Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[rhornsby]

congratulations on your marriage, was afraid you had left us... Do you think Dominick Casey will be deposed and can you even begin to imagine what it is he is so afraid of revealing, what with his searching in November in the same area,

You don't fight a subpoena this hard unless you have something to hide. If I recall, Judge Strickland said there was not privilege with him and Baez anymore, if that is the case, he will eventually testify.

In some situations like this, a judge will stand by on the phone and referee and specific questions that come up the DC might try to say pertain to when he was working for Baez still - and thus still privileged.

 

[BeanE]

O/T

Congratulations, Richard!!! :woohoo:

 

[whats the punch line]

Good Morning. Regarding the capital case.

In your opinion, what types of people will (should) the defense seek during voir dire to empanel?

Conversely, what will the state look for?

Thank you

 

[Tulessa]

1. Well, technically before the jury is picked. Sorry, but there is no black and white answer to that, because evidence is supposed to be disclosed throughout the discovery process. And once the discovery process is concluded, you then move into trial mode.
   
2. There is a "rule of sequestration" and all witnesses are instructed pursuant to this rule that they are not allowed to discuss the case with other witnesses or people. In this case, Judge Strickland will probably instruct them not to watch media reports of the trial - how that will be enforced is a good question. The court could exclude video cameras if he wanted, that is in his discretion. But I suspect he will let them in, because Judge Strickland is a big freedom of the press guy.
3. He can not, a juror is free to speak with anyone he or she wants after the trial is over. This includes selling their personal story regarding their involvement in the case.
4. Casey's statements, the smell of death testimony. Will not be excluded though.
   
5. Summer 2010.

BBM, if that be the case why do you think he sealed the video of Casey's reaction to Caylee's body being discovered? TYIA.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

1. Well, technically before the jury is picked. Sorry, but there is no black and white answer to that, because evidence is supposed to be disclosed throughout the discovery process. And once the discovery process is concluded, you then move into trial mode.
   
2. There is a "rule of sequestration" and all witnesses are instructed pursuant to this rule that they are not allowed to discuss the case with other witnesses or people. In this case, Judge Strickland will probably instruct them not to watch media reports of the trial - how that will be enforced is a good question. The court could exclude video cameras if he wanted, that is in his discretion. But I suspect he will let them in, because Judge Strickland is a big freedom of the press guy.
3. He can not, a juror is free to speak with anyone he or she wants after the trial is over. This includes selling their personal story regarding their involvement in the case.
4. Casey's statements, the smell of death testimony. Will not be excluded though.
   
5. Summer 2010.

Congratulations on your marriage.

Casey's statements, the smell of death testimony. Will not be excluded,
Casey's statements will not be excluded?
Whose smell of death testimony? George? Cindy? Towyard guy? Casey? Yuri?
Will any and all statements made about the smell be allowed? TIA

 

[lisalei321]

Got married this weekend, so was a little busy...

Snipped Respectfully

 

[whats the punch line]

In reference to Baez motions in both the fraud case and the capital case, he extensively
comments on editorials, media coverage, blogs, and user comments to support granting the motion.

The case law he uses to support his motions are pre-internet.

United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19 states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." (so, he can't stop the news, bloggers, editorials etc.)

Because the public, and media have the ability to disseminate information and/or opinion globally, (in his arguments, he states "national" attention) will he be able to successfully argue changing venue or importing a jury?

Juries are always asked during voir dire if they can make their decisions based on fact/evidence presented, and not personal experience. ( as an example, I was selected as a juror for a personal injury trial, even though I was a plaintiff in a pending personal injury litigation.)

What argument would be so compelling, Judge Strickland will grant the motion(s)?

 

[The World According]

You don't fight a subpoena this hard unless you have something to hide. If I recall, Judge Strickland said there was not privilege with him and Baez anymore, if that is the case, he will eventually testify.

In some situations like this, a judge will stand by on the phone and referee and specific questions that come up the DC might try to say pertain to when he was working for Baez still - and thus still privileged.

Thank you for posting, especially so soon after your wedding. Why aren't you on an extended honeymoon? Go for it...... you only live once. Congratulations!!!!!!!!

