Former Defense Attorney,Todd Macaluso *Merged*

[MiraclesHappen]

No it wouldn't. What they will do is have everyone get up there and testify that KC loved Caylee, was a great mom, never showed any aggression toward her, would never hurt her, never saw her hurt her; and then they will either bring in testimony about the pool ladder, or a hot car or whatever, and then at the end of the trial they will ask the judge for jury instructions on accidents and they will argue it to the jury.

The more I think about it the more I am sure that the reason he is on board is to demonstrate it was an accident. After all, what does he, a civil--not criminal-lawyer bring to the table? He is a personal injury attorney. What are PI attorneys really? They are accident attorneys. That's what a personal injury attorney does--represent people hurt in accidents. He will probably use the medical examiner's findings to argue it was an accident as well.

I don't know why he's on board yet, but it's a tough battle to get in enough of an accident theory which can carry through as an argument to the jury, without some cohesive testimony to tell us the 'story" of an accident and how this mishap theoretically happened.

If they want to argue that Caylee perished in Casey's hot car, for example, I believe they need some sort of testimony to at least place Caylee in the car, which is hot, and where Caylee is unattended, locked in or cannot get out, and perishes in the scenario. I doubt the factual proof that cars get hot in Florida can carry it.
Witnesses will testify about their observations, but to conclude that Casey did or did not hurt Caylee, was or was not ultimately physically abusive with Caylee, all the way up to inflicting grave harm, that's going to be in the hands of the jury.
It will be tough to pull off the accident thing without Casey's "defense narrative of the week" taking a sudden turn.
New Counsel would be well-served to have at least neglible skills in magic and illusion, as it will be incumbent upon him to make the kidnapping stories as related by the defendant whom we should now believe because 3rd version's a charm? umm , the 2 kidnapping stories will need to go poof.:crystal ball:

While attorneys are given broad latitude in closing arguments, their comments
must be confined to the evidence and to issues and inferences that can be drawn from
the evidence. Venning v. Roe, 616 So. 2d 604, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

(as cited in IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008
Case No. 5D06-4317

New counsel will need enough in evidence to fashion that evidence into a closing argument relative to an accident happening, if that's what is being planned. If he is conducting tests, his results, written findings, availability for deposition of his expert witnesses used to present an accident theory, is all subject to the rules of discovery and the prosecution will be able to access the information , just as Baez could if it were being propounded by the State.
With the time and preparation available, the prosecution should be able to cause the accident theory, if it even makes it into evidence to a point at which it merits argument and instruction, to crash and burn.:slap::gavel:

This is just a humble opinion, but since it happens to be my humble opinion I thought I'd share it.

:smiliescale: :wolf:

 

[okiedokietoo]

I know TM, he has had cases before me. Excellent civil lawyer. He is a pilot and his specialty is aircraft cases so I have no clue what he is doing in this case. Normally he does mostly personal injury civil cases. Excellent writing skills and excellent advocacy skills. He's definitely not doing it for the money because he got a 50 + million jury verdict about 6 months ago. Note how carefully he worded this sentence : "We are confident that we will prove she is innocent of the charges brought against her. She did not murder Caylee," said Macaluso. Looks like they may just go with an accident theory.

Makes sense to me (that they are going to use accident as reasonable doubt to murder charge) But how will they take the Nanny taking Caylee at JBP and flip it to an accident? Can Defense, some time in the future, say KC says it was an accident or do they just present it at trial, without any statement from KC...in opening and closing statements?

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I don't know why he's on board yet, but it's a tough battle to get in enough of an accident theory which can carry through as an argument to the jury, without some cohesive testimony to tell us the 'story" of an accident and how this mishap theoretically happened.

If they want to argue that Caylee perished in Casey's hot car, for example, I believe they need some sort of testimony to at least place Caylee in the car, which is hot, and where Caylee is unattended, locked in or cannot get out, and perishes in the scenario. I doubt the factual proof that cars get hot in Florida can carry it.
Witnesses will testify about their observations, but to conclude that Casey did or did not hurt Caylee, was or was not ultimately physically abusive with Caylee, all the way up to inflicting grave harm, that's going to be in the hands of the jury.
It will be tough to pull off the accident thing without Casey's "defense narrative of the week" taking a sudden turn.
New Counsel would be well-served to have at least neglible skills in magic and illusion, as it will be incumbent upon him to make the kidnapping stories as related by the defendant whom we should now believe because 3rd version's a charm? umm , the 2 kidnapping stories will need to go poof.:crystal ball:

While attorneys are given broad latitude in closing arguments, their comments
must be confined to the evidence and to issues and inferences that can be drawn from
the evidence. Venning v. Roe, 616 So. 2d 604, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

(as cited in IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008
Case No. 5D06-4317

New counsel will need enough in evidence to fashion that evidence into a closing argument relative to an accident happening, if that's what is being planned. If he is conducting tests, his results, written findings, availability for deposition of his expert witnesses used to present an accident theory, is all subject to the rules of discovery and the prosecution will be able to access the information , just as Baez could if it were being propounded by the State.
With the time and preparation available, the prosecution should be able to cause the accident theory, if it even makes it into evidence to a point at which it merits argument and instruction, to crash and burn.:slap::gavel:

This is just a humble opinion, but since it happens to be my humble opinion I thought I'd share it.

:smiliescale: :wolf:

I can think of a scenario and I won't even type it in here for fear that they do read here and I wouldn't want them to get any ideas from me. Would even make Cindy feel like she was at fault. Only problem with it would be that KC would have to fess up to the fact that she was there when Caylee died. And that she threw her away and let her rot there. (Sorry!)

 

[mitzi]

I'm worried too. Isn't it terrible to feal as if truth and justice won't influence the jury as much as the quality of the defendant's troop of lawyers and the lofty, paid-for brilliant forensic scientists (who for some reason can't master the English language) but who will zealously endeavor to confuse a jury about a subject they can't possibly understand, and in a heavily accented language they can't understand either.

I don't know about you, but I'm starting to feel like little Caylee is the underdog in this forthcoming "contest."

My bold. Sadly, that's all Caylee has ever been to her family, since the day she was born.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I'm worried too. Isn't it terrible to feal as if truth and justice won't influence the jury as much as the quality of the defendant's troop of lawyers and the lofty, paid-for brilliant forensic scientists (who for some reason can't master the English language) but who will zealously endeavor to confuse a jury about a subject they can't possibly understand, and in a heavily accented language they can't understand either.

I don't know about you, but I'm starting to feel like little Caylee is the underdog in this forthcoming "contest."

I have felt sick to my stomach all day. This guy is certainly no JB. I am very worried, for the first time since day 31.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I don't know why he's on board yet, but it's a tough battle to get in enough of an accident theory which can carry through as an argument to the jury, without some cohesive testimony to tell us the 'story" of an accident and how this mishap theoretically happened.

If they want to argue that Caylee perished in Casey's hot car, for example, I believe they need some sort of testimony to at least place Caylee in the car, which is hot, and where Caylee is unattended, locked in or cannot get out, and perishes in the scenario. I doubt the factual proof that cars get hot in Florida can carry it.
Witnesses will testify about their observations, but to conclude that Casey did or did not hurt Caylee, was or was not ultimately physically abusive with Caylee, all the way up to inflicting grave harm, that's going to be in the hands of the jury.
It will be tough to pull off the accident thing without Casey's "defense narrative of the week" taking a sudden turn.
New Counsel would be well-served to have at least neglible skills in magic and illusion, as it will be incumbent upon him to make the kidnapping stories as related by the defendant whom we should now believe because 3rd version's a charm? umm , the 2 kidnapping stories will need to go poof.:crystal ball:

While attorneys are given broad latitude in closing arguments, their comments
must be confined to the evidence and to issues and inferences that can be drawn from
the evidence. Venning v. Roe, 616 So. 2d 604, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

(as cited in IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008
Case No. 5D06-4317

New counsel will need enough in evidence to fashion that evidence into a closing argument relative to an accident happening, if that's what is being planned. If he is conducting tests, his results, written findings, availability for deposition of his expert witnesses used to present an accident theory, is all subject to the rules of discovery and the prosecution will be able to access the information , just as Baez could if it were being propounded by the State.
With the time and preparation available, the prosecution should be able to cause the accident theory, if it even makes it into evidence to a point at which it merits argument and instruction, to crash and burn.:slap::gavel:

This is just a humble opinion, but since it happens to be my humble opinion I thought I'd share it.

