Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

Dcstew

New Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
They can only seek reimbursement for costs caused by the crimes for which she was convicted--lying to LE. They don't need to rely on any statements JB made, because they have the convictions. IMO they did not spend much time or money discovering that she lied about the specific things listed in the indictment--they figured out those lies in less than 24 hours--but HHJP seems disappointed in the result of the trial and might allow more costs than he normally would.

AZ I understand what your saying, bt LE didn't say it was a homicide until Nov. I believe. Yes, they knew she was lying, but it wasn't proven in court yet, so can't they charge her costs at least until Nov. 2008 or Caylees remains were found?
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
They can only seek reimbursement for costs caused by the crimes for which she was convicted--lying to LE. They don't need to rely on any statements JB made, because they have the convictions. IMO they did not spend much time or money discovering that she lied about the specific things listed in the indictment--they figured out those lies in less than 24 hours--but HHJP seems disappointed in the result of the trial and might allow more costs than he normally would.
AZ I understand what your saying, bt LE didn't say it was a homicide until Nov. I believe. Yes, they knew she was lying, but it wasn't proven in court yet, so can't they charge her costs at least until Nov. 2008 or Caylees remains were found?

IMO it would not technically be proper to charge her for costs related to investigating what happened to Caylee, rather than related to investigating the 4 specific lies listed in the indictment. The way it should be done is: (1) how much did it cost to figure out that Casey didn't work at Universal?, (2) how much did it cost to figure out that Casey didn't leave Caylee at Sawgrass apt. 210 with ZFG?, (3) how much did it cost to figure out that Jeffrey Michael Hopkins and Juliette Lewis were not former Universal employees in whom Casey had confided?, (4) how much did it cost to figure out that Casey didn't receive a call from Caylee on July 15, 2008 at noon?

IMO even considering that LE had to actually gather the evidence to prove these things, the total cost shouldn't be more than $1,000. But my understanding is that the State is going to try some extremely creative accounting, and HHJP might just be in the mood to buy it.
 

Whisper

New Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
(This thread is quite long so I didn't go through every question, please excuse me if my question has been asked previously)

This is hypothetical, of course but.. say the whole Anthony family had knowledge of what happened to Caylee.. and sometime in the future, something comes out, perhaps by Casey herself, since she believes she is safe due to double jeopardy, from any prosecution, and she says something to the fact that she did have knowledge and her parents took part in helping her plot a scheme to get out of trouble. My question to you is: Having knowing with what she was charged with already, could a totally different charge be brought up for a felony charge of conspiracy or accomplice to murder or even plotting to hide evidence or anything along those lines be charged to her? Is that separate charges from those that she was charged with and therefore seen different in the eyes of the law?

For instance.. if it 'was' an accident and she has information that 'someone' did the burial (if that's what they want to call it.. but never reported it, then conspired with her family to hide the facts surrounding that knowledge of evidence destroyed.. would that be a whole other charge and not double jeopardy? OR if she committed the murder herself *cough* which she cannot be charged with again.. but also conspired with others to hide evidence or purposely mislead and proof later comes out of those facts could charges be brought about separately on those basis? Just asking because they are totally separate charges than what she was charged with, or so I think :)

Also.. Just out of my own curiosity, why is it that if a court proceeding is about getting to the truth of the matter.. why is it that so much of the truth is withheld from being entered into the court for the jury to have full knowledge of what is going on? Shouldn't they get the full story then decide for themselves with all of the evidence, good and bad, based on everything, what is best? To get a full picture instead of bits and pieces of a puzzle, constantly stepping in and out and getting totally confused as to what they can and can't take in to consideration?

I've followed this case as much as possible since Caylee was missing and most people here know more than I do and what's pathetic is.. I know way more than any juror that sat in that courtroom.. I find that quite a shame.. they came out half clueless it seems, and it's hard to blame them for that, because they got hogwashed by so much BS instead of facts and evidence alone. It was as if Baez was starring in his own show rather than presenting valid facts half the time to me, and they were entertained more by him than the prosecution.. and the Emmy goes to. That doesn't seem to be how our justice system is suppose to work, or is it the sign of the times? *sigh*

Maybe if I ever need a lawyer, I should check the tv guide instead of the yellow pages. (sarcasm) sorry, no offense to any of you.. I just still don't understand how this could have happened. It just seems that a lot of good evidence wasn't included, good witnesses were ignored, and some evidence they may have had, they didn't wait to get because they were in such a rush to get to trial.
 

OneLostGrl

I'm going against the grain- I'm going sane
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
14,316
Reaction score
24
Just wanted to pop in and thank all you lawyers for being so patient and answering so many questions. Lawyers= priceless ! :blowkiss:
 

marlap

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
5
My concern is that the jury discussed the case prior to deliberations.

