Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
From a LEGAL standpoint, who is determined to be "next of kin"?

Isn't ICA "next of kin" to Caylee since ICA is currently still living and Caylee's only known IMMEDIATE family member?

Aren't CA and GA, as grandparents, extended family?
 
LolaMoon08 said:
I'm confused (again). The State added the doctors that the defense just removed to their witness list? For their case in chief? Ummm... so they are now State witnesses? How did that happen?
I'm intrigued!
Click to expand...

All you have to do to become a "State witness" is have your name typed on the list. :) We'll have to wait and see what the doctors have to say. Maybe Casey made admissions to them?

Kentjbkent said:
From a LEGAL standpoint, who is determined to be "next of kin"?

Isn't ICA "next of kin" to Caylee since ICA is currently still living and Caylee's only known IMMEDIATE family member?

Aren't CA and GA, as grandparents, extended family?
Click to expand...

Like a lot of legal questions, this one is unresolved. The As' lawyers made a good argument that "next of kin" includes more than just one level of blood relations. Certainly, Casey and the father of Caylee (possibly deceased?) would be "next of kin," but maybe CA and GA are too. HHJP could go either way on this question.
 
BChand said:
AZLawyer - Did you notice yet that the State has added Dr. Jeffrey Danziger
& Dr. William Weitz to their witness list?


This isn't going to make the defense happy is it?
Click to expand...

I found this related comment by RHornsby which I found ironic:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4547369&postcount=408"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2[/ame]

Mods please delete if not appropriate...
 
AZlawyer said:
All you have to do to become a "State witness" is have your name typed on the list. :) We'll have to wait and see what the doctors have to say. Maybe Casey made admissions to them?



Like a lot of legal questions, this one is unresolved. The As' lawyers made a good argument that "next of kin" includes more than just one level of blood relations. Certainly, Casey and the father of Caylee (possibly deceased?) would be "next of kin," but maybe CA and GA are too. HHJP could go either way on this question.
Click to expand...

But at the time that Caylee's remains were found and arrangements were being made, didn't ICA have to sign some document that gave the Anthonys "permission" to make arrangements since ICA was next of kin as opposed to CA/GA?

Seems like I recall something about this and ICA eventually becoming angry that CA eventually made the decision to cremate the remains?
 
Kentjbkent said:
But at the time that Caylee's remains were found and arrangements were being made, didn't ICA have to sign some document that gave the Anthonys "permission" to make arrangements since ICA was next of kin as opposed to CA/GA?

Seems like I recall something about this and ICA eventually becoming angry that CA eventually made the decision to cremate the remains?
Click to expand...

Sorry Mods - I know this thread is not for discussion, but just to answer Kentjbkent's question and maybe save others from hunting:
I'll understand if you remove.

Per Dr. G., Medical Examiner:

The remains will be given to the next of kin, which is her mother, Casey Anthony. She could sign the remains over to her parents, Garavaglia said.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-caylee-anthony-body-dna-121908,0,1859200.story
 
AZlawyer said:
All you have to do to become a "State witness" is have your name typed on the list. :) We'll have to wait and see what the doctors have to say. Maybe Casey made admissions to them?
Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped...

Are the Dr's allowed to repeat what KC told them? What about Dr/patient confidentiality? Is she considered their patient in these circustances?
 
Kentjbkent said:
But at the time that Caylee's remains were found and arrangements were being made, didn't ICA have to sign some document that gave the Anthonys "permission" to make arrangements since ICA was next of kin as opposed to CA/GA?

Seems like I recall something about this and ICA eventually becoming angry that CA eventually made the decision to cremate the remains?
Click to expand...

Tiki said:
Sorry Mods - I know this thread is not for discussion, but just to answer Kentjbkent's question and maybe save others from hunting:
I'll understand if you remove.

Per Dr. G., Medical Examiner:

The remains will be given to the next of kin, which is her mother, Casey Anthony. She could sign the remains over to her parents, Garavaglia said.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-caylee-anthony-body-dna-121908,0,1859200.story
Click to expand...

"Next of kin" can mean different things for different purposes. It might mean just the one person who is the closest relation for purposes of picking up the remains, but it might mean everyone from cousins to step-aunts-in-law for purposes of some other statute. HHJP will have to decide what it means in this case. IMO it is somewhere in between, but that's just a "feeling in my gut" as the Anthony women would say.

Paintr said:
Respectfully snipped...

Are the Dr's allowed to repeat what KC told them? What about Dr/patient confidentiality? Is she considered their patient in these circustances?
Click to expand...

No, a doctor who is examining a person for purposes of being an expert witness does not form a dr/patient relationship with that person.
 
Paintr said:
Respectfully snipped...

Are the Dr's allowed to repeat what KC told them? What about Dr/patient confidentiality? Is she considered their patient in these circustances?
Click to expand...

To piggyback this question because I wanted to ask this also in addition wasn't Dr.Danzinger the one ordered by HHJS to evaluate Casey in the very beginning?
 
strach304 said:
To piggyback this question because I wanted to ask this also in addition wasn't Dr.Danzinger the one ordered by HHJS to evaluate Casey in the very beginning?
Click to expand...

One of them was--I'm not sure which one.
 
Please forgive me as I am sure this has already been asked and answered somewhere, and thank you for all you experts do to help us understand this mess.