:smiliescale: :wolf:

Phil Spector didn't testify at his first trial yet they argued and apparently convinced some of the jurors that as PS was merely showing a woman a gun in the wee hours of the morning--a woman with her purse on her shoulder at the front door--she suddenly decided to grab the gun and commit suicide. What evidence was presented that she committed suicide? One or two of her friends said months before she wrote an email or two saying she was depressed over her career and Dr. Henry Lee (who's on this team as well) said the blood splatter indicated she could have shot herself.

As far as what they are allowed to argue to the jury, it's pretty much wide open--they can argue reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence presented. Significantly, there are jury instructions that if there are two reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the same evidence you have to accept the reference that points towards not guilty or reasonable doubt.

Now whether or not the judge will permit instructions on lesser charges than in the indictment (and hence then allow argument on them) is another story. Not sure what the law is in Florida on that or how permissive the trial judge will be in this case.

They can also bring this theory in without ever giving up any discovery on it. They are not obligated to tell the pros what their theory is; they can do it simply via direct and cross-examination. Happens all the time. Doubtful they will have any of their experts do a written report.

I don't see it as being a situation where they have to work magic by changing the story from a kidnapping to an accident. The bottom line in this case, as with all cases, is all they have to do is sway one juror that it could have happened the way they said it happened.

 

[Lovejac]

I have read through this thread and read all of the 'accident theories' that this new lawyer might possibley use.

After each theory, which were very good by the way, I kept saying 2 things that could not be explained away to me.

1. that does not explain KC hugging and kissing with TonE in Blockbuster and the Fusion party.

2. that does not explain the duct tape

This is just my opinion, but I cannot think of one theory that would explain away those two facts, at least to me.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

help...I am not a law person. IF the defense does argue that Caylee's death was due to an accident, can the pros throw in a "negligent homicide" verdict for the jury to consider since they believe Caylee died at the hands of KC?

I don't know what the law is in Florida re allowing other charges when someone has been indicted on particular charges. However, assuming a judge has the power to add additional lesser included charges when instructing the jury, he/she would only do so if the evidence presented and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence are sufficient to support the negligent homicide charge.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I have read throught this thread and read all of the 'accident theories' that this new lawyer might possible use.

After each theory, which were very good by the way, I kept saying 2 things that could not be explained away to me.

1. that does not explain KC hugging and kissing with TonE in Blockbuster and the Fusion party.

2. that does not explain the duct tape

This is just my opinion, but I cannot think of one theory that would explain away those two facts, at least to me.

And those are two reasons you would never be chosen to sit on this jury!

 

[trixi491]

To be quite honest, I just don't see Casey giving up her story and saying "ok it was an accident" or saying anything that doesn't make her look 100% innocent. We know this girl takes lies as far as she can and I believe she would take the ZFG lie all the way to the last day of trial. I know this guy deals with accidents but I honestly just don't see Casey giving into that defense.

 

[BMS]

I don't know, but i'm still not convinced he is their saviour... He can preach "accident" all day long but that doesn't explain the "accidental" duct tape and sticker, the "accidental" chloroform in the trunk and subsequent computer searches, and we still have the whole "accidental" nanny story that happened at either Jay Blanchard Park or Sawgrass Apts.

 

[trixi491]

We also have to remember that KC did not take a plea and for the longest time was telling everyone the whole ZFG story was true. I think if they played up the accident theory the jury will take into consideration that the records show she waited TOO long to admit that and question it's credibility.

 

[debbie0604]

But, how do they explain the tape over Caylee's mouth?

That's what I would like to know.

 

[debbie0604]

I don't know, but i'm still not convinced he is their saviour... He can preach "accident" all day long but that doesn't explain the "accidental" duct tape and sticker, the "accidental" chloroform in the trunk and subsequent computer searches, and we still have the whole "accidental" nanny story that happened at either Jay Blanchard Park or Sawgrass Apts.

I agree!!

 

[Gypsy Road]

I don't know what the law is in Florida re allowing other charges when someone has been indicted on particular charges. However, assuming a judge has the power to add additional lesser included charges when instructing the jury, he/she would only do so if the evidence presented and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence are sufficient to support the negligent homicide charge.

Thanks for picking up my question and answering it SoCalSleuth.

