE (ie Yuri Melich) who led the investigation into the defendent's case?

:waitasec:

Well, she'd have to be acquitted first. And then there would be some big legal hurdles to get over--she would basically need to show that he "railroaded" her in disregard for the actual evidence.

 

[Paintr]

Well, she'd have to be acquitted first. And then there would be some big legal hurdles to get over--she would basically need to show that he "railroaded" her in disregard for the actual evidence.

Thank you kindly for your answer. :rose: I thought for a moment that Mr Baez might try to pull that off.

 

[RR0004]

Ok...Cheney refused to "educate us" at today's press conference...so perhaps you can explain reciprocal discovery 'cause obviously...according to CM..."we" don't understand the law. TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

Ok...Cheney refused to "educate us" at today's press conference...so perhaps you can explain reciprocal discovery 'cause obviously...according to CM..."we" don't understand the law. TIA

I didn't see the press conference. What was the question that he didn't want to answer??

 

[Nore]

Hi, This may have been brought up before.If so I apologize. The number of Lawyers in this indigent case, is that normal for any indigent DP.case? I should have added in Florida. Will KC,s being allowed so much through legal aid prove to be a problem? I'm sure other inmates and those in the future will pay attention.Baez said they are paying their own way does that include food
and lodging? I feel sorry for the people of Fla.what a waste.

PS.Masons remarks are unforgiveable.He better learn how to talk or the jury will never understand him.

 

[RR0004]

I didn't see the press conference. What was the question that he didn't want to answer??

Basically, Kathi B. wanted to know if they (the defense team) found something that would be beneficial to clearing their client why they didn't turn it over to the State. CM said the burden of proof lies with the State (duh!)...but then KB reminded him that Florida has "reciprocal discovery" and if they have evidence (that exonerates Casey) they need to turn it over. CM told her she didn't understand the law (snidely, I might add).

 

[AZlawyer]

Basically, Kathi B. wanted to know if they (the defense team) found something that would be beneficial to clearing their client why they didn't turn it over to the State. CM said the burden of proof lies with the State (duh!)...but then KB reminded him that Florida has "reciprocal discovery" and if they have evidence (that exonerates Casey) they need to turn it over. CM told her she didn't understand the law (snidely, I might add).

I guess what CM means is that the defense presentation at trial will be largely focused on challenging the prosecution's evidence. The defense has no obligation under "reciprocal discovery" to set out exactly how it plans to do that. The prosecution has the burden of proof, so if the defense can successfully challenge the evidence set forth by the prosecution, it doesn't need to present any additional evidence to get an acquittal.

Here's what the defense does have to turn over:

(1) Names and addresses of witnesses that the defense expects to call at trial;

(2) Any recorded/written statements made by any of those witnesses;

(3) Any reports or statements made by experts (but I don't think Fla. law REQUIRES the experts to write up a report);

(4) Any documents or objects the defense plans to use as exhibits at trial.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi, This may have been brought up before.If so I apologize. The number of Lawyers in this indigent case, is that normal for any indigent DP.case? I should have added in Florida. Will KC,s being allowed so much through legal aid prove to be a problem? I'm sure other inmates and those in the future will pay attention.Baez said they are paying their own way does that include food
and lodging? I feel sorry for the people of Fla.what a waste.

PS.Masons remarks are unforgiveable.He better learn how to talk or the jury will never understand him.

I don't know about Florida specifically, but in any high-profile DP case, there will be pro bono lawyers assisting the defense--for experience, fame, and/or out of a sense of moral obligation to fight the DP.

KC is not getting much through legal aid--no more than anyone else. Yes, the pro bono lawyers should be paying for their own food and lodging.

 

[Amil]

If an inmate wants to read the newspaper, is it available to them?

 

[RR0004]

I guess what CM means is that the defense presentation at trial will be largely focused on challenging the prosecution's evidence. The defense has no obligation under "reciprocal discovery" to set out exactly how it plans to do that. The prosecution has the burden of proof, so if the defense can successfully challenge the evidence set forth by the prosecution, it doesn't need to present any additional evidence to get an acquittal.

Here's what the defense does have to turn over:

(1) Names and addresses of witnesses that the defense expects to call at trial;

(2) Any recorded/written statements made by any of those witnesses;

(3) Any reports or statements made by experts (but I don't think Fla. law REQUIRES the experts to write up a report);

(4) Any documents or objects the defense plans to use as exhibits at trial.

