Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[Hot Dogs]

We just saw the consequences of a man in court flipping the bird to Jeff Ashton. He was arrested, sentenced to jail time and fined.

It was announced that such an action could have resulted in a mistrial if the jury had seen this happen. A mistrial meaning that the trial would have to be started all over again with a new jury and tremendous additional expense to the taxpayers of Florida (I've heard $500,000+).

My question is: What is the logical explanation for why such a simple (but unlawful indeed) offensive gesture should result in a complete mistrial? I'm not asking about all possible outbursts or kinds of court contempt by the audience, but rather this specific one. I cannot imagine that the jury or any single member would regard this event as one that would affect their ability to continue to serve properly in this case. I would hope that the taxpayers of Florida would be outraged that such a simple (yet inexcusable) event would or could cause a mistrial at their expense.

 

[uklaw]

We just saw the consequences of a man in court flipping the bird to Jeff Ashton. He was arrested, sentenced to jail time and fined.

It was announced that such an action could have resulted in a mistrial if the jury had seen this happen. A mistrial meaning that the trial would have to be started all over again with a new jury and tremendous additional expense to the taxpayers of Florida (I've heard $500,000+).

My question is: What is the logical explanation for why such a simple (but unlawful indeed) offensive gesture should result in a complete mistrial? I'm not asking about all possible outbursts or kinds of court contempt by the audience, but rather this specific one. I cannot imagine that the jury or any single member would regard this event as one that would affect their ability to continue to serve properly in this case. I would hope that the taxpayers of Florida would be outraged that such a simple (yet inexcusable) event would or could cause a mistrial at their expense.

I would ask the same question with one addendum: Assuming the State of Florida did not want a mistrial.

I could see (arguably) why the State of Florida might have been entitled to a mistrial but don't see how a mistrial could be granted over their objection for the "bird flipping" incident.

 

[AZlawyer]

How will the appeals process work in this case? Meaning if the jury comes back with, say 1st degree murder or whatever will ICA immediately go to prison and then the appeals process begins? How long would that even take? I'm not for ICA getting out, I'm just curious how it works. Thanks

Yes, she should go to prison pending appeal. If there is a death sentence, the appeal process will take years.

We just saw the consequences of a man in court flipping the bird to Jeff Ashton. He was arrested, sentenced to jail time and fined.

It was announced that such an action could have resulted in a mistrial if the jury had seen this happen. A mistrial meaning that the trial would have to be started all over again with a new jury and tremendous additional expense to the taxpayers of Florida (I've heard $500,000+).

My question is: What is the logical explanation for why such a simple (but unlawful indeed) offensive gesture should result in a complete mistrial? I'm not asking about all possible outbursts or kinds of court contempt by the audience, but rather this specific one. I cannot imagine that the jury or any single member would regard this event as one that would affect their ability to continue to serve properly in this case. I would hope that the taxpayers of Florida would be outraged that such a simple (yet inexcusable) event would or could cause a mistrial at their expense.

I would ask the same question with one addendum: Assuming the State of Florida did not want a mistrial.

I could see (arguably) why the State of Florida might have been entitled to a mistrial but don't see how a mistrial could be granted over their objection for the "bird flipping" incident.

I agree that only the State could reasonably have requested a mistrial based on that incident. However, I don't think HHJP would ever grant a mistrial for such a minor occurrence. IMO he was just trying to impress upon the young man the seriousness with which HHJP views the violation of his orders. Possibly he was also sending a message to Jose, who still faces a potential contempt hearing after the conclusion of the trial.

 

[Macushla]

While my question is not relevant since HHJP is not going to let the can be opened by the jurors, I was wondering something. If 11 of the jurors wanted to 'sniff' and 1 didn't, what do you think would have been done? If that one juror refused to participate, would that be reason to remove that one juror and bring in an alternate?

Like numerous other posters have said, before the insanity of hearing a verdict hits these threads I would also like to thank all our legal minds for the hours and hours they have spent educating us and helping us find our with through the labyrinth that is our legal system.:gthanks:

Oh one last thing, when I get my bill for all the legal advice you have given me here on the threads, can I make payments? I am pretty sure I will not be able to pay the whole bill at once - it has been three years!

 

[manorlady]

Does Casey's decision not to testify tend to indicate that she thinks her case is strong enough without it, or the reverse?

 

[ijam]

Krystal/River was on HLN and stated she had watched GA's testimony about her...which was the day before she was on the stand....I thought witnesses were not allowed to watch testimony prior to their own..

