Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1
- Thread starter The World According
- Start date
- Status
LambChop
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,160
- Reaction score
- 30
We still love you AZlawyer. You're still the best.
elementary
No More Excuses
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
- Reaction score
- 1
You did an exceptionally fine job considering the ravening crowds.
Very enlightening.I am wondering if the defense will now attempt to ask for re-consideration of all their prior denied motions based on the belief that the rulings were biased? Will JS's rulings stand or will Judge Perry make new ones? My head is so spinning with this case!
denjet
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- -40
I have a question about the defense not having to reveal penalty phase witnesses and testimony ...
If this involves Cindy, George and Lee and KC's upbringing, could it be that the defense is also trying to prevent the letters at trial as evidence? The letters that describe molestation and jealousy and anger towards them? Also, testimony as to how KC changed when she found her new group of friends ?
Also, previous motions trying to prevent witnesses from testifying to prior bad acts or hearsay, could these types of things also be what the defense is trying to prevent at trial? In other words character type testimony?
Just one more ... If the Anthonys will be called during the penalty phase, does this also restrict answering statements during trial that may be questions that will also be answered during the penalty phase ?
If this involves Cindy, George and Lee and KC's upbringing, could it be that the defense is also trying to prevent the letters at trial as evidence? The letters that describe molestation and jealousy and anger towards them? Also, testimony as to how KC changed when she found her new group of friends ?
Also, previous motions trying to prevent witnesses from testifying to prior bad acts or hearsay, could these types of things also be what the defense is trying to prevent at trial? In other words character type testimony?
Just one more ... If the Anthonys will be called during the penalty phase, does this also restrict answering statements during trial that may be questions that will also be answered during the penalty phase ?
denjet
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- -40
This has been bugging me for a while ... is there any legal way to stop the defense from notifying the media and sending them copies of motions BEFORE they are even filed with the clerk?
I think it's rich that Jose keeps complaining about leaks (Sunshine Law Discovery Filings) when someone from his office obviously leaks (for real) their motions in full to the press! And so much for wanting to keep their defense strategy a secret ? I guess only that only applies to what they want it to apply to?
I apologize if this has already been addressed.
I think it's rich that Jose keeps complaining about leaks (Sunshine Law Discovery Filings) when someone from his office obviously leaks (for real) their motions in full to the press! And so much for wanting to keep their defense strategy a secret ? I guess only that only applies to what they want it to apply to?
I apologize if this has already been addressed.
denjet
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- -40
I would like to know also ... would the defense be able to just go back to Oct '09 or could they go back to any unfavorable decisions Judge Strickland made?
good question
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
My reading of the "reconsideration" rule is that only the party that alleged boas (here, the defense) is entitled to reconsideration of prior rulings. I believe the defense could ask to reconsider things all the way back to the start of the case, because their theory was that JS was ALWAYS biased, and that his biased was REVEALED through his communications with MD--not that the communications with MD CAUSED his bias. Of course, the State could ask for reconsideration of something too, but unless there's been a change in the facts, I don't think they'll get it.
I don't know anything about Judge Perry (maybe RH does) but I personally wouldn't expect JP to "deeply" reconsider any previous motions, even if they are "tweaked." The decisions made to date have been pretty good ones IMO.
Nope.
But, again, I'd be interested in RH's take on JP.Well, he wasn't "on" the grand jury; he was presiding over the grand jury proceedings. The g.j. proceedings are confidential, but not confidential from the judge.
This is a tough one--my personal guess is that they hoped the motion would be denied (i.e., JS would stay on as judge) and then they would have a great appeal issue. And they figured if the motion was granted, they could go to the media and crow about winning a big, important motion and try to make it look like JS was corrupt.
But JS took the wind right out of those sails. :woohoo:
I can't say what the State or the Judge would or would not accept as a plea deal. If I were the SA, though, I would be very interested if her defense team suggested such a plea.
Nothing will be excluded at trial merely on the grounds that it will also be evidence in the penalty phase. If the defense wants to prevent the letters from being evidence at trial (and I'm not sure they do), they will file a motion requesting exactly that.
I'm not sure I understand your question about the previous motions regarding bad acts or hearsay. Those motions specify exactly what evidence the defense wants to get excluded. They are not trying to use those motions to secretly attempt to exclude some other evidence; if they want something excluded, they will say so.
There's nothing wrong with the defense giving motions to the media before they're filed, although I'm sure the Bar would frown upon the practice if it turned out that what they were giving the media differed materially from what they actually ended up filing. (By "materially," I mean that no one cares if the document given to the media is not fully signed, etc.) I don't consider it a "leak" to provide an advance copy of something that would be public record within a few hours anyway.
nums24
Praying for Justice!
In regards to this motion Defendant's Motion for Protective Order re Penalty Phase:
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...r with Respect to Penalty Phase Discovery.pdf
Isn't it too early to file this motion? Or is the defense just trying to buy time before having to disclose their witnesses?
I can't believe they put this in their motion:
page 10 - Due to the exposure of this case, the risk of prejudice to Miss Anthony from disclosure of mitigation witnesses is high. Any witness listed to testify on Miss Anthony's behalf will likely become the focus of intense public scrutiny. Two potential witnesses have already attempted suicide after becoming involved in this case.
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...r with Respect to Penalty Phase Discovery.pdf
Isn't it too early to file this motion? Or is the defense just trying to buy time before having to disclose their witnesses?
I can't believe they put this in their motion:
page 10 - Due to the exposure of this case, the risk of prejudice to Miss Anthony from disclosure of mitigation witnesses is high. Any witness listed to testify on Miss Anthony's behalf will likely become the focus of intense public scrutiny. Two potential witnesses have already attempted suicide after becoming involved in this case.
I would like to know this- if some young guy is arrested tonight and charged with Murder, has no money but does not want a Public Defender representing him, can he hire Baez et al and have the State pay their bill? KC was actually indigent when she hired him- she had no job and no assets. Why is she being given preferential treatment?
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
I don't think she gets his fees paid by the State--I think it's just costs (experts, court reporter fees, etc .)
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
They are being filed to preserve issues for appeal, not in the expectation that they will actually be granted.
In a DP case, you file absolutely everything and just hope yours is the 1 case in which a higher court suddenly says, "You know what? This DP statute really IS unconstitutional." A long shot, but if you didn't raise it with the trial judge, you don't get to bring it up on appeal.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
I'm still waiting for a non-broken link on that one lol.
I don't know what the deadline is for them to disclose witnesses, so I don't know if this motion is being filed particularly early. But AL's students might not be there after May to help out, so they need to get things done before then!
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
If Casey isn't the killer, I suppose they'd drop the whole murder charge, not just the death penalty.
You never know what could change, especially in this case. I don't think they would drop the DP without something changing, though.
nums24
Praying for Justice!
I'm still waiting for a non-broken link on that one lol.
I don't know what the deadline is for them to disclose witnesses, so I don't know if this motion is being filed particularly early. But AL's students might not be there after May to help out, so they need to get things done before then!
AZLawyer - I can't find a working link, so I attached the file. Thanks for your help :angel:.
- Status