Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

Thankyou. From which direction will the trouble come? Jail officials or Florida Bar?

The Bar.

Here's my question after reading Mr. Hornsby's TV blurb.

Richard says he believes the information Casey gave about being abused by her brother and father is a HUGE BOMBSHELL and may save her life.

First let me say this before I ask my question.

Richard, Richard, Richard! Tsk, tsk.(Shakes head)

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
:croc::croc::croc:

Okay, here's my question. Do you really believe the jury would be such suckers as to believe this transparent drivel? I am so fed up with pulling the sexually abused defense out of the hat at the last minute.

(Let me acknowledge I truly believe real victims are traumatized by actual abuse, but am sickened when it is a last minute (victim)defense in a criminal defense as an obvious ploy for sympathy) Salacious - yes. Reality? Phttttewy.

I think the abuse stories could definitely be a big factor in a death penalty sentencing hearing. On the other hand, it will be tough to get Lee and George up on the stand to testify what a great girl Casey is (except for this one little murder thing) if they are simultaneously being accused of incestuous molestation. I think Casey will have to pick one: beg for mercy because she was molested, or beg for mercy because her family thinks she's a wonderful daughter, sister and mom.

AZLawyer, please tell me that if the letters were on JB's computer that computer forensics will tell the tale, pretty please!

Jose always brought in his laptop for 'records'
now if KC was using it and receiving emails etc,
can the courts take that computer from Baez?

Why would Baez even think of pulling fast ones with his client for fear of disbarment???

LOL that's true. Next question would be then. If it was proven that the letters or info being passed through JB did exist and were destroyed what kind of trouble could JB be in for the destruction of relevant case evidence?

I hope the SA pursues getting those letters, including through computer forensics if necessary. I'm sure JB would have a fit, though, about anyone going through his laptop, which is no doubt filled with privileged and work-product information. If JB turns over a bunch of letters and swears as an officer of the court that he has turned over all of them, the judge will probably not allow the SA to check the laptop. If JB says, "oh sorry I deleted those," the judge still can't let the SA loose on JB's laptop, but might appoint a special master to find the deleted letters if possible and to disclose just that information to the SA.

If the letters were really really destroyed and can't be resurrected, JB might get away with the destruction of evidence by insisting that there was nothing in them relating to the case--i.e., "Dear Casey, We miss you. We put some money in your account to show that we love you. Love, Mom." "Dear Mom, Thanks for the commissary money. I bought more cookies. BTW, on a different although related subject, thanks a lot for making me feel fat by bringing those stupid navy pants for the hearing. You must have shrunk them in the wash. Love, Casey." Then he would still be in trouble for passing letters, but possibly not for destruction of evidence. Assuming that the As kept their mouths shut.

 

[rhornsby]

Here's my question after reading Mr. Hornsby's TV blurb.

Richard says he believes the information Casey gave about being abused by her brother and father is a HUGE BOMBSHELL and may save her life.

First let me say this before I ask my question.

Richard, Richard, Richard! Tsk, tsk.(Shakes head)

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
:croc::croc::croc:

Okay, here's my question. Do you really believe the jury would be such suckers as to believe this transparent drivel? I am so fed up with pulling the sexually abused defense out of the hat at the last minute.

(Let me acknowledge I truly believe real victims are traumatized by actual abuse, but am sickened when it is a last minute (victim)defense in a criminal defense as an obvious ploy for sympathy) Salacious - yes. Reality? Phttttewy.

The bombshell was that the revelation was directly from her; as opposed to being from Jesse and the other friend who said she confided the same to them. Thus it wasn't a "last minute" ploy, rather it corroborates an accusation she made before Caylee ever went missing.

And the information would not be admissible in the guilt phase, rather it would be admissible in the sentencing phase as a "Mitigating Circumstance" - and yes, I believe a jury might believe it.

As for whether she is a true victim of "sexual abuse" as a child, I have handled more than enough sexual abuse cases to know there is no definition that allows you to determine who is a "true victim." It varies by person, circumstance, and the strength of the victim to "deal" openly with the offender.

