Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

This is my first time posting, but I am also confused about the flash disk JB submitted. It was reported that the defense turned over defense discovery evidence on a flash disk. But it seems to be mostly things copied from online sources according to Channel 2 news.

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/26597698/detail.html

It is reported that "various reports from media outlets, photos of law enforcement at the Suburban Drive crime scene, and nine unidentified photos labeled only with numbers."

I have followed this case from the beginning, lurking here as a guest until recently :crazy:
Now I am concerned that the trial may be delayed because the defense seems to have done even less than previously thought. Could this happen? Could Judge Perry require more of the defense than he is right now to ensure a trial that will not be overturned?

What else do you think the defense should be doing, in terms of coming up with affirmative evidence? Looking for Zanny, Jeff and Juliette? The real job of the defense in a case like this one is to attack the evidence presented by the State, not to come up with their own evidence.

If Casey wants a good defense, she should get her team to focus on preparing their experts and attacking the State's experts, not on running Google Image searches.

 

[Katprint]

Depends on what kind of "accident" you're talking about. A drowning accident would probably be negligence. A running-over-with-the-car accident might be nothing, if the child was supposed to be inside the house with another adult and unexpectedly learned to open the front door at that moment. An accidental death caused by placing duct tape on your child's mouth and/or administering chloroform to her would be murder.

Plus, once the "accident" has happened, the parent has a legal duty to act reasonably to obtain medical treatment for their child. So, if a parent found their child floating in the pool/bathtub or their child was hit by a car etc. then failing to call 9-1-1 for medical assistance could independently support a manslaughter or murder conviction because of the likelihood their child could have been revived if medical professionals had been summoned (instead of, say, placing the child in a trash bag.)

Furthermore, failing to call 9-1-1 is inconsistent with the death being an accident and is consistent with the death being intentional. It is circumstantial evidence of Casey's "state of mind" i.e. knowledge of guilt. The first thing a "panicked" person would do, would be to call 9-1-1. That's what both Cindy and Casey did on other occasions when they "panicked."

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Depends on what kind of "accident" you're talking about. A drowning accident would probably be negligence. A running-over-with-the-car accident might be nothing, if the child was supposed to be inside the house with another adult and unexpectedly learned to open the front door at that moment. An accidental death caused by placing duct tape on your child's mouth and/or administering chloroform to her would be murder.

Thanks

I am talking about a drowning accident, or something like that.

If she let the child drown, while she was chatting with a boyfriend or someone, then tried to revive her, then made all the calls when she couldn't and then decided how much 'trouble' she would be in, and then covered it all up with the nanny story, including the duct-tape-kidnapping scenario...then what?

If she admitted to all that, including duct-taping her to make it look like a kidnapping, should the body ever be found, what would the charges be?

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Plus, once the "accident" has happened, the parent has a legal duty to act reasonably to obtain medical treatment for their child. So, if a parent found their child floating in the pool/bathtub or their child was hit by a car etc. then failing to call 9-1-1 for medical assistance could independently support a manslaughter or murder conviction because of the likelihood their child could have been revived if medical professionals had been summoned (instead of, say, placing the child in a trash bag.)

Furthermore, failing to call 9-1-1 is inconsistent with the death being an accident and is consistent with the death being intentional. It is circumstantial evidence of Casey's "state of mind" i.e. knowledge of guilt. The first thing a "panicked" person would do, would be to call 9-1-1. That's what both Cindy and Casey did on other occasions when they "panicked."

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

I agree...but all the phone calls still bother me. They might create resonable doubt, if 'accident' is the story she finally claims. Am I right?

And, remember, she was deathly-afraid of Cindy. I think, if it was an accident, the window of time during which she was trying to admit it might have been the hour or so she tried and tried to reach her parents. After that, she might have realized a cover-up would keep her out of said 'trouble.'

I don't know how this would be legally handled if she says it was an accident because of the odd phone calls.

 

[AZlawyer]

Plus, once the "accident" has happened, the parent has a legal duty to act reasonably to obtain medical treatment for their child. So, if a parent found their child floating in the pool/bathtub or their child was hit by a car etc. then failing to call 9-1-1 for medical assistance could independently support a manslaughter or murder conviction because of the likelihood their child could have been revived if medical professionals had been summoned (instead of, say, placing the child in a trash bag.)

Furthermore, failing to call 9-1-1 is inconsistent with the death being an accident and is consistent with the death being intentional. It is circumstantial evidence of Casey's "state of mind" i.e. knowledge of guilt. The first thing a "panicked" person would do, would be to call 9-1-1. That's what both Cindy and Casey did on other occasions when they "panicked."

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

I agree--thanks for the input!

