Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[AZlawyer]

am I correct in thinking that this brief will cite what the DT team believes to be material legal defects a la the judge's rulings?

Yes, for rulings relating to the lying counts. Which would include the ruling that Casey's statements were admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings.

 

[logicalgirl]

Soooo, no one has asked yet, but now that the record on appeal has been served, Casey has 30 days to file her brief with the appellate court. Should be a fun read!

I saw that and am looking forward to it. Are appeals briefs under the Sunshine Laws in Florida?

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

(not sure how to frame my question...)

What if any impact would or could this appeal have on her civil cases - ZG & TES (asking in light of Munyon's requiring FCA to answer two TES depo questions:

Admit that you did not observe or hear George Anthony call 911 at any time to report that he or you had discovered that Caylee Marie Anthony had drowned in the swimming poll at your parents' house on or about June 16, 2008.

Admit that you were aware in September 2008 and October 2008 that EquuSearch was conducting searches for your daughter, Caylee.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2012/january/370998?cmpid=twitter

 

[AZlawyer]

I saw that and am looking forward to it. Are appeals briefs under the Sunshine Laws in Florida?

They are public records and can be obtained easily from the court without the need for a Sunshine Law request.

(not sure how to frame my question...)

What if any impact would or could this appeal have on her civil cases - ZG & TES (asking in light of Munyon's requiring FCA to answer two TES depo questions:

Admit that you did not observe or hear George Anthony call 911 at any time to report that he or you had discovered that Caylee Marie Anthony had drowned in the swimming poll at your parents' house on or about June 16, 2008.

Admit that you were aware in September 2008 and October 2008 that EquuSearch was conducting searches for your daughter, Caylee.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2012/january/370998?cmpid=twitter

Well, once the appeal and any retrial (hopefully not) are really and truly DONE, then Casey won't be able to plead the 5th any more.

 

[Talina]

Soooo, no one has asked yet, but now that the record on appeal has been served, Casey has 30 days to file her brief with the appellate court. Should be a fun read!

What is the process after that? Does the prosecution file a response?

 

[NavySubMom]

Munyons Order:
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/casey-equusearch-judge-order.pdf

Plaintiff's Request for Admissions and Interrogatories
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/casey-equusearch-interrogatories.pdf

I am wondering how Question #5 in the INTERROGATORIES on p. 5
"State the name, address and telephone number of the biological father of your daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony"

how does the above question, per Judge Munyons Order, indicate that this question would "provide a link in the chain of evidence at any retrial of the conviction currently on appeal" with regard to FCA's assertion of her Fifth Amendment Privilege, since she disallowed it being asked of FCA.

As I recall, didn't Judge Perry rule that in regards to GA/LA, even though JB asked the questions which he was NOT alllowed to ask about Caylee's paternity, the questions were Objected by PT/Sustained by JP, but JB asked it anyway, about the FBI doing the DNA tests about who fathered Caylee.....

I am trying to figure out why this question is not allowed to be asked re: FCA's Fifth Amendent rights in the TES suit. what "link" in what "chain of evidence" would this question be referreing to?

Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

What is the process after that? Does the prosecution file a response?

Yes, they will have a certain number of days to file a response brief, but more than likely both sides will ask for extensions...seems to be par for the course in this case.

Munyons Order:
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/casey-equusearch-judge-order.pdf

Plaintiff's Request for Admissions and Interrogatories
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/casey-equusearch-interrogatories.pdf

I am wondering how Question #5 in the INTERROGATORIES on p. 5
"State the name, address and telephone number of the biological father of your daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony"

how does the above question, per Judge Munyons Order, indicate that this question would "provide a link in the chain of evidence at any retrial of the conviction currently on appeal" with regard to FCA's assertion of her Fifth Amendment Privilege, since she disallowed it being asked of FCA.

As I recall, didn't Judge Perry rule that in regards to GA/LA, even though JB asked the questions which he was NOT alllowed to ask about Caylee's paternity, the questions were Objected by PT/Sustained by JP, but JB asked it anyway, about the FBI doing the DNA tests about who fathered Caylee.....

I am trying to figure out why this question is not allowed to be asked re: FCA's Fifth Amendent rights in the TES suit. what "link" in what "chain of evidence" would this question be referreing to?

Thanks.

Good question. Let's see, what were the lies she was convicted on?

1. Universal Studios employment;
2. Left Caylee at Sawgrass with ZFG;
3. Told Jeffrey MICHAEL Hopkins (not the other Jeffrey Hopkins) and Juliette Lewis about the kidnapping;
4. Received a call from Caylee July 15, 2008 around noon.

