Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,884
Reaction score
2,125
IIRC? The Feds were involved early via the Crimes Against Children division, which would cover the initial purported 'kidnapping' They have that Child Abduction Rapid Response Team that can get them involved immediately. ( why Nick Savage was involved so soon?)

Remeber Zanny had connections in NYC, Puerto Rico, TN, etc etc :waitasec:

FBI was involved in following up on out-of-state tips, etc.
( ie that big deal of the sighting at the airport..Atlanta? was it)

Besides the issue of lying to a Federal agent, wonder if they can sue for reimbursement of their investigative costs...chasing all those tips down. (do they ever do that?)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/cac

I bet they could sue for the investigative costs, assuming that they can get around the fact that she told the lies to local LE rather than to the feds.

I've read about a supposed Martha Stewart Law that opens the accused up to federal charges that would trump the state charges. Is there even such a thing?

Yes, I discussed it earlier in the thread. Basically it is about lying to the feds. Casey didn't lie to the feds, but IMO there is a possible argument that she lied about a potential federal crime to local LE and should have known that info would be passed on to the feds. I haven't researched the viability of that argument.

I am confused about 'continuing jeopardy'.

Is there still jeopardy with the 4 convictions?

If an appeal would that bring jeopardy back in play.

Does that open any doors for other charges?

I am also wondering about the abuse of the Amber Alert system. Could that be a Federal charge?

Yes, there is still jeopardy for the 4 convictions until any appeal (and retrial if necessary) is resolved or the appeal time expires.

That does not open any doors for any new charges.

There was no abuse of the Amber Alert system. It was not used.

Thank you thank you to the legal minds who have given their time and energy so generously to help us all make sense out of this and answer our questions. Your time is so very much appreciated.

I would like to pose the question that appears to be on everyones minds, but
instead of asking about specific scenarios I will ask generally...

Is there ANYTHING, any legal remedies that you can see coming out of any of this that could be successful and lead to jail time for Casey? (excluding future offenses or failure to pay fines, judgements etc)

I see many civil possibilities but that should only lead to a monetary penalty if they get that far. You can't get blood out of a stone. If she doesn't make money, she can't pay money.

Again thank you for your time answering our questions.

I really don't think so. Even the potential scenario I posed under the Martha Stewart lying-to-feds law has a pretty big hurdle to overcome, i.e., Casey didn't lie to the feds. ;)

AZ or RH

Many of us WSers believe the photo of Caylee "opening" that sliding glass door at the Anthony home was photoshopped. If the prosecution can prove that photo was photoshopped in any way what could happen? Defense can't just alter evidence, can they? Could this cause a mistrial?
Thanks to both of you

This could not alter the verdict. But I promise you it was not photoshopped. I saw that photo near the beginning of the case. It looked just the same as it looked on TV during the trial. Everything was proportional, the child looks like Caylee, etc. I think the photo looked stretched when it was posted on the Internet later, but it didn't look that way when I first saw it or in court during the trial.

I also thought it strange that the defense just happens to have a picture of Caylee opening, or appearing to open, the sliding glass door. I thought it strange that she would be photographed climbing up the pool ladder too.

Completely not strange. I have those same photos of my daughter. People just liked taking pictures of her.

BTW I personally saw a 2-year-old boy open a sliding glass door on Friday.

Didn't Judge Perry's order that the costs for the lies be calculated from the date she lied until the body was found insure that those charges would be appealed?

I haven't seen that order, but I don't think it would "insure" an appeal.

I realize there's been a lot of talk about Juror misconduct and understand the double jeopardy law ... but my question is, suppose the state investigates and finds out one or more jurors were bribed by the defense ...
I mean solid evidence of this, ie. juror comes forward and testifies ... etc.

What would happen then ... obviously Jose and Mason would be in a lot of trouble but it would have to be proved

If it was proven, what if anything would happen to the verdict the jury rendered ? would double jeopardy still apply?
TIA

If the defense team actually bought the verdict, double jeopardy would not apply. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Seriously.

Hate to have you ask this question in another form or another but it came up in the comments of RH's blog and there is now an attorney (albeit an "Estate Planning" attorney from what I can work out) opining, in somewhat strong terms, that KC can be prosecuted on Federal Level.


Just, FYI, I don't agree but just wanted to check that I have not accidentally taken some acid :p ! He quotes various murder statutes, however, I assume he is skipping out some limiting provision to the statutes since I didn't know it was in the U.S. Congress' enumerated powers to legislate for all murders that occur in the U.S (most murders I have heard of being prosecuted in Federal Court had a very obvious federal connection, federal judge, federal employee, federal building, such like).


.

AFAIK, the federal murder statutes require involvement of a federal official, taking place on federal land, etc. Not every murder is a federal offense.
 

dani

Go Ducks!
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1
Asking for clarification:

I just heard an interview with Marcia Clark (of OJ fame) where she stated that Casey could be tried at the federal level. She said OJ could have been, too.