 

[ZsaZsa]

The bombshell was that the revelation was directly from her; as opposed to being from Jesse and the other friend who said she confided the same to them. Thus it wasn't a "last minute" ploy, rather it corroborates an accusation she made before Caylee ever went missing.

And the information would not be admissible in the guilt phase, rather it would be admissible in the sentencing phase as a "Mitigating Circumstance" - and yes, I believe a jury might believe it.

As for whether she is a true victim of "sexual abuse" as a child, I have handled more than enough sexual abuse cases to know there is no definition that allows you to determine who is a "true victim." It varies by person, circumstance, and the strength of the victim to "deal" openly with the offender.

Knowing that almost everything she said every day was a lie, some of them outrageous, a lot involving her parents, how can you think this abuse story is true?
All of her friends and family know her for what she is, a relentless liar. I think once the SA demonstrates this a Jury will also see that.

 

[LambChop]

But wouldn't the SA's argument be, "But why Ms. Anthony did you leave your daughter with the very people you claim molested you?" Would KC have to answer that question in the sentencing phase?

 

[rhornsby]

But wouldn't the SA's argument be, "But why Ms. Anthony did you leave your daughter with the very people you claim molested you?" Would KC have to answer that question in the sentencing phase?

I suppose, but I highly doubt they would ask that question.

 

[MissJames]

AZLawyer,
We have seen or read LE interviews and depositions ,in which KC's friends have said KC lies a lot and everybody knows it.We have the job lie that went on for some time. Can the SA use any of this during sentencing to discredit KC,should the defense choose to use the molestation allegations? The Boy That Cries Wolf scenario. KC may have been molested,but she also lies a lot and can't really be believed ,IMO.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I suppose, but I highly doubt they would ask that question.

Why wouldn't they? It's a valid question.

 

[LambChop]

So you don't think that fact that KC has no credibility, continuously telling lies would not have a bearing on whether or not this information would be presented at the time of sentencing. It could backfire on her. What about a juror or two who may have been caught up in a custody battle for their children only to have a threat like this held over their head? Would that be the type of question that would be asked on a questionnaire for a juror?

 

[jon_burrows]

The bombshell was that the revelation was directly from her; as opposed to being from Jesse and the other friend who said she confided the same to them. Thus it wasn't a "last minute" ploy, rather it corroborates an accusation she made before Caylee ever went missing.

And the information would not be admissible in the guilt phase, rather it would be admissible in the sentencing phase as a "Mitigating Circumstance" - and yes, I believe a jury might believe it.

As for whether she is a true victim of "sexual abuse" as a child, I have handled more than enough sexual abuse cases to know there is no definition that allows you to determine who is a "true victim." It varies by person, circumstance, and the strength of the victim to "deal" openly with the offender.

What do you think is the biggest bombshell, the fact that she changed her story again regarding the circumstances surrounding Caylee's disappearance or the sexual abuse allegation?

 

[Omachka]

In listening to the news this evening on WFTV it was brought up that Robyn could have a credibility problem if she testified about these conversations where KC said what was found at the scene along with Caylee before it had been announced. If Robyn does testify and the defense tries to say the conversation didn't happen that was, wouldn't KC need to testify since she was the only other person there? If KC testifies about that, could the State then question her about the rest of the case as well? I'd pay admission to see that! :dance:

 

[logicalgirl]

The bombshell was that the revelation was directly from her; as opposed to being from Jesse and the other friend who said she confided the same to them. Thus it wasn't a "last minute" ploy, rather it corroborates an accusation she made before Caylee ever went missing.

And the information would not be admissible in the guilt phase, rather it would be admissible in the sentencing phase as a "Mitigating Circumstance" - and yes, I believe a jury might believe it.

As for whether she is a true victim of "sexual abuse" as a child, I have handled more than enough sexual abuse cases to know there is no definition that allows you to determine who is a "true victim." It varies by person, circumstance, and the strength of the victim to "deal" openly with the offender.

I don't recall any verifiable information about this abuse BEFORE Caylee went missing and I also suggest I stand and have stood a lot closer to a number of sexual abuse cases than you have with abuse that actually occurred.