I don't see how the identity of the father would have anything to do with any of this. I could certainly see sustaining an objection to this interrogatory on the grounds of RELEVANCE, but not on 5th Amendment grounds. But I have to assume, based on the order, that (during the closed-door meeting) (1) the TES lawyers somehow explained how the information would fit into their case, and then (2) Mason or his associate somehow explained how the information could be used to show that Casey intentionally lied about one of the four things listed above. :waitasec:

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

... in the above document, there is a numbered set of admissions AND a separate, numbered set of interrogatories - the judge's order references the number set that pertains to admissions (5 & 15) not the interrogatories (it is a bit confusing)

 

[Dells]

Yes, they will have a certain number of days to file a response brief, but more than likely both sides will ask for extensions...seems to be par for the course in this case.



Good question. Let's see, what were the lies she was convicted on?

1. Universal Studios employment;
2. Left Caylee at Sawgrass with ZFG;
3. Told Jeffrey MICHAEL Hopkins (not the other Jeffrey Hopkins) and Juliette Lewis about the kidnapping;
4. Received a call from Caylee July 15, 2008 around noon.

I don't see how the identity of the father would have anything to do with any of this. I could certainly see sustaining an objection to this interrogatory on the grounds of RELEVANCE, but not on 5th Amendment grounds. But I have to assume, based on the order, that (during the closed-door meeting) (1) the TES lawyers somehow explained how the information would fit into their case, and then (2) Mason or his associate somehow explained how the information could be used to show that Casey intentionally lied about one of the four things listed above. :waitasec:

Bolding by me....

TES nor their attorneys were invited to the closed door meeting. It was only casey's civil attorney, Charles Green, and casey's criminal attorneys, Cheney Mason and Lisabeth Fryer.

I do not understand why the judge is only ordering casey to answer these 2 questions. It appears, at least to me, that there are other questions on there that she could answer w/out it effecting her appeal.

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes, they will have a certain number of days to file a response brief, but more than likely both sides will ask for extensions...seems to be par for the course in this case.



Good question. Let's see, what were the lies she was convicted on?

1. Universal Studios employment;
2. Left Caylee at Sawgrass with ZFG;
3. Told Jeffrey MICHAEL Hopkins (not the other Jeffrey Hopkins) and Juliette Lewis about the kidnapping;
4. Received a call from Caylee July 15, 2008 around noon.

I don't see how the identity of the father would have anything to do with any of this. I could certainly see sustaining an objection to this interrogatory on the grounds of RELEVANCE, but not on 5th Amendment grounds. But I have to assume, based on the order, that (during the closed-door meeting) (1) the TES lawyers somehow explained how the information would fit into their case, and then (2) Mason or his associate somehow explained how the information could be used to show that Casey intentionally lied about one of the four things listed above. :waitasec:

AZLawyer, for the TES filing, Judge Munyon wanted two questions answered.

One - On the day Caylee drowned, and George found her - was she aware if George called or did she hear George call 911?

And Two - did she know TES was searching for Caylee in August and September.

I was amazed at how clever the questions were. She has to admit she knew Caylee was dead on June 16th and she can't avoid admitting she knew TES was searching for Caylee since she was in the house and about to pinpoint a map before Cindy stopped her.

So if she admits she knew Caylee was dead (without admitting her own guilt) and she knew TES was searching for Caylee (which no question she did and there's no room to say she didn't ask them to) then to me - there's TES's case.

What do you think? Am I even close?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer, for the TES filing, Judge Munyon wanted two questions answered.

One - On the day Caylee drowned, and George found her - was she aware if George called or did she hear George call 911?

And Two - did she know TES was searching for Caylee in August and September.

I was amazed at how clever the questions were. She has to admit she knew Caylee was dead on June 16th and she can't avoid admitting she knew TES was searching for Caylee since she was in the house and about to pinpoint a map before Cindy stopped her.

So if she admits she knew Caylee was dead (without admitting her own guilt) and she knew TES was searching for Caylee (which no question she did and there's no room to say she didn't ask them to) then to me - there's TES's case.

What do you think? Am I even close?

Answers to Requests for Admission are rarely so helpful. I expect she will have to admit that she knew TES was searching for Caylee, but will deny the statement about George calling 911.

The Request for Admission reads: "Admit that you did not observe or hear George Anthony call 911 at any time to report that he or you had discovered that Caylee Marie Anthony had drowned in the swimming pool at your parents' house on or about June 16, 2008." So a denial could mean that Caylee drowned but she didn't see George call 911...or that Caylee didn't drown at all but was kidnapped by ZFG so obviously George didn't call 911 about a drowning...or whatever.

 

[AZlawyer]

Bolding by me....

TES nor their attorneys were invited to the closed door meeting. It was only casey's civil attorney, Charles Green, and casey's criminal attorneys, Cheney Mason and Lisabeth Fryer.

I do not understand why the judge is only ordering casey to answer these 2 questions. It appears, at least to me, that there are other questions on there that she could answer w/out it effecting her appeal.