But if they found something in the cell phone records that indicate it was someone else, they don't have to hand over the name...unless that person is on their witness list. is that correct? So he can allude to whomever he wants to, but he doesn't have to put that person on his witness list? IMHO they found squat...including reasonable doubt.

 

[AZlawyer]

But if they found something in the cell phone records that indicate it was someone else, they don't have to hand over the name...unless that person is on their witness list. is that correct? So he can allude to whomever he wants to, but he doesn't have to put that person on his witness list? IMHO they found squat...including reasonable doubt.

He doesn't have to put anyone on his witness list unless he wants them to testify at the trial.

And I agree with your IMHO.

 

[AZlawyer]

If an inmate wants to read the newspaper, is it available to them?

I'm not familiar with the specific regulations for that prison system, but yes, CA should have some access to newspapers.

 

[Macushla]

Is it possible for KC to change her mind and ask for a Bench trial rather than a jury trial at this point? I don't know why she would, of course, but was wondering if she could chose a bench trial at this late date.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it possible for KC to change her mind and ask for a Bench trial rather than a jury trial at this point? I don't know why she would, of course, but was wondering if she could chose a bench trial at this late date.

She could still waive her right to a jury trial, although HHJP would make darn sure she understood what she was doing first.

I agree that she should not and will not do this.

 

[jerseygirl48]

Not sure if you're following the JJ mess, but I have a related question.

Story #1 -- JJ initially made statements that he searched the area where Caylee was found and the body wasn't there.

Story #2 -- JJ says he was mistaken. Says he initially thought the body was found much closer to the street, but later found out it was ~50 feet in and his team never went in more than 5-10 feet due to high water.

It doesn't seem to be completely clear when he changed his mind. But, the following occurred:

Day One -- MS (AL's investigator) interviewed JJ at JJ's attorney's office. MS wrote in an affidavit that JJ told Story #1.

Day One Evening -- JJ calls LE. No record exists so it's not clear how much of Story #1 or #2 was told.

Day Two -- LE records an interview with JJ in which he tells Story #2.

Can JJ's attorney be called to the stand to state whether he heard Story #1 or Story #2?

Thanks in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

Not sure if you're following the JJ mess, but I have a related question.

Story #1 -- JJ initially made statements that he searched the area where Caylee was found and the body wasn't there.

Story #2 -- JJ says he was mistaken. Says he initially thought the body was found much closer to the street, but later found out it was ~50 feet in and his team never went in more than 5-10 feet due to high water.

It doesn't seem to be completely clear when he changed his mind. But, the following occurred:

Day One -- MS (AL's investigator) interviewed JJ at JJ's attorney's office. MS wrote in an affidavit that JJ told Story #1.

Day One Evening -- JJ calls LE. No record exists so it's not clear how much of Story #1 or #2 was told.

Day Two -- LE records an interview with JJ in which he tells Story #2.

Can JJ's attorney be called to the stand to state whether he heard Story #1 or Story #2?

Thanks in advance!

That depends on whether JJ is denying that he told story #1. I suspect he won't deny it, because IIRC he said the same thing (story #1) in an email to LE before the defense team interviewed him.

Most likely, JJ will just admit both stories and explain why he thinks they can be reconciled.

 

[logicalgirl]

AZLawyer, did you have the opportunity to watch any of the status hearing today?

Diane Tennis's comment was that she had never seen a judge micromanage a case like His Honor Judge Perry is doing - that it is very unusual.

Would you agree or care to comment? To me, HHJP says this case will go to trial in May of 2011, and he means it, even if it means micromanaging the Defense team every step of the way to get it done.

 

[ClockWatcher]

After Baez stated in today's status hearing that he would like to have ICA present for the depositions of the Orange County Corrections Officers, HHJP asked Baez if he knew what the rule said.

FRCP 3.220 (h) Discovery Depositions

(7) Defendant’s Physical Presence. A defendant shall not be physically present at a deposition except on
stipulation of the parties or as provided by this rule. The court may order the physical presence of the defendant
on a showing of good cause. The court may consider (A) the need for the physical presence of the defendant to obtain effective discovery, (B) the intimidating effect of the defendant’s presence on the witness, if any, (C) any
cost or inconvenience which may result, and (D) any alternative electronic or audio/visual means available.

Whaaaa? Can you please explain what that means?

I get the meaning of A, B seems like the choice that Jose would love to use, but C and D just don't make sense to me.

Also, of those reasons to allow a defendant to attend a depo, which one would Jose likely present (motion) to HHJP?

Thanks in advance!