An alternate juror (the young guy), who wasn't supposed to EVER deliberate anything, stated during the Dateline show..and I quote:

Each question that we had from the get go: Where's the weapon? or the chloroform? where was the body first held? or who was involved?

we had

from the get go

This sounds like jurors discussed the case when they weren't supposed to, and as a result one or two strong personalities were influencing the others all along.

Can they get a mistrial after the fact if it is shown that jurors didn't follow the rules?
 

ZsaZsa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
11,027
Reaction score
15,227
IMO it would not technically be proper to charge her for costs related to investigating what happened to Caylee, rather than related to investigating the 4 specific lies listed in the indictment. The way it should be done is: (1) how much did it cost to figure out that Casey didn't work at Universal?, (2) how much did it cost to figure out that Casey didn't leave Caylee at Sawgrass apt. 210 with ZFG?, (3) how much did it cost to figure out that Jeffrey Michael Hopkins and Juliette Lewis were not former Universal employees in whom Casey had confided?, (4) how much did it cost to figure out that Casey didn't receive a call from Caylee on July 15, 2008 at noon?

IMO even considering that LE had to actually gather the evidence to prove these things, the total cost shouldn't be more than $1,000. But my understanding is that the State is going to try some extremely creative accounting, and HHJP might just be in the mood to buy it.

FWIW- JA said on TV they were seeking over $400K..
 

ZsaZsa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
11,027
Reaction score
15,227
What happens if ICA does not show up to her July19th depo with John Morgan?
 

pinkfly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
3,802
Reaction score
1,517
First, huge thanks to the lawyers here for helping us understand and get through this.

My question is how this trial effects future use of the new science.

The next time a lawyer uses decomp gas air analysis, hair death banding or any of the new science JA brought forth, can they refer to this case as setting that precedence? Or since that side lost does that negate this advance.

Thanks much.
 

CBTampa

New Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
405
Reaction score
0
I don't know whether this has already been answered or if this bell has already been rung, but here goes. Could CA and GA still file charges against KC for stealing from them? I hope this is not a stupid question, but I have wondering about this and I haven't seen the answer.
 

luvmygarden

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
843
Reaction score
2
I don't know whether this has already been answered or if this bell has already been rung, but here goes. Could CA and GA still file charges against KC for stealing from them? I hope this is not a stupid question, but I have wondering about this and I haven't seen the answer.

Thanks for asking I wondered the same thing. I bet they will if ICA doesn't share her windfall but wondered if they can.
 

CBTampa

New Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
405
Reaction score
0
Thanks for asking I wondered the same thing. I bet they will if ICA doesn't share her windfall but wondered if they can.

It is not only that, but I strongly believe that they are still looking for the answers too. I don't think that they would let her go anywhere. IMO
 

Amalie

New Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Question for AZ lawyer: What are the ramifications IF she does not show up for the deposition in the civil case?
 

bookworm474

New Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
311
Reaction score
1
Either Casey has another CON coming, or she made a mistake that will eventually surface.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Question for AZ lawyer: What are the ramifications IF she does not show up for the deposition in the civil case?

What happens if ICA does not show up to her July19th depo with John Morgan?

There could be a civil arrest warrant issued.

ICa did lie to the FBI

http://www.nw32.com/videobeta/?watchId=cb3f10a3-b17d-4024-b705-ebb21a956860

I know I am beating the dead horse here, but what if anything does that change re: everyone's surety that the FBI cannot prosecute?

Thank you. They did speak to her for just a few minutes the day she was arrested for murder, while they were waiting for Jose. They were not questioning her, because she had counsel. The only thing she said that was a lie in that few minutes was that she felt in her gut that Caylee was still alive. No one asked her--she just said it.

There is no way the feds would prosecute for this. First, as I said, IMO this was not a case within federal jurisdiction as required by the statute. Second, this is not an easily provable lie like "Caylee called me on the phone on July 15." She could defend by saying "I was in denial and DID feel in my gut that Caylee was alive."

I don't know whether this has already been answered or if this bell has already been rung, but here goes. Could CA and GA still file charges against KC for stealing from them? I hope this is not a stupid question, but I have wondering about this and I haven't seen the answer.

They could file a police report, but I believe the statute of limitations for actually prosecuting the crime has passed.

First, huge thanks to the lawyers here for helping us understand and get through this.

My question is how this trial effects future use of the new science.

The next time a lawyer uses decomp gas air analysis, hair death banding or any of the new science JA brought forth, can they refer to this case as setting that precedence? Or since that side lost does that negate this advance.

Thanks much.

Yes, the next time that science is used in court, this case can be referenced as a precedent for allowing the experts to testify. The ultimate verdict doesn't change the fact that the testimony was allowed.

My concern is that the jury discussed the case prior to deliberations.