Having some experience with the mentally ill, I always judge Casey by the standard of a reasonable NARCISSISTIC mother rather than a reasonable NORMAL mother lol. A narcissistic mother who found her child dead as a result of an "accident" might very well not call 911, based on the following narcissistic reasoning: the child is beyond medical help, therefore the only effect of calling 911 would be to upset the grandparents and disrupt the mother's life. Plus, although the narcissistic mother knows she did nothing wrong, other people will pester her with "what if" and "why" questions. No good results possible, only bad results, therefore no call. The narcissistic mother then walks away whistling to herself about the silver lining of this unfortunate event--her new unexpected "Bella Vita"--and thinking of herself as Mother of the Year for protecting her parents from the grief of losing their grandchild.

A normal mother would refuse to accept that the child was dead, regardless of the signs, and would call 911 immediately.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks

I am talking about a drowning accident, or something like that.

If she let the child drown, while she was chatting with a boyfriend or someone, then tried to revive her, then made all the calls when she couldn't and then decided how much 'trouble' she would be in, and then covered it all up with the nanny story, including the duct-tape-kidnapping scenario...then what?

If she admitted to all that, including duct-taping her to make it look like a kidnapping, should the body ever be found, what would the charges be?

Certainly negligence; possibly manslaughter or murder depending on whether the state thought they could prove that there was any "reviving" possible. The more she tried to prove lack of negligence ("I only left her alone for 3 minutes," "I could still hear her playing 30 seconds before I went out there," etc.), the more it would suggest that a prompt call to 911 was warranted and would have helped.

I agree...but all the phone calls still bother me. They might create resonable doubt, if 'accident' is the story she finally claims. Am I right?

And, remember, she was deathly-afraid of Cindy. I think, if it was an accident, the window of time during which she was trying to admit it might have been the hour or so she tried and tried to reach her parents. After that, she might have realized a cover-up would keep her out of said 'trouble.'

I don't know how this would be legally handled if she says it was an accident because of the odd phone calls.

I don't think the phone calls help much. First of all, there is nothing that unusual about Casey's call pattern that day. Here are some similar "flurry" times (calls from Casey apparently trying to reach Cindy), similar to June 16 around 4:10 pm and 6:30 pm: June 1 around 9:20 pm, June 5 around 1:30 pm, June 9 around 5:00 pm, June 18 around 12:30 pm, June 23 around 5:30 pm, June 24 around 2:50 pm, June 25 around 2:15 pm, and July 6 around noon.

Second, it just doesn't make sense. There was an accident and Caylee died, so I called my mom repeatedly in a panic, but I couldn't get hold of her so I called my boyfriend to see if he was up for a movie night and sex? ??? :waitasec:

 

[Paintr]

Just how strict are the JAC? So far,at least publically, they do not seem to be doing much to force the defense team to keep accurate records or to follow JAC guidlines. Are they working behind the scenes to account for dollars spent and just what those dollars are used for? What authority do they actually have?

Thank you kindly for all the questions that you answer so clearly and so patiently.:goldcrown:

 

[AZlawyer]

Just how strict are the JAC? So far,at least publically, they do not seem to be doing much to force the defense team to keep accurate records or to follow JAC guidlines. Are they working behind the scenes to account for dollars spent and just what those dollars are used for? What authority do they actually have?

Thank you kindly for all the questions that you answer so clearly and so patiently.:goldcrown:

I have no idea because I don't practice in Florida. But I agree that they don't seem too strict so far.

 

[Paintr]

I have no idea because I don't practice in Florida. But I agree that they don't seem too strict so far.

Awww! I was hoping that you would say something very reassuring and convince me that the JAC was not just a paper tiger. I am still waiting for someone to exert some control over this defense team.

 

[Katprint]

Having some experience with the mentally ill, I always judge Casey by the standard of a reasonable NARCISSISTIC mother rather than a reasonable NORMAL mother lol.

<respectfully snipped>

No doubt we've both seen a lot of narcissists sitting at defense counsel table as the Guest of Honor. Nevertheless, IMO the "reasonable person" - not the "reasonable narcissist" - would still be the appropriate standard.

Of course, this will almost certainly be a moot issue because all the circumstantial evidence of Casey's state-of-mind (computer usage reflecting possible premeditation, apparent celebrations afterwards, etc.) establishes a prima facie case for First Degree Murder. Casey would have to testify that she found Caylee already dead, and then deal with pointed cross-examination into how she knew Caylee was really, truly dead and why she didn't call 9-1-1 and why she put duct tape over Caylee's nose and mouth and why she put Caylee in a trash bag and a laundry hamper, and so forth. IMO there is no chance that Casey is going to testify.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[ynotdivein]

I see how silly it sounds, but it might be what happened...I have recently put myself on the fence after reading D. Fanning's book, oddly enough.

OK but... and this is a question for our lawyers... what do you do about the duct tape? Wrapped around her tiny skull, and of the same unusual brand found inside her family home? I mean, I know what the SA will do with that. But what on earth can the defense attys put up against that?

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

OK but... and this is a question for our lawyers... what do you do about the duct tape? Wrapped around her tiny skull, and of the same unusual brand found inside her family home? I mean, I know what the SA will do with that. But what on earth can the defense attys put up against that?

