Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[chefmom]

As to the motions filed today, ie past sexual relationships, the knife, history of lying, etc., any thoughts on whether they are something you think HHJP may grant or deny? TIA!

 

[rhornsby]

As to the motions filed today, ie past sexual relationships, the knife, history of lying, etc., any thoughts on whether they are something you think HHJP may grant or deny? TIA!

HHJP will deny them all except the motion regarding George calling Casey a liar and a thief; with the caveat that it is permissible in Florida to testify that a person has a "reputation for dishonesty within the community."

So if George were to testify that way, it would then become admissible IF he testified after some of Casey's statements were introduced into evidence.

 

[Jay D]

HHJP will deny them all except the motion regarding George calling Casey a liar and a thief; with the caveat that it is permissible in Florida to testify that a person has a "reputation for dishonesty within the community."

So if George were to testify that way, it would then become admissible IF he testified after some of Casey's statements were introduced into evidence.

Thanks a bunch for your invaluable contributions to this forum.
When you suggest that "HHJP will deny them all", do you mean Deny the instant Motions in Limine without hearings or deny them after ordering the prosecution to file a response motion and conducting a hearing relating to the motions? Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[Katprint]

HHJP will deny them all except the motion regarding George calling Casey a liar and a thief; with the caveat that it is permissible in Florida to testify that a person has a "reputation for dishonesty within the community."

So if George were to testify that way, it would then become admissible IF he testified after some of Casey's statements were introduced into evidence.

In California, Casey's numerous incidents of dishonesty/prior bad acts could also be admissible on the issue of intent/state of mind/lack of mistake with regard to the four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer especially if the defense tries to claim that Casey really believed her statements to law enforcement that later turned out to be false (such as her office at Universal Studios where she had not worked in years.) Innocent misstatements can happen; I have caught myself giving my home telephone number instead of my cell phone number and vice versa. However, I daresay Casey has virtually made a custom and habit of lying at every opportunity.

Katprint
Who is not particularly familiar with criminal rules of evidence in Florida
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

With the new motions from Casey's defense regarding the shovel, sexual relations with Tony etc ... would the state be locked into whatever they say at a hearing in regards to why they want to be able to bring in each piece of evidence, or can they switch it up a little come trial?

I suppose the SA could purposely give a less-than-complete response as to why certain evidence is relevant, but there would be no point in doing this. On the other hand, if they get the evidence in based on relevance reason "X," and only later figure out that the evidence is relevant for reason "Y," they can argue both reasons at trial.

I realize Judge Perry is doing his utmost to see to it that things are being done in a manner that will, hopefully, circumvent appeal. But doesn't every death penalty verdict get an automatic appeal?

Yes--what we mean when we say he's trying to avoid appeal is that he's trying to avoid a SUCCESSFUL appeal lol.

HHJP will deny them all except the motion regarding George calling Casey a liar and a thief; with the caveat that it is permissible in Florida to testify that a person has a "reputation for dishonesty within the community."

So if George were to testify that way, it would then become admissible IF he testified after some of Casey's statements were introduced into evidence.

If I were the SA, I would argue that Casey's history of lying is evidence of motive--it becomes more and more difficult to live a false double life if you have a little tiny recording-and-playback machine following you around all day long. If you've ever had a toddler in your home, you know what I mean. If you are a liar to the extent that Casey is--i.e., practically every declaratory sentence out of your mouth is a lie--you cannot continue that lifestyle and, at the same time, allow a small child to accompany you.

Some of you might remember that time that I typed "if I were the defense, I would argue..." while a suspected spy was "in the house," and 3 hours later my argument appeared in a defense filing. So if there are any SA spies here today, please feel free to copy and paste lol. But in all seriousness, I'm sure they've already thought of it.

Regarding both the history of lying and the history of stealing, IF the defense is actually planning to make the ridiculous argument that Casey was "searching" for Caylee, and as part of her search was forced (by Zanny? Jesse? Amy? Who the heck knows...) to lie and steal from June 16-July 15, then the defense certainly will have "opened the door" to introduction of evidence that Casey's lying-and-stealing pattern began long before Caylee "disappeared" and continued thereafter with no apparent change or interruption.

I think HHJP might grant the motion about the table knife. The shovel-borrowing incident will be allowed in--it was unusual and sneaky behavior associated with corpse-moving at a time when the evidence suggests that Casey was in possession of a corpse. Casey's sexual behavior both shortly before and after the murder/kidnapping should come in to show motive (freedom from child creates more opportunities for sex with hot guys) and mental state (consistent with intentional killing but not with kidnapping/accident).

 

[ziggy]

Thanks all - exactly what I was looking for -Evidence 101 and how it relates to real life. I'm going to bring these motions to class with me and see if law students can discuss with the judge/prof. all the angles presented.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I suppose the SA could purposely give a less-than-complete response as to why certain evidence is relevant, but there would be no point in doing this. On the other hand, if they get the evidence in based on relevance reason "X," and only later figure out that the evidence is relevant for reason "Y," they can argue both reasons at trial.



Yes--what we mean when we say he's trying to avoid appeal is that he's trying to avoid a SUCCESSFUL appeal lol.



If I were the SA, I would argue that Casey's history of lying is evidence of motive--it becomes more and more difficult to live a false double life if you have a little tiny recording-and-playback machine following you around all day long. If you've ever had a toddler in your home, you know what I mean. If you are a liar to the extent that Casey is--i.e., practically every declaratory sentence out of your mouth is a lie--you cannot continue that lifestyle and, at the same time, allow a small child to accompany you.

Some of you might remember that time that I typed "if I were the defense, I would argue..." while a suspected spy was "in the house," and 3 hours later my argument appeared in a defense filing. So if there are any SA spies here today, please feel free to copy and paste lol. But in all seriousness, I'm sure they've already thought of it.

Regarding both the history of lying and the history of stealing, IF the defense is actually planning to make the ridiculous argument that Casey was "searching" for Caylee, and as part of her search was forced (by Zanny? Jesse? Amy? Who the heck knows...) to lie and steal from June 16-July 15, then the defense certainly will have "opened the door" to introduction of evidence that Casey's lying-and-stealing pattern began long before Caylee "disappeared" and continued thereafter with no apparent change or interruption.

I think HHJP might grant the motion about the table knife. The shovel-borrowing incident will be allowed in--it was unusual and sneaky behavior associated with corpse-moving at a time when the evidence suggests that Casey was in possession of a corpse. Casey's sexual behavior both shortly before and after the murder/kidnapping should come in to show motive (freedom from child creates more opportunities for sex with hot guys) and mental state (consistent with intentional killing but not with kidnapping/accident).

Why not the knife? I'm assuming that she used it to cut duct tape, and if there is evidence confirming that I have yet to see it, but I'm hoping....
If the SA objects to this motion, will they have to reveal why- ( DNA or matching knife serrations) ?
By the simple act of asking for certain items to be disallowed they are indicating their importance aren't they?

 

[beach]

If I were the SA, I would argue that Casey's history of lying is evidence of motive--it becomes more and more difficult to live a false double life if you have a little tiny recording-and-playback machine following you around all day long. If you've ever had a toddler in your home, you know what I mean. If you are a liar to the extent that Casey is--i.e., practically every declaratory sentence out of your mouth is a lie--you cannot continue that lifestyle and, at the same time, allow a small child to accompany you.

Some of you might remember that time that I typed "if I were the defense, I would argue..." while a suspected spy was "in the house," and 3 hours later my argument appeared in a defense filing. So if there are any SA spies here today, please feel free to copy and paste lol. But in all seriousness, I'm sure they've already thought of it.

*snipped* and BBM

ITA and if you will humor me, I think it would further go to show motive considering Caylee spent all day Father's Day (June 15th) with Cindy driving to and from Mt. Dora. Then there was the fight - you know the one that CA says never happened . Riiight, THAT one. Very possible that Caylee spilled something to CA that set all the wheels in motion. Let's face it - the next day Caylee was gone....forever.

 

[zoey]

*snipped* and BBM

ITA and if you will humor me, I think it would further go to show motive considering Caylee spent all day Father's Day (June 15th) with Cindy driving to and from Mt. Dora. Then there was the fight - you know the one that CA says never happened . Riiight, THAT one. Very possible that Caylee spilled something to CA that set all the wheels in motion. Let's face it - the next day Caylee was gone....forever.

YEP!!! ITA!!!! :woohoo:

 

[Macushla]

My question may have been asked and answered at some previous point in this thread, but I have not been able to find anything about it, so I will ask again.

If the defense approaches the state with a plea bargain and the state says 'no deal', is that the end of it? Can the judge step in and 'require' the state to try and come to a mutally agreeable plea deal, or does he stay out of it and just let the trial go on?

 

[rhornsby]

My question may have been asked and answered at some previous point in this thread, but I have not been able to find anything about it, so I will ask again.

If the defense approaches the state with a plea bargain and the state says 'no deal', is that the end of it? Can the judge step in and 'require' the state to try and come to a mutally agreeable plea deal, or does he stay out of it and just let the trial go on?

No, the judge cannot step in and offer a plea specifically because this is a death penalty case, which requires the penalty phase to be held.

 

[rhornsby]

Thanks a bunch for your invaluable contributions to this forum.
When you suggest that "HHJP will deny them all", do you mean Deny the instant Motions in Limine without hearings or deny them after ordering the prosecution to file a response motion and conducting a hearing relating to the motions? Thanks in advance for your reply.

There will probably be a hearing. And also, on closer examination, I think the motions regarding Casey's sex life and the Tim Miller speculation issue have merit and may be granted.

Casey's sex life is irrelevant to whether she killed her daughter. And what Tim thinks would have occurred if Casey was not stopped is by definition speculation, which is inadmissible under Florida law.

