Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[MomCat]

If the Feds or (or FBI, for example) wanted to pursue ICA for kidnap and murder charges, could they do it in Federal court? Would not Federal court constitute different jurisdiction, and thereby bypass the double jeopardy statutes?

I am asking because I am put in mind of Timothy McVeigh. He was tried first in Federal court, and it was explained at the time that no matter the Fed verdict, even if he was found guilty (as he was), then the State of Oklahoma could have him returned to them and he could be charged a second time, on the same charges. (Oklahoma in the end chose not to go a second trial, deeming it unneeded since he was found guilty in the Fed trial.) *But they could have done it if they wanted to.*

Or does it come down to "can they/will they"? *ICA has angered so many people, if the State or someone wanted her bad enough and was willing to spend the $$$ to go after her, there must be a way to do it?

McVeigh had a Federal trial, where he was found guilty, but the State could still have followed up with their trial, without invoking double jeopardy. So, Fed followed by State trial. What prevents this being done in the reverse for ICA? State followed by Federal?

 

[AZlawyer]

In hindsight, would it have been wiser to reserve the lesser charge of child abuse in case the murder conviction fell through? If they had done that and she had been acquitted of murder, could they then have filed child abuse charges against her?

They did keep the child abuse charge. The jury found her not guilty of aggravated child abuse and the lesser included charge of child abuse.

If the Feds or (or FBI, for example) wanted to pursue ICA for kidnap and murder charges, could they do it in Federal court? Would not Federal court constitute different jurisdiction, and thereby bypass the double jeopardy statutes?

I am asking because I am put in mind of Timothy McVeigh. He was tried first in Federal court, and it was explained at the time that no matter the Fed verdict, even if he was found guilty (as he was), then the State of Oklahoma could have him returned to them and he could be charged a second time, on the same charges. (Oklahoma in the end chose not to go a second trial, deeming it unneeded since he was found guilty in the Fed trial.) *But they could have done it if they wanted to.*

Or does it come down to "can they/will they"? *ICA has angered so many people, if the State or someone wanted her bad enough and was willing to spend the $$$ to go after her, there must be a way to do it?

McVeigh had a Federal trial, where he was found guilty, but the State could still have followed up with their trial, without invoking double jeopardy. So, Fed followed by State trial. What prevents this being done in the reverse for ICA? State followed by Federal?

Not every murder is a federal crime. Most aren't, in fact.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

My apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but can LE reopen their investigation to find the "real" killer? I realize that the NOT GUILY verdict does not necessarily mean that Casey is innocent, but there is the possibility that someone else was responsible. Thanks for your consideration.

 

[AZlawyer]

My apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but can LE reopen their investigation to find the "real" killer? I realize that the NOT GUILY verdict does not necessarily mean that Casey is innocent, but there is the possibility that someone else was responsible. Thanks for your consideration.

They can, but they won't unless some new evidence arises that might lead to another perp.

 

[Peliman]

AZ I don't have a question, you've answered so many. I just wanted to say you are an awesome person. Thanks

Cheers
Pel

 

[uklaw]

AZLawyer (and the rest!),

How can Casey make money from "selling the rights to her story" to be made into a movie? What right is she actually selling?

Surely any movie producer could make a movie about the life of Casey Anthony without having to pay her? What right does a person have to prohibit people making a documentary in the form of a film (or a film based upon her life) unless they pay her. I can't see anything like copyright and it's not as though a movie about her life is being used to endorse another product. I just don't get it.

People made a movie about Ted Bundy without paying money to his estate, then there is the film about the Queen of England, Margaret Thatcher ("The Irony Lady"), George W. Bush, Ronald + Nancy Reagan ("The Reagans"). Countless documentaries have been made about Darlie Routier, news stories are published every day about people. None of these people are paid for this or entitled to demand that they be paid.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer (and the rest!),

How can Casey make money from "selling the rights to her story" to be made into a movie? What right is she actually selling?

Surely any movie producer could make a movie about the life of Casey Anthony without having to pay her? What right does a person have to prohibit people making a documentary in the form of a film (or a film based upon her life) unless they pay her. I can't see anything like copyright and it's not as though a movie about her life is being used to endorse another product. I just don't get it.

People made a movie about Ted Bundy without paying money to his estate, then there is the film about the Queen of England. Countless documentaries have been made about Darlie Routier, news stories are published every day about people. None of these people are paid for this or entitled to demand that they be paid.

You are absolutely correct. The only thing she has to sell is the right to her "true" story, if she should choose one day to tell it.

 

[uklaw]

You are absolutely correct. The only thing she has to sell is the right to her "true" story, if she should choose one day to tell it.

OK next obvious question, why on earth are literary agents (who I assume know there business) going around saying that KC can go and sell her rights to a movie deal?

If you don't know, please just say, I won't blame you.

LOL

 

[AZlawyer]

OK next obvious question, why on earth are literary agents (who I assume know there business) going around saying that KC can go and sell her rights to a movie deal?

If you don't know, please just say, I won't blame you.

LOL

I assume they are thinking she would be selling the rights to "Casey's True Story"--i.e., the story she would not tell until and unless she signs the contract.

BUT I heard ZG's lawyers just noticed Casey's deposition in the civil case. She can't take the 5th anymore, and I'm thinking ZG's lawyers will not be interested in any settlement offers until they get that deposition done, forcing Casey to tell the story under oath and without compensation. :twocents:

 

[uklaw]

I assume they are thinking she would be selling the rights to "Casey's True Story"--i.e., the story she would not tell until and unless she signs the contract.

BUT I heard ZG's lawyers just noticed Casey's deposition in the civil case. She can't take the 5th anymore, and I'm thinking ZG's lawyers will not be interested in any settlement offers until they get that deposition done, forcing Casey to tell the story under oath and without compensation. :twocents:

Yeah, I posted about that in another thread. I wasn't sure what would be in it for ZFG's attorney's to "force" her to tell her true story. The TH's were also saying she could admit liability and argue that damages were minimal/

 

[AZlawyer]

Yeah, I posted about that in another thread. I wasn't sure what would be in it for ZFG's attorney's to "force" her to tell her true story. The TH's were also saying she could admit liability and argue that damages were minimal/

What would be in it for ZG's attorneys (her name is not ZFG--that's the fake nanny's name) is that they would be famous. They have noticed this out as a video deposition, so it will be released and replayed millions of times on the internet.

She can admit liability and argue that the damages are minimal, but IMO she's still gonna have to get through that depo first. Plus I don't see the point of admitting liability. ZG's case is bad on liability and damages.

 

[gmt]

AZLawyer thanks again for the answers,not what I wanted to hear, but love getting the facts first hand. TA

 

[uklaw]

What would be in it for ZG's attorneys (her name is not ZFG--that's the fake nanny's name) is that they would be famous. They have noticed this out as a video deposition, so it will be released and replayed millions of times on the internet.

She can admit liability and argue that the damages are minimal, but IMO she's still gonna have to get through that depo first. Plus I don't see the point of admitting liability. ZG's case is bad on liability and damages.

Legally, no point at all. But from the point of protecting value of her "real" story (the "If I Did It" re-run), it would be huge. The only thing I can see if her actual damages may be small but a civil jury may be well minded to award substantial punitives.

 

[AZlawyer]

Legally, no point at all. But from the point of protecting value of her "real" story (the "If I Did It" re-run), it would be huge. The only thing I can see if her actual damages may be small but a civil jury may be well minded to award substantial punitives.

Only if she could avoid the depo by admitting liability. Which I doubt she can. There's no real procedure in AZ, at least, whereby you could do that.

Civil juries can no longer give giant punitive damages awards when the actual damages are tiny (or nonexistent), per the US Supreme Court.

 

[uklaw]

Only if she could avoid the depo by admitting liability. Which I doubt she can. There's no real procedure in AZ, at least, whereby you could do that.

Civil juries can no longer give giant punitive damages awards when the actual damages are tiny (or nonexistent), per the US Supreme Court.

BMW v. Al-Gore?

 

[AZlawyer]

BMW v. Al-Gore?

Yes, and then more specifically in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).

 

[ZsaZsa]

What would be in it for ZG's attorneys (her name is not ZFG--that's the fake nanny's name) is that they would be famous. They have noticed this out as a video deposition, so it will be released and replayed millions of times on the internet.

She can admit liability and argue that the damages are minimal, but IMO she's still gonna have to get through that depo first. Plus I don't see the point of admitting liability. ZG's case is bad on liability and damages.

Bad as in bad for ICA or bad for ZG?

 

[Kenziema]

I've heard people say that if this had not been a death penalty trial they could have convicted her. Is there any truth to that (being that murder 1 and 2 were both options)?

 

[oreo]

The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)

Title XXIX
PUBLIC HEALTH

Chapter 406
MEDICAL EXAMINERS; DISPOSITION OF DEAD BODIES

View Entire Chapter
406.12 Duty to report; prohibited acts.—It is the duty of any person in the district where a death occurs, including all municipalities and unincorporated and federal areas, who becomes aware of the death of any person occurring under the circumstances described in s. 406.11 to report such death and circumstances forthwith to the district medical examiner. Any person who knowingly fails or refuses to report such death and circumstances, who refuses to make available prior medical or other information pertinent to the death investigation, or who, without an order from the office of the district medical examiner, willfully touches, removes, or disturbs the body, clothing, or any article upon or near the body, with the intent to alter the evidence or circumstances surrounding the death, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 7, ch. 70-232; s. 353, ch. 71-136.
This is the only thing I can find in FL statutes about reporting a death.

 

[gngr~snap]

I have a question. Casey gave police the name ZFG,but when shown a pitcure of her she said no that is not her. Casey was in jaili. Her mom was the one hot footing it all over the place defaming this woman.
Can't ZFG get em both?