Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[butwhatif?]

Following on from my previous question: "Is it normal procedure to be focusing/working on mitigating factors before a trial has even started?"

.... And your answer was a very clear yes, is that because defence and mitigating factors are often closely related?

Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Can Casey write a statement detailing the abuse allegations against George and Lee and have that used in the trial as evidence of sexual abuse in mitigation, or can Baez simply speak for her?

 

[AZlawyer]

Following on from my previous question: "Is it normal procedure to be focusing/working on mitigating factors before a trial has even started?"

.... And your answer was a very clear yes, is that because defence and mitigating factors are often closely related?

Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions.

It is more because it would be malpractice to assume you are going to win the guilt phase of the trial and not prepare for the penalty phase.

Can Casey write a statement detailing the abuse allegations against George and Lee and have that used in the trial as evidence of sexual abuse in mitigation, or can Baez simply speak for her?

The evidence rules don't strictly apply in the penalty phase, but I don't see why she would be allowed to get away with this rather than presenting witness testimony in the normal way. All the people involved are alive and available to testify.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

It is more because it would be malpractice to assume you are going to win the guilt phase of the trial and not prepare for the penalty phase.



The evidence rules don't strictly apply in the penalty phase, but I don't see why she would be allowed to get away with this rather than presenting witness testimony in the normal way. All the people involved are alive and available to testify.

Thanks...so there's no way they can bring in a detailed story from Casey without her being cross examined then?

 

[Katprint]

The evidence rules don't strictly apply in the penalty phase, but I don't see why she would be allowed to get away with this rather than presenting witness testimony in the normal way. All the people involved are alive and available to testify.

I agree. Additionally, I question whether Casey's stories about being physically/sexually abused by George and Lee would be particularly helpful for mitigation in the penalty phase. Casey chose to stay in the family home after she became an adult and further chose to subject her own daughter to the risk of whatever bad treatment Casey had suffered. If the allegations are true, the failure to take reasonable steps to protect her daughter - say, by actually getting a job so she could move out - would be reprehensible. If the allegations are false, that's just as bad. I'm just not seeing much mitigation there.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I agree. Additionally, I question whether Casey's stories about being physically/sexually abused by George and Lee would be particularly helpful for mitigation in the penalty phase. Casey chose to stay in the family home after she became an adult and further chose to subject her own daughter to the risk of whatever bad treatment Casey had suffered. If the allegations are true, the failure to take reasonable steps to protect her daughter - say, by actually getting a job so she could move out - would be reprehensible. If the allegations are false, that's just as bad. I'm just not seeing much mitigation there.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

That it great news....so she can't bring in any more made up stories about it (my opinion, but hey) and even if she could its not going to help her. BRILLIANT. Thank you!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

What if GA, CA, or Lee decide to testify that they killed Caylee?

 

[butterfly1978]

AZLawyer.... I have been trying to figure this out but I have not a clue as to what the defense's defense actually might be.. Having been in this profession what do you think their defense is going to be, stick with the nanny story, SODDI, or just put up no other defense other than try to create resonable doubt by confusing the jury? Or do you think they are going to try something else?

Also how does the SA prepare to counter the defense if they do not know what the defense will use as a defense? In other words if the defense is going to say John Smith did it with the candlestick in the library, how can the SA prove he wasn't even in the library at the time if the defense doesn't have to give up their defense til trial?

 

[Katprint]

What if GA, CA, or Lee decide to testify that they killed Caylee?

Witnesses can't just walk up to the witness stand, sit themselves down and start talking about whatever they like. Either they could let Baez know they were willing to testify that they killed Caylee so that Baez could call them as a witness and ask them whether they killed Caylee, or they could work their having killed Caylee into their testimony answers when they are called as witnesses by the prosecution.

Then, regardless whether Casey is acquitted, they could be prosecuted for murder. Their testimony under oath that they killed Caylee would be treated as a voluntary confession. If they recanted during their murder trial and claimed that they had merely perjured themselves, they could be prosecuted for perjury. Either their false testimony that they killed Caylee would have been criminal perjury or their sworn repudiation of their true testimony that they killed Caylee would have been criminal perjury.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

What if GA, CA, or Lee decide to testify that they killed Caylee?

Read back a couple of pages--we just covered that one a few days ago.

AZLawyer.... I have been trying to figure this out but I have not a clue as to what the defense's defense actually might be.. Having been in this profession what do you think their defense is going to be, stick with the nanny story, SODDI, or just put up no other defense other than try to create resonable doubt by confusing the jury? Or do you think they are going to try something else?

Also how does the SA prepare to counter the defense if they do not know what the defense will use as a defense? In other words if the defense is going to say John Smith did it with the candlestick in the library, how can the SA prove he wasn't even in the library at the time if the defense doesn't have to give up their defense til trial?

I'm not convinced that the defense team has settled on a trial strategy yet. So far, I think the top contender is "Casey really did leave Caylee with someone, but was/is terrified for some reason to tell the whole truth about that, and while Casey was in jail someone killed Caylee and dumped her near the house." But they are still poking around trying to find a better story.

The defense has to disclose all the exhibits and witnesses they will use at trial, and the state has the opportunity to interview and/or depose those witnesses. Once you have all that information, it is not usually too hard to figure out what the other side is going to say in argument.

 

[Paintr]

Read back a couple of pages--we just covered that one a few days ago.



I'm not convinced that the defense team has settled on a trial strategy yet. So far, I think the top contender is "Casey really did leave Caylee with someone, but was/is terrified for some reason to tell the whole truth about that, and while Casey was in jail someone killed Caylee and dumped her near the house." But they are still poking around trying to find a better story.

The defense has to disclose all the exhibits and witnesses they will use at trial, and the state has the opportunity to interview and/or depose those witnesses. Once you have all that information, it is not usually too hard to figure out what the other side is going to say in argument.

Thank you kindly, AZlawyer. You answered this question before I even had to ask it. :dance:

Thank you kindly also to Butterfly who worded that question better than I would have.

 

[Paintr]

As I understand it Mark N filed this 'bad faith motion.' By doing so he is essentially saying that the defense wants the searchers records for reasons other than those stated by the defense? Is that correct?

The defense gets to file a motion to answer Mark N's motion. Then there will be a hearing in front of HHJP, who will decide which motion prevails.

Meanwhile HHJP has already granted (again) access to the documents to the defense. They can review the docs and take notes.

So what does Mark N's motion accomplish besides putting it on the record that the defense is being, in his opinion ...shall we say...a bit less than honest? What is Mark N trying to do? If the defense has already gathered the information on the searchers, it's too late for Mark N's motion to protect the searchers.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I haven't read back so if this has been asked and answered, please forgive my ignorance...

Where is the reciprocal discovery?

I'm dying to see what the defense has done, so far...since they've taken some depos in the past few weeks, don't they have to file them with the court and give them to the SA's???


Justice for Caylee

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I have a question that I'm sure has been asked and answered. When KC goes to trial on the current charges, it is an all or nothing thing? Does a NG verdict on the murder charges let her off? Or are there other pending charges that could convict her for some jail time? Also, can the jury find guilty, but not impose the death penalty, or would that be just like a NG verdict???? If the state is seeking the death penalty, and it is not imposed by the judge/jury, would it convert to LWOP?

 

[AZlawyer]

As I understand it Mark N filed this 'bad faith motion.' By doing so he is essentially saying that the defense wants the searchers records for reasons other than those stated by the defense? Is that correct?

The defense gets to file a motion to answer Mark N's motion. Then there will be a hearing in front of HHJP, who will decide which motion prevails.

Meanwhile HHJP has already granted (again) access to the documents to the defense. They can review the docs and take notes.

So what does Mark N's motion accomplish besides putting it on the record that the defense is being, in his opinion ...shall we say...a bit less than honest? What is Mark N trying to do? If the defense has already gathered the information on the searchers, it's too late for Mark N's motion to protect the searchers.

I'm assuming MN is asking for sanctions (money). It appears that MN agreed to the doc review procedure at the sidebar conference, so he can't be asking for that to be changed.

I haven't read back so if this has been asked and answered, please forgive my ignorance...

Where is the reciprocal discovery?

I'm dying to see what the defense has done, so far...since they've taken some depos in the past few weeks, don't they have to file them with the court and give them to the SA's???


Justice for Caylee

The defense has to turn over evidence it will use at trial and certain other categories of documents to the SA, although the disclosure obligations of the defense are less than the obligations of the state.

If the defense takes a depo of a witness, the SA is invited to the depo and can order his/her own transcript from the court reporter, so there is no requirement for the defense to give a transcript to the SA. If the SA doesn't order a transcript, we will likely never see it. If the SA does order a transcript, AND the media has made an appropriate public records request that covers that document, we should see it eventually.

Depo transcripts are not filed with the court unless they are expected to be used during a hearing or trial.

I have a question that I'm sure has been asked and answered. When KC goes to trial on the current charges, it is an all or nothing thing? Does a NG verdict on the murder charges let her off? Or are there other pending charges that could convict her for some jail time? Also, can the jury find guilty, but not impose the death penalty, or would that be just like a NG verdict???? If the state is seeking the death penalty, and it is not imposed by the judge/jury, would it convert to LWOP?

There are other charges--IIRC manslaughter, child abuse and lying to LE. The trial will take place in 2 stages: (1) the guilt phase--guilty or not guilty on each count, (2) the sentencing phase--if guilty, what should the sentence be? If the jury finds KC guilty of first-degree murder, they will then make a recommendation to the judge whether KC should get LWOP or the death penalty. The judge will then decide whether to accept the jury's recommendation.

 

[Paintr]

I'm assuming MN is asking for sanctions (money). It appears that MN agreed to the doc review procedure at the sidebar conference, so he can't be asking for that to be changed.



The defense has to turn over evidence it will use at trial and certain other categories of documents to the SA, although the disclosure obligations of the defense are less than the obligations of the state.

If the defense takes a depo of a witness, the SA is invited to the depo and can order his/her own transcript from the court reporter, so there is no requirement for the defense to give a transcript to the SA. If the SA doesn't order a transcript, we will likely never see it. If the SA does order a transcript, AND the media has made an appropriate public records request that covers that document, we should see it eventually.

Depo transcripts are not filed with the court unless they are expected to be used during a hearing or trial.



There are other charges--IIRC manslaughter, child abuse and lying to LE. The trial will take place in 2 stages: (1) the guilt phase--guilty or not guilty on each count, (2) the sentencing phase--if guilty, what should the sentence be? If the jury finds KC guilty of first-degree murder, they will then make a recommendation to the judge whether KC should get LWOP or the death penalty. The judge will then decide whether to accept the jury's recommendation.

Thank you kindly, AZlawyer. One more quick question...

If MN is granted sanctions in the form of money, who pays those fines? Are they considered defense costs and paid for by Florida taxpayers or are they personal fines for the lawyer himself?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you kindly, AZlawyer. One more quick question...

If MN is granted sanctions in the form of money, who pays those fines? Are they considered defense costs and paid for by Florida taxpayers or are they personal fines for the lawyer himself?

It's a moot question, I guess, because I read the motion (in the news thread) and he is NOT asking for sanctions, but seems to be asking to deny the defense any further opportunity to review the documents. This is very confusing, because HHJP's order suggested that MN had agreed at sidebar to the additional doc review, complete with special master and note-taking. :waitasec:

 

[beach]

It's a moot question, I guess, because I read the motion (in the news thread) and he is NOT asking for sanctions, but seems to be asking to deny the defense any further opportunity to review the documents. This is very confusing, because HHJP's order suggested that MN had agreed at sidebar to the additional doc review, complete with special master and note-taking. :waitasec:

Maybe it is because NeJame added the portion quoting CM's remarks after the 6/21 presser using it to show "bad faith", since CM's own remarks directly contradict the basis for the entire defense motion???

No wonder we were all :waitasec:! lol

 

[AZlawyer]

Maybe it is because NeJame added the portion quoting CM's remarks after the 6/21 presser using it to show "bad faith", since CM's own remarks directly contradict the basis for the entire defense motion???

No wonder we were all :waitasec:! lol

Right, but MN knew about those remarks at the time he supposedly agreed to the new doc review session. I'm starting to think that HHJP's order regarding the doc review was a little inaccurate regarding what happened at the sidebar conference.

 

[beach]

Right, but MN knew about those remarks at the time he supposedly agreed to the new doc review session. I'm starting to think that HHJP's order regarding the doc review was a little inaccurate regarding what happened at the sidebar conference.

BBM

I agree. That was a pretty lengthy sidebar and I imagine it was a bit contentious at times. I agree that the Order doesn't seem to accurately reflect everything.