Is this what is being discussed in these recent posts about the FBI getting involved or is this a different issue? If so I apologize. I just couldn't bring myself to read all 33 pages of this thread. I'm doing my best to try to wean myself away from this case, but apparently I'm not doing a very good job of it. My heart keeps saying, "There just HAS to be a way to get justice for Caylee!"
 

askfornina

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
29
is there any possible repercussions for morgan in the civil suit for saying "zenaida fernandez gonzales" when the womans name is c.zenaida gonzales?
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,100
Reaction score
1,743
Yes, I discussed it earlier in the thread. Basically it is about lying to the feds. Casey didn't lie to the feds, but IMO there is a possible argument that she lied about a potential federal crime to local LE and should have known that info would be passed on to the feds. I haven't researched the viability of that argument.

AZ, she did lie to Nick Savage. In the informal chat they had in the interrogation room that was taped, she said something alluding to Caylee still being alive. During the talk, he does reinforce the fact that "we're just chatting, having a conversation". He was complaining that JB was being elusive in letting the FBI talk to KC.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,884
Reaction score
2,125
is there any possible repercussions for morgan in the civil suit for saying "zenaida fernandez gonzales" when the womans name is c.zenaida gonzales?

He put it in the caption, but is it anywhere else in the Complaint? He could be sanctioned by the state bar if so.

AZ, she did lie to Nick Savage. In the informal chat they had in the interrogation room that was taped, she said something alluding to Caylee still being alive. During the talk, he does reinforce the fact that "we're just chatting, having a conversation". He was complaining that JB was being elusive in letting the FBI talk to KC.

She said she FELT Caylee was alive. No way that the feds can prove she didn't FEEL that way (because she was in denial perhaps) and no way they can prove that they relied on her FEELING to continue the investigation.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,884
Reaction score
2,125
Asking for clarification:

I just heard an interview with Marcia Clark (of OJ fame) where she stated that Casey could be tried at the federal level. She said OJ could have been, too.

Is this what is being discussed in these recent posts about the FBI getting involved or is this a different issue? If so I apologize. I just couldn't bring myself to read all 33 pages of this thread. I'm doing my best to try to wean myself away from this case, but apparently I'm not doing a very good job of it. My heart keeps saying, "There just HAS to be a way to get justice for Caylee!"

It's hard to say, because I don't know what Marcia Clark was talking about. What I have talked about on this thread is a questionable possibility of prosecuting her for lying to local LE about something that she should have known would be passed on to the feds and not correcting the lie when she found out the feds were, in fact, involved. Max 5 year sentence.

I don't see how Caylee's murder would be a federal issue.
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,100
Reaction score
1,743
He put it in the caption, but is it anywhere else in the Complaint? He could be sanctioned by the state bar if so.



She said she FELT Caylee was alive. No way that the feds can prove she didn't FEEL that way (because she was in denial perhaps) and no way they can prove that they relied on her FEELING to continue the investigation.

I see what you're saying, but she misled them. She had already been caught in a ton of lies, correct? If I know someone is dead, and I saw her deady body, and I tell you "I feel she's still alive", I'm purposely misleading you.
 

USARDOG

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
926
Reaction score
1
It's hard to say, because I don't know what Marcia Clark was talking about. What I have talked about on this thread is a questionable possibility of prosecuting her for lying to local LE about something that she should have known would be passed on to the feds and not correcting the lie when she found out the feds were, in fact, involved. Max 5 year sentence.

I don't see how Caylee's murder would be a federal issue.

Hi AZ, How about, "Violation of Caylee's civil rights?" Unless she was too young to have civil rights...

Another question, what if Caylees' father could be found... Might he have a suit of some sort against ICA?
 

TxLady2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
8,016
Reaction score
838
AZ, thanks for answering my non-legal question a few pages back. Shoulda thought of that myself.
 

Beyond Belief

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
14,496
Reaction score
60
Can a landowner press charges against someone for putting a dead body on their land?

Is a human body hazardous waste? Is the burying or placing of a human body controlled by the Federal gov't, environmental protection agency,etc.?
 

denjet

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
919
Reaction score
0
Bumping ... can't believe how many threads are active ... :seeya:
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,884
Reaction score
2,125
Hi AZ, How about, "Violation of Caylee's civil rights?" Unless she was too young to have civil rights...

Another question, what if Caylees' father could be found... Might he have a suit of some sort against ICA?

I don't understand the civil rights argument. What civil rights law prohibits murdering your baby? The laws against murder cover that, but I don't know of any civil rights laws that cover it.

Caylee's father might have some sort of lawsuit--hard to know since we don't know any of the facts about him, or what he was told or did, or if he's even alive.

Can a landowner press charges against someone for putting a dead body on their land?

Is a human body hazardous waste? Is the burying or placing of a human body controlled by the Federal gov't, environmental protection agency,etc.?