An alternate juror (the young guy), who wasn't supposed to EVER deliberate anything, stated during the Dateline show..and I quote:

Each question that we had from the get go: Where's the weapon? or the chloroform? where was the body first held? or who was involved?

we had

from the get go

This sounds like jurors discussed the case when they weren't supposed to, and as a result one or two strong personalities were influencing the others all along.

Can they get a mistrial after the fact if it is shown that jurors didn't follow the rules?

No, juror misconduct cannot undo the verdict.

(This thread is quite long so I didn't go through every question, please excuse me if my question has been asked previously)

This is hypothetical, of course but.. say the whole Anthony family had knowledge of what happened to Caylee.. and sometime in the future, something comes out, perhaps by Casey herself, since she believes she is safe due to double jeopardy, from any prosecution, and she says something to the fact that she did have knowledge and her parents took part in helping her plot a scheme to get out of trouble. My question to you is: Having knowing with what she was charged with already, could a totally different charge be brought up for a felony charge of conspiracy or accomplice to murder or even plotting to hide evidence or anything along those lines be charged to her? Is that separate charges from those that she was charged with and therefore seen different in the eyes of the law?

For instance.. if it 'was' an accident and she has information that 'someone' did the burial (if that's what they want to call it.. but never reported it, then conspired with her family to hide the facts surrounding that knowledge of evidence destroyed.. would that be a whole other charge and not double jeopardy? OR if she committed the murder herself *cough* which she cannot be charged with again.. but also conspired with others to hide evidence or purposely mislead and proof later comes out of those facts could charges be brought about separately on those basis? Just asking because they are totally separate charges than what she was charged with, or so I think :)

Also.. Just out of my own curiosity, why is it that if a court proceeding is about getting to the truth of the matter.. why is it that so much of the truth is withheld from being entered into the court for the jury to have full knowledge of what is going on? Shouldn't they get the full story then decide for themselves with all of the evidence, good and bad, based on everything, what is best? To get a full picture instead of bits and pieces of a puzzle, constantly stepping in and out and getting totally confused as to what they can and can't take in to consideration?

I've followed this case as much as possible since Caylee was missing and most people here know more than I do and what's pathetic is.. I know way more than any juror that sat in that courtroom.. I find that quite a shame.. they came out half clueless it seems, and it's hard to blame them for that, because they got hogwashed by so much BS instead of facts and evidence alone. It was as if Baez was starring in his own show rather than presenting valid facts half the time to me, and they were entertained more by him than the prosecution.. and the Emmy goes to. That doesn't seem to be how our justice system is suppose to work, or is it the sign of the times? *sigh*

Maybe if I ever need a lawyer, I should check the tv guide instead of the yellow pages. (sarcasm) sorry, no offense to any of you.. I just still don't understand how this could have happened. It just seems that a lot of good evidence wasn't included, good witnesses were ignored, and some evidence they may have had, they didn't wait to get because they were in such a rush to get to trial.

Double jeopardy would still apply in all the situations you mentioned.

I really don't understand this idea that good evidence and witnesses were excluded and/or not obtained by the SA. What evidence are we talking about here?
 

IhaveanOpinion

and I am going to tell you what it is !!!
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Since J. Cheney Mason stated that Casey will not be on probation is Richard Hornsby incorrect on his "http://blog.richardhornsby.com/category/casey-anthony/" blog ? Probation is tolled while incarcerated in Florida. Who would or should point that out to the State?

Also AZlawyer, Richard Hornsby points out that the HHJP may have made a mistake by not subtracting the 412 day for the check fraud, but no do-overs at this point on this.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Since J. Cheney Mason stated that Casey will not be on probation is Richard Hornsby incorrect on his "http://blog.richardhornsby.com/category/casey-anthony/" blog ? Probation is tolled while incarcerated in Florida. Who would or should point that out to the State?

Also AZlawyer, Richard Hornsby points out that the HHJP may have made a mistake by not subtracting the 412 day for the check fraud, but no do-overs at this point on this.

I think RH is correct--the probation SHOULD NOT have begun until she was released. However, it appears from news stories that were printed back when the check fraud sentence was handed down that she actually DID complete her probation in jail. Stupid and pointless, but it looks like that's what happened.

I don't think HHJP made a mistake. He mentioned the check fraud time, so he remembered it, but he allowed that time to count toward this sentence as well. So I think it was a decision made on purpose, not a mistake. I disagree with the decision, BTW. There's no reason her check fraud sentence should have run concurrently with her sentence for lying to LE.
 

Rhyme & Reason

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,456
Reaction score
30
Question for AZlawyer..

Here in California, a very good friend of mine from high school was convicted of murder. That conviction was overturned due to juror misconduct, however, the sheriff was standing outside on the sidewalk & re-arrested her as soon as she walked out the door. She was again convicted at the second trial.

My question is, why can a guilty verdict be overturned due to juror misconduct, but not a not guilty verdict?

(If it were to be proven that there was indeed juror misconduct in ICA's case)
 
Top