Well, I agree. And thanks for pointing out that TES's attorneys weren't there. That makes sense, since Mason would have to have revealed confidential information to the judge to get the ruling.

 

[logicalgirl]

Answers to Requests for Admission are rarely so helpful. I expect she will have to admit that she knew TES was searching for Caylee, but will deny the statement about George calling 911.

The Request for Admission reads: "Admit that you did not observe or hear George Anthony call 911 at any time to report that he or you had discovered that Caylee Marie Anthony had drowned in the swimming pool at your parents' house on or about June 16, 2008." So a denial could mean that Caylee drowned but she didn't see George call 911...or that Caylee didn't drown at all but was kidnapped by ZFG so obviously George didn't call 911 about a drowning...or whatever.

Interestingly, the question is fashioned in a kind of neat way because she can deny the 911, but the phrase when Caylee drowned is kind of slipped in there. So to me it's more about was Caylee dead and really has nothing to do with George and 911 except to not make her have to admit guilt in the murder - or erm - accident.

 

[AZlawyer]

Interestingly, the question is fashioned in a kind of neat way because she can deny the 911, but the phrase when Caylee drowned is kind of slipped in there. So to me it's more about was Caylee dead and really has nothing to do with George and 911 except to not make her have to admit guilt in the murder - or erm - accident.

Well, it might have been meant to do that, but it won't work, because she'll just deny the whole sentence. The sentence would be just as false if Caylee had been kidnapped.

 

[NavySubMom]

... in the above document, there is a numbered set of admissions AND a separate, numbered set of interrogatories - the judge's order references the number set that pertains to admissions (5 & 15) not the interrogatories (it is a bit confusing)

when I read the Order I see in the 2nd paragraph the Judge references "First Interrogatories number 4 & 5 specifically, that those are what Defendant's counsel provided a detailed explanation for FCA's assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights, and #5 is specifically about Caylee's paternity. So they explained something specific about that, IMO. and I was just wondering why that would apply to her lying appeal.

 

[AZlawyer]

when I read the Order I see in the 2nd paragraph the Judge references "First Interrogatories number 4 & 5 specifically, that those are what Defendant's counsel provided a detailed explanation for FCA's assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights, and #5 is specifically about Caylee's paternity. So they explained something specific about that, IMO. and I was just wondering why that would apply to her lying appeal.

Exactly. That's what we were talking about a few posts back, and it makes very little sense to me.

 

[logicalgirl]

Well, it might have been meant to do that, but it won't work, because she'll just deny the whole sentence. The sentence would be just as false if Caylee had been kidnapped.

I can see what you mean but to me that just proves she is more of a liar and puts the guilt for the murder back on her again instead of dumping on George at the trial. Yes, I know it was an OS but it was also referred to all the way through the trial.

So you are thinking she is going to deny Caylee was dead on June 16th by any one's hand? :waitasec: I just don't see the rationale behind that - how would a judge or a jury find in her favour if she admits she was lying once again?

 

[AZlawyer]

I can see what you mean but to me that just proves she is more of a liar and puts the guilt for the murder back on her again instead of dumping on George at the trial. Yes, I know it was an OS but it was also referred to all the way through the trial.

So you are thinking she is going to deny Caylee was dead on June 16th by any one's hand? :waitasec: I just don't see the rationale behind that - how would a judge or a jury find in her favour if she admits she was lying once again?

Assuming that the TES case gets as far as a trial--which is a big "if"--I suppose she could say that her psychological repression was still working in overdrive when TES was in town...

 

[logicalgirl]

Assuming that the TES case gets as far as a trial--which is a big "if"--I suppose she could say that her psychological repression was still working in overdrive when TES was in town...

:waitasec: You mean she didn't remember almost sitting down with Tim and almost putting an X on a spot for him until Cindy stopped her? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

She's a felon liar - she can make as many excuses as she likes by telling another lie but I don't think it will help at all - only make it worse for her situation. I don't see this case getting thrown out - do you? So that would mean settlements if it doesn't get to trial.

 

[Katprint]

Answers to Requests for Admission are rarely so helpful. I expect she will have to admit that she knew TES was searching for Caylee, but will deny the statement about George calling 911.

The Request for Admission reads: "Admit that you did not observe or hear George Anthony call 911 at any time to report that he or you had discovered that Caylee Marie Anthony had drowned in the swimming pool at your parents' house on or about June 16, 2008." So a denial could mean that Caylee drowned but she didn't see George call 911...or that Caylee didn't drown at all but was kidnapped by ZFG so obviously George didn't call 911 about a drowning...or whatever.

"Objection: Compound."

When the words "or" or "and" or "but" show up in an interrogatory or a request for admission or a deposition question, that is a sign that the question is probably compound and thus objectionable.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions