Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[LolaMoon08]

Because the defense neglected to test for female DNA, that could have excluded (not likely) Casey Anthony from the scene, could this be an appeals issue?

For example, what if they did test for female DNA and they found no DNA at all. Although it wouldn't exactly exclude Casey from being the one to throw Caylee out into those woods... it would still show that there is no physical evidence (except the laundry bag, duct tape, Winnie the Pooh blanket, and the trash bags) tying Casey to the scene.

But because they purposely neglected to test for female DNA at all... it makes it look like the defense, and the defendent herself, knew that if any DNA were found, it would be Casey Anthony and Caylee Anthony's DNA only. It gives the appearance that they had something to hide by not testing for female DNA.

So later on, if and when Casey is found guilty, could she claim that by not testing for female DNA (ZFG) that it hurt her chances to prove her innocence?

 

[AZlawyer]

Because the defense neglected to test for female DNA, that could have excluded (not likely) Casey Anthony from the scene, could this be an appeals issue?

For example, what if they did test for female DNA and they found no DNA at all. Although it wouldn't exactly exclude Casey from being the one to throw Caylee out into those woods... it would still show that there is no physical evidence (except the laundry bag, duct tape, Winnie the Pooh blanket, and the trash bags) tying Casey to the scene.

But because they purposely neglected to test for female DNA at all... it makes it look like the defense, and the defendent herself, knew that if any DNA were found, it would be Casey Anthony and Caylee Anthony's DNA only. It gives the appearance that they had something to hide by not testing for female DNA.

So later on, if and when Casey is found guilty, could she claim that by not testing for female DNA (ZFG) that it hurt her chances to prove her innocence?

Since this was a decision made by the defense team, I assume you're asking about a potential "ineffective assistance of counsel" argument? I would say this argument has no chance of succeeding--the defense team reasonably concluded that testing for female DNA was too risky. Strategic decisions are generally not "second guessed" by appellate courts.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

As to the DNA issue. Since the defense didn't get what they wanted, wouldn't it be a good idea NOT to present that particular expert/test results in court?

It seems to me that if they put on a DNA expert who has nothing to support whatever theory they have, the SA could bring up that the defense didn't bother to test for female DNA.

 

[Sundance]

Anyone? Thanks.
Please move if I'm in the wrong area to ask this question. New here. "

Anyway-TIA

BBM: Welcome Janine!

 

[janine]

BBM: Welcome Janine!

Thank you- Good to be here, although been reading you all since this horrible thing broke the news, I've kept in the background hangin on every word typed. I am speechless at how sharp you all are. When things don't make sense, all I have to do is come to this site and you all make is clear as glass for me!

:wave:

 

[AZlawyer]

As to the DNA issue. Since the defense didn't get what they wanted, wouldn't it be a good idea NOT to present that particular expert/test results in court?

It seems to me that if they put on a DNA expert who has nothing to support whatever theory they have, the SA could bring up that the defense didn't bother to test for female DNA.

Yes, good point.

 

[Capri]

As to the DNA issue. Since the defense didn't get what they wanted, wouldn't it be a good idea NOT to present that particular expert/test results in court?

It seems to me that if they put on a DNA expert who has nothing to support whatever theory they have, the SA could bring up that the defense didn't bother to test for female DNA.

Legally speaking, what reason would they have had for even testing only male DNA, hoping for Kronk's or someone else? Now that they've got nothing, wasn't testing a bad move, strategically? Not only does it bring up the question in the jurors minds, of why they weren't worried about female DNA (ZFG, they claim is the kidnapper, and she's female, soooo.......?) I get it that they wouldn't want ICA's to show up, but was it worth that risk, from a legal perspective? Didn't they kind of show their hand on that one?

 

[AZlawyer]

Legally speaking, what reason would they have had for even testing only male DNA, hoping for Kronk's or someone else? Now that they've got nothing, wasn't testing a bad move, strategically? Not only does it bring up the question in the jurors minds, of why they weren't worried about female DNA (ZFG, they claim is the kidnapper, and she's female, soooo.......?) I get it that they wouldn't want ICA's to show up, but was it worth that risk, from a legal perspective? Didn't they kind of show their hand on that one?

IMO they tested only for male DNA because they knew the most likely result (if any) if they checked for all DNA would be that only Casey's and Caylee's DNA would be found. This would make it difficult to argue that Caylee's body was dumped just weeks before it was found in Dec 2008 by "the kidnappers."

As someone pointed out a couple of posts back, the defense is not going to use these results at trial, because they are not helpful. So the jury will never know that the defense didn't test for female DNA.

 

[strach304]

IMO they tested only for male DNA because they knew the most likely result (if any) if they checked for all DNA would be that only Casey's and Caylee's DNA would be found. This would make it difficult to argue that Caylee's body was dumped just weeks before it was found in Dec 2008 by "the kidnappers."

As someone pointed out a couple of posts back, the defense is not going to use these results at trial, because they are not helpful. So the jury will never know that the defense didn't test for female DNA.

Didn't the state test for dna as well? Surely they would be looking for Casey's?

 

[Katprint]

Didn't the state test for dna as well? Surely they would be looking for Casey's?

Finding Casey's DNA on Caylee's clothing or remains would not prove anything. Most parents hug, kiss, bathe, dress, carry and otherwise touch their child during the normal activities of caring for their child thus the child and their clothing could have their parents' DNA on them.

Similarly, I didn't see anything particularly problematic in several of Caylee's non-death-banded hairs being found in the trunk. Many parents including myself have used the carpeted flat surface of their car trunk as a convenient place to change their baby's diaper on-the-go. Nothing nefarious about a few loose hairs being shed from the baby's head during a diaper change.