I can appreciate that you believe her - and as a defense lawyer it is juicy, useful stuff. I don't believe her.

 

[butwhatif?]

Can the state force KC to have medical testing done to rule in/out seizure disorders?

Also KC claims to have seen a doctor of her own accord that nobody else knew about re: her 'abuse'.

If the doctor even exists could he/she come forward to say 'Yes she was a client of mine' (without divulging the details of her notes) or would that alone be violtating doc/pt privelige/confidentiality?

TIA

 

[Zoe Bogart]

The bombshell was that the revelation was directly from her; as opposed to being from Jesse and the other friend who said she confided the same to them. Thus it wasn't a "last minute" ploy, rather it corroborates an accusation she made before Caylee ever went missing.

And the information would not be admissible in the guilt phase, rather it would be admissible in the sentencing phase as a "Mitigating Circumstance" - and yes, I believe a jury might believe it.

<snip>

So, let me get this straight, the whole trial will center around Casey killing Caylee with Casey's lies are at the forefront why the jury should NOT believe what she says because she's told everyone lies for years. She had a job. There was no job. She told everyone Caylee had a babysitter. Then when the child "disappeared", 31 days later, Caylee claims the babysitter named ZFG took her. There is no ZFG and there hadn't been a babysitter for a long time. She lied about where she and Caylee were for an entire month. Casey told LE she worked at Universal and took them on a grand tour of the facility before admitting she didn't work there, that she LIED about it. She didn't tell her family she was pregnant until two months before Caylee was born. She's told friends and boyfriends she was sexually "molested" by her father and brother. They deny it. And the jury is supposed to believe THAT one thing is the TRUTH? Caylee was found with her face wrapped with duct tape, thrown into the woods like trash. And the jury is going to say, "Oh, let's spare this poor woman's life because she was abused by daddy and brother?"

I don't think the people of Florida are that stupid or that gullible.

The only bombshell with her statement is that she's told these lies for years and her parents still drag themselves to the courtroom only to be shunned by they pathological monster daughter who throws the whole family under the bus to save her own rotten, lying skin.

I'm not buying it and I'm not smoking it. I don't believe a jury will, either. :shakehead: Please tell you haven't encountered many juries who were.

Regarding the above question about Casey seeing a doctor sometime ago regarding the alleged "abuse", she could have easily gone to a doctor and lied, just to get back at her family for some reason. Wouldn't a doctor's records need to be "thorough", not just a visit once or twice to set the tale in motion?

 

[JBean]

Please let's all do the best we can to keep this as a Q&A for our verified legal professionals. thanks

 

[Hell's Belle]

In listening to the news this evening on WFTV it was brought up that Robyn could have a credibility problem if she testified about these conversations where KC said what was found at the scene along with Caylee before it had been announced. If Robyn does testify and the defense tries to say the conversation didn't happen that was, wouldn't KC need to testify since she was the only other person there? If KC testifies about that, could the State then question her about the rest of the case as well? I'd pay admission to see that! :dance:

No, that is circular reasoning. If the conversation didn't happen Casey wouldn't have been there either.

The defense can try to "impeach" the witness's testimony by a variety of means: introducing any prior inconsistent statements on the subject, introducing evidence of her felony convictions (adverse impact on credibility), showing bias against the witness motive to lie (attempting to trade testimony about Casey for a reduced sentence in her own case, attempting to cash in on the Anthony publicity gravy train), attempting to show lack of certainty by the witness as to the exact date, etc., etc. Cross-examination is a very specialized skill.

 

[faefrost]

The bombshell was that the revelation was directly from her; as opposed to being from Jesse and the other friend who said she confided the same to them. Thus it wasn't a "last minute" ploy, rather it corroborates an accusation she made before Caylee ever went missing.

And the information would not be admissible in the guilt phase, rather it would be admissible in the sentencing phase as a "Mitigating Circumstance" - and yes, I believe a jury might believe it.

As for whether she is a true victim of "sexual abuse" as a child, I have handled more than enough sexual abuse cases to know there is no definition that allows you to determine who is a "true victim." It varies by person, circumstance, and the strength of the victim to "deal" openly with the offender.

