Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

Justin Tyme

New Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
871
Reaction score
1
Can a jury be held accountable for failure to do their job? By their own admission they state that they didn't examine any of the evidence and they went by what Jose used as an opening statement. They were more focused on the supposed molestation of FCA by GA then they were of the evidence in the case. The case was supposed to be about a murdered child not about the supposed molestation of FCA. Why even use a jury if they are not required to do their job for which they were assigned? Thank you in advance.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Can a jury be held accountable for failure to do their job? By their own admission they state that they didn't examine any of the evidence and they went by what Jose used as an opening statement. They were more focused on the supposed molestation of FCA by GA then they were of the evidence in the case. The case was supposed to be about a murdered child not about the supposed molestation of FCA. Why even use a jury if they are not required to do their job for which they were assigned? Thank you in advance.

No, a jury cannot be held accountable for failure to do their job.

However, I do not believe any of the jurors have stated that they didn't examine the evidence or were focused on the molestation. Can you give me a link for that? My recollection is that all the jurors who spoke publicly said that they examined the evidence and the jury instructions and felt that they could not convict on anything.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
Is Jose Baez free to accuse GA of anything he feels like in his new "tome" without fear of a lawsuit or any legal repercussions?

Thanks AZ - so glad to see you still hanging in with us as we "angst" away...
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Is Jose Baez free to accuse GA of anything he feels like in his new "tome" without fear of a lawsuit or any legal repercussions?

Thanks AZ - so glad to see you still hanging in with us as we "angst" away...

No. Depending on what he actually said, he could be at risk for a defamation lawsuit. I refuse to spend any money to buy his "book," so I don't know if he said anything defamatory.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
No. Depending on what he actually said, he could be at risk for a defamation lawsuit. I refuse to spend any money to buy his "book," so I don't know if he said anything defamatory.

You will be delighted to know you still have time to scrape together all your spare change for a copy because it won't be released until the 3rd of July.

The Associated Press bought an advance copy and are releasing tidbits for us to :what: over. Jose is promising greater revelations about the (so-called) "molestation" . And details about "what George did" as he also declares her having "serious mental" issues and is a "liar. No doubt I will be back once this rag is actually released.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
You will be delighted to know you still have time to scrape together all your spare change for a copy because it won't be released until the 3rd of July.

The Associated Press bought an advance copy and are releasing tidbits for us to :what: over. Jose is promising greater revelations about the (so-called) "molestation" . And details about "what George did" as he also declares her having "serious mental" issues and is a "liar. No doubt I will be back once this rag is actually released.

Well, I don't trust the AP's spin, so I'll wait to see the direct quotes.
 

Zoe Bogart

Let's not ask for the Moon, we have the Stars
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
4,841
Reaction score
33
What is the day CMA will be off probation to be free to roam about?

I just read the date is August 21, 2012. I think it was on ABC.com at the end of the story about Baez's book and his recapping of the night she got out of jail.


QUESTIONS:

In light of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling re: the medals of valor and people falsely claiming to be recipients.

The justices said it's not nice to lie, but as long as someone has no malicious intent or not doing something harmful, it's perfectly legal to tell false tales because of First Amendment rights. (totally paraphrased)

So, here are my questions, how does that bode for others who lie about criminal actions: perjury, giving false information, etc. Could people skate on First Amendment rights? "I have freedom of speech, I can say what I want if I'm not harming someone."

Suppose Martha Stewart, or someone in a similar bind, tried this?

Is it now true as Cindy Anthony said, "It's not a crime to lie?"

What about Casey's charges for lying??? Could she win appeal based on the SC decision????
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
I just read the date is August 21, 2012. I think it was on ABC.com at the end of the story about Baez's book and his recapping of the night she got out of jail.


QUESTIONS:

In light of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling re: the medals of valor and people falsely claiming to be recipients.

The justices said it's not nice to lie, but as long as someone has no malicious intent or not doing something harmful, it's perfectly legal to tell false tales because of First Amendment rights. (totally paraphrased)

So, here are my questions, how does that bode for others who lie about criminal actions: perjury, giving false information, etc. Could people skate on First Amendment rights? "I have freedom of speech, I can say what I want if I'm not harming someone."

Suppose Martha Stewart, or someone in a similar bind, tried this?

Is it now true as Cindy Anthony said, "It's not a crime to lie?"

What about Casey's charges for lying??? Could she win appeal based on the SC decision????