Quite frankly, given the many places Casey dragged Caylee around, finding a stranger's DNA on Caylee or Caylee's clothing would not necessarily prove any stranger involvement in Caylee's death. Who knows who might have helpfully changed Caylee's diapers when Casey was otherwise occupied? Or who might have sat and played pat-a-cake games with Caylee or read stories to Caylee? Or who slept in a bed that Casey (and Caylee) later slept in as well? I pity anyone who was kind to Caylee - like Jesse Grund and his family - because they can expect to be thrown under the bus by the defense team if any forensic evidence linking them to Caylee is ever discovered.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[strach304]

Exactly Kat, so how could that be the reason the defense did not check for anything but male dna?

 

[Katprint]

Exactly Kat, so how could that be the reason the defense did not check for anything but male dna?

That is a mystery to me although I freely admit that many of the defense team's strategic decisions have been a mystery to me. I would have thought that if a strange female's DNA were found on Caylee then Casey could claim that THAT STRANGE FEMALE WAS ZANNY THE NANNY!!!

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

That is a mystery to me although I freely admit that many of the defense team's strategic decisions have been a mystery to me. I would have thought that if a strange female's DNA were found on Caylee then Casey could claim that THAT STRANGE FEMALE WAS ZANNY THE NANNY!!!

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Yes, but if only Caylee's and Casey's DNA were found, it would be tough to argue that the body was dumped by a stranger in approx. late November 2008. In that scenario, you would expect to find no DNA, just Caylee's DNA, Caylee's and the kidnapper's DNA, or, perhaps, in a wild fluke of DNA transfer and survival, Caylee's, the kidnapper's and Casey's DNA. But just Caylee's and Casey's DNA would suggest there was no intervening manipulation of the laundry bag by some other person after the last time Casey touched it.

IMO the defense knew that the only female DNA profiles that would be found on those items (if any) were Caylee's and Casey's. But they were praying that Kronk might have peed on the bag.

 

[biggirl]

Awww come on Katprint, you and me and kc knows there is no "Zanny". And you are right if kc actually had a Zanny then that would seem to be the DNA to go after.:maddening:

 

[AZlawyer]

Awww come on, you and me and kc knows there is no "Zanny". And you are right if kc actually had a Zanny then that would seem to be the DNA to go after.:maddening:

Exactly. IMO the jury will never know about this, but WS'ers now know that the defense team is 100% certain that the Zanny story is false.

 

[ynotdivein]

Hello again!

Reviewing the "Theories about what really happened to Caylee" thread #7 got me thinking again about the high levels of chloroform detected in the trunk, and spurred a question that sent me jogging over here...

If you were the SA, how much would you make of the higher-than-usual chloroform levels in the trunk, plus the computer searches for chloroform at the Anthony home? It seems there's a lot of circumstantial/anecdotal chloroform-related evidence, but is it even worth the SA pursuing it with so much else that they can weave into their presentation?

Thank you for your time and insights and patience!

 

[ClockWatcher]

"Kelley, who knew the Anthonys before the case erupted in July 2008, also said he drafted documents to help the Anthonys have Caylee's father sign over his parental rights. He did not know if those documents were ever filed, but was later told that the father signed the paperwork before he died, Kelley said during his October deposition. "

OMG!!! He drafted the documents for the father to terminate his parental rights?
Would the drafted documents be part of attorney/client privilege?
In the case of a missing child, no a murdered child, would the state be able to subpoena the documents?
How long would he have to keep a copy of the documents?
I want to see those documents!!

 

[jennyb]

I just wanted to bring this over ... comment by Expecting Unicorns. If it's not OK please delete.

Here's what George originally had to say about their dealings with Paul Kelly:

"GA: As a matter of fact Paul Kelly, just to give you an insight on him. We’ve known him since 1990 I believe. Somewhere around there. The only reason we know that because my wife used to work for the Jewett Orthopedic Clinic. Paul came in with something on his foot. I don’t know if it was some kind of infection or what. She got to know him. A few months after knowing him he shows up at our house one night. I got a little jealous. I’ll admit that completely. But he was here to purchase one of our
Cocker Spaniels that we had a litter. That’s how the thing started with this guy. He’s helped me with some worker’s comp things, I’ve got some knee issues and some other things that I’ve gotten injured.

Paul has been there for us. He’s been a confidant, a friend. But he’s never handled any other legal stuff except worker’s comp for us; that’s it. My wife and I when we separated back in 2005 because of issues with my daughter, some financial things we were going through. It was really tough. And I had to go down to South Florida because I, I couldn’t take it no more. I said, “That’s it. I’m not running away but I
got to get out of here before something really stupid…"

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library...hony072408.pdf

 

[ClockWatcher]

Well, who ya gonna believe jennyb? George "I'd do anything or say anything to save my daughter" or a licensed practicing attorney with a fairly good reputation?

Why would Kelley lie about drafting these documents?

I would really like to hear from the experts about A/C privilege and if the doc's would be subject to super awesome subpoena powers.

 

[logicalgirl]

Well, who ya gonna believe jennyb? George "I'd do anything or say anything to save my daughter" or a licensed practicing attorney with a fairly good reputation?

Why would Kelley lie about drafting these documents?

I would really like to hear from the experts about A/C privilege and if the doc's would be subject to super awesome subpoena powers.

I know we all want to know - but would this information actually be brought up at trial? I don't think so as I don't see the relevance but...... what do you think AzLawyer, would any information re Cayee's father be brought into trial as we have no information he was at all involved in the crime?