My question is, when the DT requested that JS step down, was the replacement judge going to come from a rotational list which CJBP oversaw and he just took the case because he knew it was going to be a difficult case. I'm reading that some believed they were hoping to get the now retired JE and wondering how their plan seemingly went so wrong. Were they gambling when they did this? JS seems like he was a pretty liberal defense friendly judge and I don't really understand why they made this move.
 
The DT keeps filing motions with jury selections just 13 days away, when does it end?

I believe the DT are just renewing some old motions in hopes of using them for an appeals issue...so, can the DT just keep filing motions before jury selections and then continue with filing motions as the trial takes place? At what point does it end???


JMHO

Justice for Caylee
 
mombomb said:
Please forgive me as I am sure this has already been asked and answered somewhere, and thank you for all you experts do to help us understand this mess.

My question is, when the DT requested that JS step down, was the replacement judge going to come from a rotational list which CJBP oversaw and he just took the case because he knew it was going to be a difficult case. I'm reading that some believed they were hoping to get the now retired JE and wondering how their plan seemingly went so wrong. Were they gambling when they did this? JS seems like he was a pretty liberal defense friendly judge and I don't really understand why they made this move.
Click to expand...

I didn't understand why they had a problem with JS either. He was more than fair to the defense.

Yes, it's my understanding that HHJP was responsible for reassigning the case. He takes on very few cases personally, due to his administrative responsibilities as chief judge, so the defense team probably didn't really consider that risk.

LiveLaughLuv said:
The DT keeps filing motions with jury selections just 13 days away, when does it end?

I believe the DT are just renewing some old motions in hopes of using them for an appeals issue...so, can the DT just keep filing motions before jury selections and then continue with filing motions as the trial takes place? At what point does it end???


JMHO

Justice for Caylee
Click to expand...

Oh, the motions will not end. They will be filed up to, during and after the trial.
 
The Anthony's attorney was on IS and said that they might be commenting during the trial and/or after it. What's your opinion? Are witnesses permitted to blab on TV during a trial?
 
Numbers said:
The Anthony's attorney was on IS and said that they might be commenting during the trial and/or after it. What's your opinion? Are witnesses permitted to blab on TV during a trial?
Click to expand...

Yes, unless the judge orders them not to.
 
AZ,

Will the Anthony's be allowed to listen to Opening Statements since they are witnesses? Thanks in advance.
 
I haven't posted in this thread before, though I usually go through it every day as there is a wealth of information. AZ, and all of the lawyers who answer our questions - many, many thanks for sharing your knowledge and time with us.

My question may be more of an observation - and this may have been asked before: The DT seems to be filing motions to have almost every shred of evidence against KC dismissed or not allowed at trial. However, I've seen nothing or know of nothing that they have with which to defend her. It's almost as though they're hoping that if some key evidence can be kept from the jury, they'll end up with a mistrial or for a lighter sentence than death or life without parole - rather than having something, anything in their corner with which to defend her. It's almost like a non-defendable case where they're basically just hoping for a break. I wish I could word this better, my apologies.

What are your thoughts? Do you think there is any evidence pointing toward her being innocent in some/any way?
 
Solace said:
AZ,

Will the Anthony's be allowed to listen to Opening Statements since they are witnesses? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Yes, normally witnesses are allowed in the courtroom until testimony begins.

MelissaLee said:
I haven't posted in this thread before, though I usually go through it every day as there is a wealth of information. AZ, and all of the lawyers who answer our questions - many, many thanks for sharing your knowledge and time with us.

My question may be more of an observation - and this may have been asked before: The DT seems to be filing motions to have almost every shred of evidence against KC dismissed or not allowed at trial. However, I've seen nothing or know of nothing that they have with which to defend her. It's almost as though they're hoping that if some key evidence can be kept from the jury, they'll end up with a mistrial or for a lighter sentence than death or life without parole - rather than having something, anything in their corner with which to defend her. It's almost like a non-defendable case where they're basically just hoping for a break. I wish I could word this better, my apologies.

What are your thoughts? Do you think there is any evidence pointing toward her being innocent in some/any way?
Click to expand...

It is a completely legitimate and normal defense strategy to attack the prosecution's evidence without having much or any "evidence of innocence" to offer. It is actually pretty hard to affirmatively prove yourself innocent of something, unless the time of the crime is known and you have an alibi.

Even if all the evidence comes in that they asked to be kept out, the defense team will still attack that evidence at trial on the same grounds--e.g., the heart residue was a trick of the light, the hair could have had the dark band for some other reason, the dogs could have been alerting on fingernails, blah blah blah.
 
LolaMoon08 said:
I'm confused (again). The State added the doctors that the defense just removed to their witness list? For their case in chief? Ummm... so they are now State witnesses? How did that happen?

I'm intrigued!
Click to expand...

AZ, Please correct me if I'm wrong but if someone is on the witness list for one side then they cannot be for the other side. ei: if you are a defense expert witness you cannot be a prosecutor's expert witness. And that even if you are on the list, that does not mean you will be called to testify. That this is a tactic maybe so much not that the State plans to use them but to more to prevent the defense from taking them back and using them during the trial. In other words is this a tactic to "remove" these experts from the game.
 
The SA obviously knows that they have enough evidence to get a conviction with DP in this case. The most IMO that ICA can hope to get out of the SA in a plea deal is LWOP.

Is it even possible at this point for ICA to seek a plea deal at the last minute or does the SA have to offer her one in order for her to accept?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 1,660 (members: 71, guests: 1,589)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
1,589
Total visitors
1,660
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,334
Messages
18,202,204
Members
233,813
Latest member
dmccastor
Back
Top