 

[debs]

To be quite honest, I just don't see Casey giving up her story and saying "ok it was an accident" or saying anything that doesn't make her look 100% innocent. We know this girl takes lies as far as she can and I believe she would take the ZFG lie all the way to the last day of trial. I know this guy deals with accidents but I honestly just don't see Casey giving into that defense.

She would have to do it from the stand, and as we've all been witness to, no one has been letting Casey talk. She doesn't like that. She gets frushtrated so much she can't swallow.

I'd love to hear her testify. Oh please, please. Let her change her story!!

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Phil Spector didn't testify at his first trial yet they argued and apparently convinced some of the jurors that as PS was merely showing a woman a gun in the wee hours of the morning--a woman with her purse on her shoulder at the front door--she suddenly decided to grab the gun and commit suicide. What evidence was presented that she committed suicide? One or two of her friends said months before she wrote an email or two saying she was depressed over her career and Dr. Henry Lee (who's on this team as well) said the blood splatter indicated she could have shot herself.

As far as what they are allowed to argue to the jury, it's pretty much wide open--they can argue reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence presented. Significantly, there are jury instructions that if there are two reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the same evidence you have to accept the reference that points towards not guilty or reasonable doubt.

Now whether or not the judge will permit instructions on lesser charges than in the indictment (and hence then allow argument on them) is another story. Not sure what the law is in Florida on that or how permissive the trial judge will be in this case.

They can also bring this theory in without ever giving up any discovery on it. They are not obligated to tell the pros what their theory is; they can do it simply via direct and cross-examination. Happens all the time. Doubtful they will have any of their experts do a written report.

I don't see it as being a situation where they have to work magic by changing the story from a kidnapping to an accident. The bottom line in this case, as with all cases, is all they have to do is sway one juror that it could have happened the way they said it happened.

Big Glitch in Florida Law.

Florida Rules of criminal procedure 3.220 have plugged up loopholes which allowed experts to spring things at trial by giving the prosecution the opportunity to depose the witnesses who are going to be called by the defendant during trial.


Specifically listed as available to be deposed by either side, are expert witnesses who have failed to reduce their findings or opinions to writing.:deal:

The Florida rules are really geared to getting the info out before trial to avoid this type of situation in which theories are plucked from the sky..

Being somewhat familiar with the PS case, I was basing my humble opinion on the parameters of Florida law & Procedure and their incredibly wide latitude regarding discovery. :blowkiss:

Per Rule 3.220, available for questioning before trial & during the process of discovery:
(7) expert witnesses
who have not provided a written report and a curriculum
vitae or who are going to testify to test results or
give opinions that will have to meet the test set forth in
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).


MH :smiliescale: and K :wolf:

Humble Opinion, is limited to everything above.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Big Glitch in Florida Law.

Florida Rules of criminal procedure 3.220 have plugged up loopholes which allowed experts to spring things at trial by giving the prosecution the opportunity to depose the witnesses who are going to be called by the defendant during trial.


Specifically listed as available to be deposed by either side, are expert witnesses who have failed to reduce their findings or opinions to writing.:deal:

The Florida rules are really geared to getting the info out before trial to avoid this type of situation in which theories are plucked from the sky..

Being somewhat familiar with the PS case, I was basing my humble opinion on the parameters of Florida law & Procedure and their incredibly wide latitude regarding discovery. :blowkiss:

Per Rule 3.220, available for questioning before trial & during the process of discovery:
(7) expert witnesses
who have not provided a written report and a curriculum
vitae or who are going to testify to test results or
give opinions that will have to meet the test set forth in
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).


MH :smiliescale: and K :wolf:

Humble Opinion, is limited to everything above.

Wow what a great law--guess there are no more Perry Mason moments in Florida!

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Everyone who is talking about the duct tape on this thread as precluding an accident theory is assuming that the evidence is going to indicate 100 percent that it was placed there intentionally. The only evidence we have of that is Yuri's opinion and he is not a forensic expert. I would venture a guess that the defense is going to look at the duct tape in a much different light. Their expert(s) could very well opine that it was washed there by the force of water or an animal or a variety of other ways.

 

[DebC]

Wow what a great law--guess there are no more Perry Mason moments in Florida!

Does this mean that everyone knows what everyone else is going to say on the stand before the trial even starts?