 

[logicalgirl]

There will probably be a hearing. And also, on closer examination, I think the motions regarding Casey's sex life and the Tim Miller speculation issue have merit and may be granted.

Casey's sex life is irrelevant to whether she killed her daughter. And what Tim thinks would have occurred if Casey was not stopped is by definition speculation, which is inadmissible under Florida law.

We (I) may like you to re-examine both of those thoughts on motions.

Nobody cares about her sex life, but where Caylee was when ICA was spending every night in Tony's bed does, I believe, have merit.

Tim Miller was there at the Anthony's request. He was at the Anthony's house to find out where he should START the search for Caylee, because he was unfamiliar with the territory. ICA refused to even suggest where he "could" start searching.

Do you disagree with one or both of those points?

 

[nums24]

Is Certificate of Service to opposing counsel required for each and every motion filed when multiple motions are filed at once?

 

[Purple Iris]

What is the normal penalty for sanctions, ie; as in the ones that the state filed today against Baez?

I would guess that it would be a monetary one, something that is will hit him where it hurts ~ the wallet.

But, aside from that would he be made to take some refresher courses of some sort?
Do some community service ala cleaning up the highways of Florida, serving meals to homeless, volunteering for a REAL missing children's advocacy agency?? {ah, maybe not that one, he'd figure out some way to profit from that}

But, overall, what is the worst and the least that could happen as a result of this?
TIA ~

 

[Snaz]

If HHJP were to grant the State's motion to sanction the defense, how would that work? Is each attorney on the defense team, individually, subjected to the penalty? If it is monetary penalty, who pays?

I hope this question makes sense, because I'm not even sure how to phrase it... LOL

TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

Why not the knife? I'm assuming that she used it to cut duct tape, and if there is evidence confirming that I have yet to see it, but I'm hoping....
If the SA objects to this motion, will they have to reveal why- ( DNA or matching knife serrations) ?
By the simple act of asking for certain items to be disallowed they are indicating their importance aren't they?

If there was evidence that the knife was used to cut the duct tape, of course it will come in. But we have all the forensic evidence back on the knife and IIRC there is nothing matching it up with the duct tape. IMO the State will not even argue that it was used.

Yes, the things they ask to exclude are a good indication of what they think the jury might fixate on.

There will probably be a hearing. And also, on closer examination, I think the motions regarding Casey's sex life and the Tim Miller speculation issue have merit and may be granted.

Casey's sex life is irrelevant to whether she killed her daughter. And what Tim thinks would have occurred if Casey was not stopped is by definition speculation, which is inadmissible under Florida law.

Unless the sex life was a motive to not have a toddler around. If you wanted to be a sexy young singing star married to a music mogul in NYC, Mr. Hornsby, you wouldn't be picturing a toddler tagging along either.

I agree that Tim's internal speculation about what Casey was about to do is irrelevant. I just don't think you need an order excluding it. Suppose the SA was stupid enough to ask the question, "So, Tim, in your opinion what would Casey have done if she hadn't been stopped?" Even JB would know enough to object to that, right? Right? :waitasec:

Is Certificate of Service to opposing counsel required for each and every motion filed when multiple motions are filed at once?

Knowing zero about the local rules down there, I will nevertheless venture to say the answer is yes.

What is the normal penalty for sanctions, ie; as in the ones that the state filed today against Baez?

I would guess that it would be a monetary one, something that is will hit him where it hurts ~ the wallet.

But, aside from that would he be made to take some refresher courses of some sort?
Do some community service ala cleaning up the highways of Florida, serving meals to homeless, volunteering for a REAL missing children's advocacy agency?? {ah, maybe not that one, he'd figure out some way to profit from that}

But, overall, what is the worst and the least that could happen as a result of this?
TIA ~

If HHJP were to grant the State's motion to sanction the defense, how would that work? Is each attorney on the defense team, individually, subjected to the penalty? If it is monetary penalty, who pays?

I hope this question makes sense, because I'm not even sure how to phrase it... LOL

TIA!

Sanctions are normally awarded in the form of $$$, and where the offense was something included (or not included) in a court filing, normally the entire "team" would be held jointly responsible.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Maybe JB will pay his $$$ with a hot check. That way he and his client can "bond" a for awhile.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

My question is about sanctions - what exactly are they and how do they affect the attorney, his/her career, and the trial at hand? I mean could Baez be thrown off the defense? Also, do they apply to the entire defense, including Mason and even Finnell, or just Baez?

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is about sanctions - what exactly are they and how do they affect the attorney, his/her career, and the trial at hand? I mean could Baez be thrown off the defense? Also, do they apply to the entire defense, including Mason and even Finnell, or just Baez?

Answered in part above.

I did want to add that sanctions in the form of excluding the offending party's evidence are, of course, possible. However, I think HHJP will not exclude any of the defense experts, because he has shown a clear desire not to let KC's attorneys' antics affect her substantive rights.

No one is going to get thrown off the case.