I think, like in the JonBenet case, it might have been a cover-up-in-a-panic type of thing. Of course, a crazy kidnapper would use duct tape. I think all she would have to do would be to admit she did it as a cover up after the fact. Maybe? Lawyers?

 

[Katprint]

I think, like in the JonBenet case, it might have been a cover-up-in-a-panic type of thing. Of course, a crazy kidnapper would use duct tape. I think all she would have to do would be to admit she did it as a cover up after the fact. Maybe? Lawyers?

1) Casey isn't going to testify because of the mountain of impeachment evidence the State would bury her with.

2) Even if Casey testified to that story, the jury doesn't have to believe her. The jury can draw the reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

OK but... and this is a question for our lawyers... what do you do about the duct tape? Wrapped around her tiny skull, and of the same unusual brand found inside her family home? I mean, I know what the SA will do with that. But what on earth can the defense attys put up against that?

1. The skull is not Caylee's skull.
2. And if it is Caylee's skull, there was no duct tape on it.
3. And if there was duct tape on it, it floated up to the skull during the hurricane.
4. And if it didn't float up, it didn't cover all the air holes.
5. And if it did cover the air holes, it was planted there.
6. And if it wasn't planted there, it was placed after death.
7. And if it wasn't placed after death, the duct tape was not from the A house.
8. And if it was from the A house, it was because someone broke in (or had a key) and took it.
9. And if they didn't break in and take it, then George did it.
10. Or Cindy.
11. Or Lee.

 

[JSR]

1. The skull is not Caylee's skull.
2. And if it is Caylee's skull, there was no duct tape on it.
3. And if there was duct tape on it, it floated up to the skull during the hurricane.
4. And if it didn't float up, it didn't cover all the air holes.
5. And if it did cover the air holes, it was planted there.
6. And if it wasn't planted there, it was placed after death.
7. And if it wasn't placed after death, the duct tape was not from the A house.
8. And if it was from the A house, it was because someone broke in (or had a key) and took it.
9. And if they didn't break in and take it, then George did it.
10. Or Cindy.
11. Or Lee.

AZ you sure you're not in on the Defense teams conference calls as a fly on the wall????
Their biggest hurdle (other than the 30 days) is that duct tape. If they can't get any of the above to fly in Court then there's no way they can save their client from first degree murder.

 

[ynotdivein]

1. The skull is not Caylee's skull.
2. And if it is Caylee's skull, there was no duct tape on it.
3. And if there was duct tape on it, it floated up to the skull during the hurricane.
4. And if it didn't float up, it didn't cover all the air holes.
5. And if it did cover the air holes, it was planted there.
6. And if it wasn't planted there, it was placed after death.
7. And if it wasn't placed after death, the duct tape was not from the A house.
8. And if it was from the A house, it was because someone broke in (or had a key) and took it.
9. And if they didn't break in and take it, then George did it.
10. Or Cindy.
11. Or Lee.

I think I am going to post this on my bulletin board. Succinct and reassuring!

 

[beach]

Could someone direct me to the Verified Atty. Q & A thread?


I scrolled up twice to make sure I was on the right thread. I just cleaned up 9 posts. :aktion1: If you're missing a post, it wasn't a question directed to an attorney.

Q & A thread here. Please take discussion to the appropriate thread.

 

[jon_burrows]

If Casey decides to fire Baez and CM the night before her trial starts, what happens? Is she allowed to fire them at any time and cause further delays?

 

[sumbunny]

Can the defense claim the expert witnesses that don't supply reports are defense consultants and not require reports?

Also, can Baez continue to ADD new expert witnesses even after the deadline?

 

[AZlawyer]

If Casey decides to fire Baez and CM the night before her trial starts, what happens? Is she allowed to fire them at any time and cause further delays?

In this case, if Finnell is death penalty-qualified (and I think she is), she might just get stuck with the whole thing. But if Casey tries to fire the whole team, I believe HHJP would have the right to inquire as to the reason, to ensure that Casey is not simply causing delay.

Can the defense claim the expert witnesses that don't supply reports are defense consultants and not require reports?

Also, can Baez continue to ADD new expert witnesses even after the deadline?

Yes, but then they can't testify. "Consultant" = "this guy I was going to hire as an expert witness until he told me he agreed with the other side."

I don't know what the deadline is/was. If he's adding new experts, HHJP will presumably require him to have a good reason for doing so--e.g., "we just got this report from the SA and realized we needed an expert to respond."

But "bear in mind" as HHJP would say that he is going to cut the defense some slack to make sure, to the extent possible, that Casey's rights are not affected by her attorneys' inadequacies (so any conviction will "stick" on appeal). JB and CM might "deserve" to lose the right to present certain evidence, etc., but Casey deserves (in the constitutional sense only) a full and competent defense. And the Florida taxpayers deserve to have this done right the first time.