While I agree that even that claim of sexual abuse by a family member, or the perception that there simply is something not right mentally with the defendant will often be enough to sway a jury away from death and towards LWOP, I still think in this case it seems a dangerous ploy.

Doesn't that very fact that this claim is "in her own words" work against her? In order to bring this claim before the jury, even during the sentancing phase would she not have to take the stand herself? and therefore be subject to withering cross examination by the prosecutors, to at the very least undermine her credibility and expose the steady stream of lies she has dished out "in her own words" since that first recording with OSCO at universal? I thought that while the prosecutors could use her letters as evidence regardless as to whether she took the stand, the defense cannot, simply because they are considered heresay since she is available to testify and be cross examined live? Do I have that wrong?

And just based on her performance with OSCO, I can't see any set of circumstances where actually putting her on the stand makes her a sympathetic figure to the jury? is there some other way to get those abuse claims into evidence without her actually testifying?

 

[rhornsby]

While I agree that even that claim of sexual abuse by a family member, or the perception that there simply is something not right mentally with the defendant will often be enough to sway a jury away from death and towards LWOP, I still think in this case it seems a dangerous ploy.

Doesn't that very fact that this claim is "in her own words" work against her? In order to bring this claim before the jury, even during the sentancing phase would she not have to take the stand herself? and therefore be subject to withering cross examination by the prosecutors, to at the very least undermine her credibility and expose the steady stream of lies she has dished out "in her own words" since that first recording with OSCO at universal? I thought that while the prosecutors could use her letters as evidence regardless as to whether she took the stand, the defense cannot, simply because they are considered heresay since she is available to testify and be cross examined live? Do I have that wrong?

And just based on her performance with OSCO, I can't see any set of circumstances where actually putting her on the stand makes her a sympathetic figure to the jury? is there some other way to get those abuse claims into evidence without her actually testifying?

You are right, what was I thinking. Her attorneys should just advise her to plead guilty, give up all hope, and agree to the imposition of the death penalty.

 

[rhornsby]

So, let me get this straight, the whole trial will center around Casey killing Caylee with Casey's lies are at the forefront why the jury should NOT believe what she says because she's told everyone lies for years. She had a job. There was no job. She told everyone Caylee had a babysitter. Then when the child "disappeared", 31 days later, Caylee claims the babysitter named ZFG took her. There is no ZFG and there hadn't been a babysitter for a long time. She lied about where she and Caylee were for an entire month. Casey told LE she worked at Universal and took them on a grand tour of the facility before admitting she didn't work there, that she LIED about it. She didn't tell her family she was pregnant until two months before Caylee was born. She's told friends and boyfriends she was sexually "molested" by her father and brother. They deny it. And the jury is supposed to believe THAT one thing is the TRUTH? Caylee was found with her face wrapped with duct tape, thrown into the woods like trash. And the jury is going to say, "Oh, let's spare this poor woman's life because she was abused by daddy and brother?"

I don't think the people of Florida are that stupid or that gullible.

The only bombshell with her statement is that she's told these lies for years and her parents still drag themselves to the courtroom only to be shunned by they pathological monster daughter who throws the whole family under the bus to save her own rotten, lying skin.

I'm not buying it and I'm not smoking it. I don't believe a jury will, either. :shakehead: Please tell you haven't encountered many juries who were.

Regarding the above question about Casey seeing a doctor sometime ago regarding the alleged "abuse", she could have easily gone to a doctor and lied, just to get back at her family for some reason. Wouldn't a doctor's records need to be "thorough", not just a visit once or twice to set the tale in motion?

Bump.

 

[rhornsby]

I don't recall any verifiable information about this abuse BEFORE Caylee went missing and I also suggest I stand and have stood a lot closer to a number of sexual abuse cases than you have with abuse that actually occurred.

I can appreciate that you believe her - and as a defense lawyer it is juicy, useful stuff. I don't believe her.

Bump, bump.

 

[LambChop]

If KC reported such abuse to her doctor would the doctor not be obligated by law to report it?