 

[AZlawyer]

While my question is not relevant since HHJP is not going to let the can be opened by the jurors, I was wondering something. If 11 of the jurors wanted to 'sniff' and 1 didn't, what do you think would have been done? If that one juror refused to participate, would that be reason to remove that one juror and bring in an alternate?

Like numerous other posters have said, before the insanity of hearing a verdict hits these threads I would also like to thank all our legal minds for the hours and hours they have spent educating us and helping us find our with through the labyrinth that is our legal system.:gthanks:

Oh one last thing, when I get my bill for all the legal advice you have given me here on the threads, can I make payments? I am pretty sure I will not be able to pay the whole bill at once - it has been three years!

The jurors are not forced to look at each item of evidence during deliberations. No one would have checked or cared whether one or all of the jurors actually sniffed the can back in the jury room. But, as you said, the question is now moot.

No need to worry about the bills. As Chezhire said when he/she posted here, "I am a lawyer, but I am not YOUR lawyer."

Does Casey's decision not to testify tend to indicate that she thinks her case is strong enough without it, or the reverse?

It means her lawyers (CM) have finally talked some sense into her little narcissistic head. Her failure to testify is bad for the defense, because now the opening statement is just hanging out there, and when HHJP tells the jury "the opening statements of the lawyers are not evidence," it will go *POOF*. But if she had testified, it would have been worse for the defense, because she would have been unable to behave like a grieving mother filled with remorse for lying about what really happened to her precious baby, and would have been impeached up the wazoo.

So it was a lose-lose situation due to JB's opening statement. They talked Casey into the least bad option.

Krystal/River was on HLN and stated she had watched GA's testimony about her...which was the day before she was on the stand....I thought witnesses were not allowed to watch testimony prior to their own..

You're right. But no one on the state's team seems to be worrying about it too much. Probably they are worrying about closing arguments, crafting jury instructions and verdict forms that will survive appeal, avoiding any last-minute mistrials, etc.

 

[beachbumming]

Does Casey's decision not to testify tend to indicate that she thinks her case is strong enough without it, or the reverse?

I'm guessing they think there is enough evidence for the jury to come back with something less than 1st degree murder. If she testified she probably would have increased her changes of getting the DP.

 

[MOMto5]

Sorry if this has been covered, I glanced back a few pages but couldn't find what I was looking for. Today the judge mentioned something about a scenario with the possibility of CA taking the 5th if asked during rebuttal about her time cards. Did I understand him right, that if this were to happen her entire testimony during the trial would be stricken and could not be considered by the jury? Does this mean that if she purposely lied about her time cards but takes the fifth about the matter on the stand in rebuttal or surrebuttal , everything else that she has testified to in the trial will be stricken? TIA. (This scenario is causing me much grief.)

 

[donnam]

I have heard a quick verdict is usually in favor of the prosecution. Is that basically true in your experience. TIA

 

[azscr4mbl3r]

Interesting.. Three people incurred the wrath of HHJP. Mentally challenged lady, Jose Baez, the "child" with the bird. All got close to the same fine $$$. The girl and the boy got jail time. Jose did not. I know there is more coming. I also see where HHJP took circumstances into consideration. If an officer of the court is in contempt isn't it a far greater breach than some spectator? I think he set the two kids a message loud and clear. I think he also sent JB a message loud and clear that being nothing is really going to happen to you of any consequence. So what do you think he should get and what do you think he will get? After the trail ends. I know this has been asked before but we seem to have more insight now. THANKS!!!!

 

[donnam]

Just thought of another question, sorry...
In your opinion do you think Baez has prepared her for the very REAL possiblity that she will be in prison for most if not all of the rest of her life. Or, are they still leading her to believe there will be an aquittal?

 

[LolaMoon08]

AZlawyer,

I always like to check in and get an update. Are you still of the opinion that Casey will be convicted of the lesser charges?

Do you think the testimony about the pet burials changes things? Or could it?

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry if this has been covered, I glanced back a few pages but couldn't find what I was looking for. Today the judge mentioned something about a scenario with the possibility of CA taking the 5th if asked during rebuttal about her time cards. Did I understand him right, that if this were to happen her entire testimony during the trial would be stricken and could not be considered by the jury? Does this mean that if she purposely lied about her time cards but takes the fifth about the matter on the stand in rebuttal or surrebuttal , everything else that she has testified to in the trial will be stricken? TIA. (This scenario is causing me much grief.)

I suppose if Cindy tried to take the 5th on something she already testified about, her entire testimony might be "tossed" if she continued to refuse to answer even after being directed to do so (because she has waived the right to take the 5th on this subject). I don't see this happening. Also, what would be the point of calling Cindy back? Just call the Gentiva people to say, yes, she was there.

I have heard a quick verdict is usually in favor of the prosecution. Is that basically true in your experience. TIA

No, not really.

Interesting.. Three people incurred the wrath of HHJP. Mentally challenged lady, Jose Baez, the "child" with the bird. All got close to the same fine $$$. The girl and the boy got jail time. Jose did not. I know there is more coming. I also see where HHJP took circumstances into consideration. If an officer of the court is in contempt isn't it a far greater breach than some spectator? I think he set the two kids a message loud and clear. I think he also sent JB a message loud and clear that being nothing is really going to happen to you of any consequence. So what do you think he should get and what do you think he will get? After the trail ends. I know this has been asked before but we seem to have more insight now. THANKS!!!!

There was also the potential juror during voir dire who spoke to the media to try to get out of jury duty.

The hearing has not been held yet re: Jose. HHJP told him he will deal with it when the trial is over. I think HHJP is sending Jose a message through "middle finger guy": "If this guy gets 6 days in jail, what do you think you'll get?"

I think HHJP is seriously peeved with JB. After a hearing, he might very well send him to jail for a little while and impose a fine.

Just thought of another question, sorry...
In your opinion do you think Baez has prepared her for the very REAL possiblity that she will be in prison for most if not all of the rest of her life. Or, are they still leading her to believe there will be an aquittal?

I don't think JB has prepared her, but I think CM probably has tried to do so.

AZlawyer,

I always like to check in and get an update. Are you still of the opinion that Casey will be convicted of the lesser charges?

Do you think the testimony about the pet burials changes things? Or could it?

I think a defense team of average talent could have defended her in such a way that the jury would have convicted her of manslaughter (an "accidental" death which was nevertheless Casey's fault, explaining the cover-up).

I think this defense team might have talked the jury into a murder conviction. The pet burial info coming right at the end leaves a bad series of pictures in the minds of the jurors: Casey wrapping up a dead something in a blanket, then garbage bags, tape being involved somewhere in the process, a shovel, the dead thing being set down on the ground in the back yard... All of this is still consistent with an accident theory, but they haven't been presented with an accident theory in which CASEY deals with the dead body, so they are likely to throw out the whole accident theory once they are convinced it was CASEY not George who handled the cover-up.

 

[Nova24]

If the State doesn't call CA back to the stand and they won't because Gentiva will get it done for them can the Def still call her? I do think lying about t/s also puts the whole ladder scenario in question as well. They will then know she lied to help daughter and possibly could have hurt her more.

Also, did JB admit to knowing CA lied on stand? Isn't that a huge issue with the Bar? Did judge say anything about it being reported, etc.

Thanks again lawyers!!

 

[MOMto5]

Many thanks, AZ

 

[AZlawyer]

If the State doesn't call CA back to the stand and they won't because Gentiva will get it done for them can the Def still call her? I do think lying about t/s also puts the whole ladder scenario in question as well. They will then know she lied to help daughter and possibly could have hurt her more.

Also, did JB admit to knowing CA lied on stand? Isn't that a huge issue with the Bar? Did judge say anything about it being reported, etc.

Thanks again lawyers!!

No, unless something very unusual happens the defense will not have a chance to call any more witnesses.

JB didn't QUITE admit to knowing Cindy was going to lie on the stand, IMO. The way I heard what he said (using my secret lawyer decoder ring) was: I told Cindy her time records showed she was at work and asked her to think of some reason her time records would be wrong (because I assumed she was telling the truth about doing the searches). She came up with a reason, and I wasn't about to question it.

 

[Nova24]

I'm sure he didn't want to know the real truth but I think he did his client a big disservice here. The mom being proven to lie something potentially very damaging isn't something you want the jury going out on.

I know jury can't hold not testifying against ICA but I do wonder if they were irked she didn't. Lots of questions. Family went up 1000x to the slaughter and I wonder if they will judge her for not opening her to the same exposure even though the scenario is clearly different. Do you think juries make defendants pay for not going on stand even when they shouldn't? TY.

 

[GeekyGirl]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6812400"]Has the defense created reasonable doubt? - Page 16 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

You do know that the jury is going to get evidence that was not actually discussed in the State's CIC?? An example off the top of my head is Casey's photobucket pictures. You know, like the one with the little girl looking up at a teddybear with the noose around it's neck? Saying something like "Why do people kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong" not verbatim of course. Something like that.

Is what this post says true?

 

[pferrin]

this is prolly a very stupid question... If Cindy's testimony is impeached..does it effect in any way all or any of the evidence that was introduced while she was testifying? would evidence stay part of the record ..and her testimony would be taken off the record..how does this work.? TIA ie 911 call jailhouse tapes