The judges didn't say anything new or surprising. It is and always has been true that it isn't a crime merely to lie. There has to be something more. For example, lying under oath in a court proceeding is a crime (perjury). Giving false information to law enforcement officials trying to find your missing child to throw them off track is a crime. Lying to someone to get them to give you their money to "invest" in a nonexistent fund is a crime.

But just lying isn't a crime. And Congress can't make just lying a crime, because of the First Amendment. Just about every lawyer except the ones in Congress already knew this IMO.

Casey's appeal already includes the argument that the jury should have been required to find that her lies MATTERED somehow to the investigation of the missing child--otherwise, the statute would be unconstitutional. In other words, if you lie to LE but they don't believe you for a second, or the thing you lie about has nothing to do with the missing child, it's probably unconstitutional to prosecute you for that. This was a good argument before the Supreme Court case came out yesterday, and it's still a good argument for the same reasons. The only difference is that this new case will be cited in Casey's Reply brief (or maybe even in a supplemental citation memo filed before then).

Now, let me add that if a hypothetical good jury had been properly instructed that Casey's lies had to make a difference to LE's investigation, I'm sure they would have made that finding as to SOME of the counts of lying. It simply isn't true that LE said "we don't believe you" and ignored her lies. They investigated the heck out of her Zanny Nanny lies, while still pursuing what they thought was the more likely path (that Casey knew exactly what had happened to Caylee). But the jury wasn't asked to make that finding. And the finding probably couldn't have been made as to ALL of the counts of lying to LE. Here were the 4 lies (simplified):

1. "I work at Universal."
2. "I left Caylee with Zanny."
3. "I told Jeff and Juliette about Caylee's kidnapping."
4. "Caylee called me on July 15, 2008."

Lies #2 and 4 were important to the investigation and were investigated. Lies #1 and 3 were probably not important.
 

Zoe Bogart

Let's not ask for the Moon, we have the Stars
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
4,841
Reaction score
33
Thanks, AZ, but are you saying she may have a chance? :eek:

I'm thinking the courts will see many appeals and other paperwork citing the Supreme Court's recent finding. :what: "My client is a liar, but he had no intention of hurting anyone. The victim was foolish to believe him." In legalese, of course. :rocker:


VooDoo in The Graveyard, always fun
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Thanks, AZ, but are you saying she may have a chance? :eek:

I'm thinking the courts will see many appeals and other paperwork citing the Supreme Court's recent finding. :what: "My client is a liar, but he had no intention of hurting anyone. The victim was foolish to believe him." In legalese, of course. :rocker:


VooDoo in The Graveyard, always fun

Yes, yes yes yes, I am and have been for a year saying she has a chance on appeal. :)

The Supreme Court decision is not about victims being foolish to believe someone, but about lies that are criminalized without any victim whatsoever. It really is not a big-deal decision, as evidenced by the fact that it came out on the same day as the health care decision.
 

RR0004

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
20,001
Reaction score
15
The judges didn't say anything new or surprising. It is and always has been true that it isn't a crime merely to lie. There has to be something more. For example, lying under oath in a court proceeding is a crime (perjury). Giving false information to law enforcement officials trying to find your missing child to throw them off track is a crime. Lying to someone to get them to give you their money to "invest" in a nonexistent fund is a crime.

But just lying isn't a crime. And Congress can't make just lying a crime, because of the First Amendment. Just about every lawyer except the ones in Congress already knew this IMO.

Casey's appeal already includes the argument that the jury should have been required to find that her lies MATTERED somehow to the investigation of the missing child--otherwise, the statute would be unconstitutional. In other words, if you lie to LE but they don't believe you for a second, or the thing you lie about has nothing to do with the missing child, it's probably unconstitutional to prosecute you for that. This was a good argument before the Supreme Court case came out yesterday, and it's still a good argument for the same reasons. The only difference is that this new case will be cited in Casey's Reply brief (or maybe even in a supplemental citation memo filed before then).

Now, let me add that if a hypothetical good jury had been properly instructed that Casey's lies had to make a difference to LE's investigation, I'm sure they would have made that finding as to SOME of the counts of lying. It simply isn't true that LE said "we don't believe you" and ignored her lies. They investigated the heck out of her Zanny Nanny lies, while still pursuing what they thought was the more likely path (that Casey knew exactly what had happened to Caylee). But the jury wasn't asked to make that finding. And the finding probably couldn't have been made as to ALL of the counts of lying to LE. Here were the 4 lies (simplified):

1. "I work at Universal."
2. "I left Caylee with Zanny."
3. "I told Jeff and Juliette about Caylee's kidnapping."
4. "Caylee called me on July 15, 2008."

Lies #2 and 4 were important to the investigation and were investigated. Lies #1 and 3 were probably not important.
AZ, don't you think that #3 was investigated to corroborate what Casey said about her daughter being missing. Kind of like her saying that her daughter was kidnapped to others gives more credence to the claim?
I do understand what you're saying, but I look at #3 and 4 similarly.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
AZ, don't you think that #3 was investigated to corroborate what Casey said about her daughter being missing. Kind of like her saying that her daughter was kidnapped to others gives more credence to the claim?
I do understand what you're saying, but I look at #3 and 4 similarly.

Yes, I thought about that one (the "I told Jeff and Juliette" lie). It's a close call--I think people can easily have different opinions on that one.

Funny how Casey thinks if she says told other people the same lie, it is more likely to be accepted as true. Remember her jail visits? "Like I even told Jose blah blah blah?" :waitasec: I guess I'll just have to accept that my brain doesn't work like hers.
 

Friday

Verified Author
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
1,761
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by logicalgirl
Is Jose Baez free to accuse GA of anything he feels like in his new "tome" without fear of a lawsuit or any legal repercussions?

Thanks AZ - so glad to see you still hanging in with us as we "angst" away...


No. Depending on what he actually said, he could be at risk for a defamation lawsuit. I refuse to spend any money to buy his "book," so I don't know if he said anything defamatory.

Can't Baez get away with slandering and defaming GA all over that book so long as Baez includes phrases that make it clear he is only repeating and commenting on what KC said..phrases such as "Casey sobbed when she talked about the time her father, the pervert, made her....blah blah blah" ???

Just asking. :truce:
 

salvarenga

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,210
Reaction score
24
Originally Posted by logicalgirl
Is Jose Baez free to accuse GA of anything he feels like in his new "tome" without fear of a lawsuit or any legal repercussions?

Thanks AZ - so glad to see you still hanging in with us as we "angst" away...




Can't Baez get away with slandering and defaming GA all over that book so long as Baez includes phrases that make it clear he is only repeating and commenting on what KC said..phrases such as "Casey sobbed when she talked about the time her father, the pervert, made her....blah blah blah" ???

Just asking. :truce:

More info to think about if you answer this question.......

Adam Longo from CF News 13 has been tweeting highlights from Baez's book that he just finished reading. https://twitter.com/#!/adamlongo

#baez includes a VERY graphic excerpt of what #caseyanthony told him about her father's sexual abuse. It's disturbing.

In #baez book Presumed Guilty Jose and Cheney Mason confront George Anthony about #caseyanthony allegations of sex abuse and he doesn't deny
 

Muzikman

ROCKIN!
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
0
Website
stores.ebay.com
More info to think about if you answer this question.......

Adam Longo from CF News 13 has been tweeting highlights from Baez's book that he just finished reading. https://twitter.com/#!/adamlongo

#baez includes a VERY graphic excerpt of what #caseyanthony told him about her father's sexual abuse. It's disturbing.

In #baez book Presumed Guilty Jose and Cheney Mason confront George Anthony about #caseyanthony allegations of sex abuse and he doesn't deny

Casey is a known, proven, CONVICTED liar. So Baez is just repeating the words of a known, proven, convicted Liar.

And expecting to make money from it. THAT is DISTURBING.
 

ClockWatcher

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
481
Reaction score
0
Casey is a known, proven, CONVICTED liar. So Baez is just repeating the words of a known, proven, convicted Liar.

And expecting to make money from it. THAT is DISTURBING.

Agreed, but will there be any legal repercussions for what he has written?

What kind of damages could the liar ask the courts for? Is it defamation, slander, breach of confidence?

WOULD THE COURT GIVE A FLYING...

oop's sorry...cap lock key malfunction

ps

i missed you all!! nice to see ya again!

Oh wait a minute, I came back to edit...I just saw a "tweet" that said FCA signed a waiver with Jose that allowed him to write these new lies, excuse me, details in his book. Is that really legal? Can she really allow attorney/client privilege to be exempt for profit?

Thanks
 

Muzikman

ROCKIN!
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
0
Website
stores.ebay.com
Yeah, I just saw that on Local 6 WKMG here, that she had signed a waiver so he could write a book.

Must've been BEFORE she fired him. Heh.

Sorry, forgot this was the lawyer discussion thread, didn't mean to sidetrack it.

But I have to mention.... I tweeted Adam Longo and told him to add a Caveat - that Baez was repeating the words of a convicted liar, so their believability was questionable.

And he hasn't tweeted since. hehehe
 
Top