I don't know of any federal law that would cover dumping a body, but the landowner technically might have some rights. He wouldn't get much in the way of damages, if anything, though, because he's obviously OK with the land being a dump zone.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,884
Reaction score
2,125
I am curious why Casey Anthony's record is not available/shown in the FL Dept of Corrections online database. Can they hide her data from the public perhaps for security purposes?

I thought it had to contain all inmate records, as well as others. Thanks.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateInfo/InmateInfoMenu.asp

She's not being held by the Florida Dept. of Corrections. She's listed in the Orange County inmate database, though.
 

JBean

Retired WS Administrator
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
52,740
Reaction score
66

ZsaZsa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
11,027
Reaction score
15,229
I don't understand the civil rights argument. What civil rights law prohibits murdering your baby? The laws against murder cover that, but I don't know of any civil rights laws that cover it.

Caylee's father might have some sort of lawsuit--hard to know since we don't know any of the facts about him, or what he was told or did, or if he's even alive.



I don't know of any federal law that would cover dumping a body, but the landowner technically might have some rights. He wouldn't get much in the way of damages, if anything, though, because he's obviously OK with the land being a dump zone.

AZ- isn't that how Los Angeles got around the Double Jeopardy rules with the officers who were originally acquitted of beating Rodney King? The Feds came back and charged them with violating his civil rights IIRC....?
 

jjenny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
31,715
Reaction score
47,192
AZ- isn't that how Los Angeles got around the Double Jeopardy rules with the officers who were originally acquitted of beating Rodney King? The Feds came back and charged them with violating his civil rights IIRC....?

That's so rare though.
 

DevilsPlayThing

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
276
Reaction score
2
I saw that interview too. JC asked him why ICA didn't cut her hair- CM said they had tried to send in a hairdresser at one point but the jail would not permit it - then he said they would not allow her to cut her hair- at which JC said why.. I've covered lots of DP cases and I've never seen male prisoners with hair down their backs? - to which CM said - I know, but there was a lot of things about this case that were done differently... :innocent:


There Was An Incident Involving A Guard. The Guard Used To let Inmate RA Out Of Her Cell In The Late Night/ Early Morning Hours And RA Would Hang Out Outside Of ICA's Cell Door And They Would Talk Through The Bean Hole. One Night The Prison Guard Handed RA A Pair Of Scissors And Let Her Into ICA's Cell For The Purpose Of A Haircut.

Officer Kelly was asked whether she observed -anything out of the ordinary in terms of Hernandez's interactions with inmates when they worked together. Officer Kelly responded, “Yes” and then explained she and Officer Lochner had informed her supervisor, Cpl. Sellers, of the occurrences. Officer Kelly described an incident in which she was in K and_L Sub-Control and observed Hernandez ask for a pair of scissors. Officer Kelly stated a DSO gave Hernandez the pair of scissors. Officer Kelly then stated she observed inmate Adams enter inmate Anthony's cell, at which time Anthony began to give Adams a haircut. Officer Kelly stated that the haircut incident occurred well over a year ago. When Officer Kelly was asked whether she was certain Hernandez had allowed Adams in Anthony's cell, she replied, "She was the only officer down in the dorm at the time. Um..She physically opened that door and let that inmate physically in her cell.
http://www.wftv.com/download/2011/0128/26652076.pdf
Source :ORANGE COUNTY CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DlViSiON- INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT
ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION #IA 10-004
 

Mulegirl

New Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
I must first apologize if this has been specifically asked before. I did spot one poster who kind of skirted my question, but didn't ask directly the same thing.

Like many here, I'm more upset by the jurors' seeming lack of understanding of their role and the laws related to deliberation than I am about the verdict itself, actually. I feel if they had come out and said that they reviewed all the evidence, and there was this or that argument and after asking a bunch of questions of the Court, etc., they reached this verdict I'd feel more respectful to them. I'd disagree, but I'd not feel the kind of fear of this kind of jury hearing criminal trials all over the U.S. moving forward, falling for lies and showmanship instead of evidence.

So my question is this: some here on WS have suggested that perhaps juror questionnaires/questioning should be tightened to verify that jurors in criminal trials like this must demonstrate that they fully understand reasonable doubt, what is and is not evidence, how to determine quality of forensic science, etc. Is there some where/some way those of us who feel this is the strongest way to go after this verdict can encourage adoption of these kinds of examination of potential jurors?

Thanks for ALL the hard work all of you verified attorneys do here. It doesn't go unnoticed or unappreciated. We're very fortunate to have you all here!!
 

martea

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
I am wondering how an attorney (Baez) can stand there and make statements such as, "Roy Kronk is a morally bankrupt person" and get away with it. Can a defense attorney say anything he/she wants, even if it is not true, and possibly ruin someone's reputation? Doesn't seem right to me.
 
Top