 

[rhornsby]

Congratulations on your marriage.

Casey's statements, the smell of death testimony. Will not be excluded,
Casey's statements will not be excluded?
Whose smell of death testimony? George? Cindy? Towyard guy? Casey? Yuri?
Will any and all statements made about the smell be allowed? TIA

Yes, any person who smelled the trunk will be allowed to testify as to what they smelled, and what they thought it smelled like.

Yes, I believe all of Casey's statements will be admissible because she was not in custody - but rather, was voluntarily cooperating.

 

[rhornsby]

In reference to Baez motions in both the fraud case and the capital case, he extensively
comments on editorials, media coverage, blogs, and user comments to support granting the motion.

The case law he uses to support his motions are pre-internet.

United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19 states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." (so, he can't stop the news, bloggers, editorials etc.)

Because the public, and media have the ability to disseminate information and/or opinion globally, (in his arguments, he states "national" attention) will he be able to successfully argue changing venue or importing a jury?

Juries are always asked during voir dire if they can make their decisions based on fact/evidence presented, and not personal experience. ( as an example, I was selected as a juror for a personal injury trial, even though I was a plaintiff in a pending personal injury litigation.)

What argument would be so compelling, Judge Strickland will grant the motion(s)?

Most of his motions asking for unique or special treatment are unlikely to be granted.

In my opinion, the only motions (off the top of my head) likely to be granted is the change of venue (at least for the murder case), the motion to suppress video of her reaction, and some of the jury questionnaire motions.

The rest of the motions are filed because they are necessary evils to preserve potential objections for appeal. If the stakes were not so high, I doubt most of these motions would have been filed.

 

[LFlorida]

Got married this weekend, so was a little busy...

Damm! There goes one of the items on my list of What I Wannabe!

Oh well, congrats anyway.

 

[logicalgirl]

Here's a question for you.
Over here
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/a-couple-of-guys-you-may-know/

Seems he is saying that Sgt.Allen told him even after the SMELL OF DEATH was found in Casey's car THEY WERE STILL LOOKING for a alive Caylee.
Do you think this admission by SGT.ALLEN can and will be used against LE considering this was one of the reasons CASEY was arrested for CAYLEE"S DEATH?

Interesting question - I thought that was just lip service to the grandparents after it became apparent to detectives that Caylee was no more.

 

[LambChop]

It is odd.
Because if Allen is saying even after they identified smell in car was DECOMP
They still were searching for a very much alive Caylee,it is kinda like saying they did not fully believe their own supposed evidence that was used against Casey to get a grand jury to bring her up on MURDER ONE CHARGE.
So junk science defense may just be right after all!

But was the DNA evidence back yet proving the decomp came from Caylee?

 

[cecybeans]

It is odd.
Because if Allen is saying even after they identified smell in car was DECOMP
They still were searching for a very much alive Caylee,it is kinda like saying they did not fully believe their own supposed evidence that was used against Casey to get a grand jury to bring her up on MURDER ONE CHARGE.
So junk science defense may just be right after all!

Of course LE would have continued to leave no stone unturned - for no other reason than the defense would nail them for not investigating all avenues. It would have been foolish to immediately assume the decomp could ONLY be Caylee without further investigation.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Best wishes to you and the new Mrs. Hornsby!!! I'll bet there's an iron clad pre-nup.....J/K

Only the best of everything to you both, for a LONG and happy marriage!!!

 

[rhornsby]

Here's a question for you.
Over here
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/a-couple-of-guys-you-may-know/

Seems he is saying that Sgt.Allen told him even after the SMELL OF DEATH was found in Casey's car THEY WERE STILL LOOKING for a alive Caylee.
Do you think this admission by SGT.ALLEN can and will be used against LE considering this was one of the reasons CASEY was arrested for CAYLEE"S DEATH?

Hope for the best and expect the worst comes to mind pretty quickly.

But to answer your question legally, while I am sure that Baez could try to "impeach" Sgt. Allen with this "admission," I think the resulting answer Baez would receive would not be good for his client - because then it allows Sgt. Allen to testify to his state of mind when he made that statement.

I can hear it now, well Mr. Baez, you see, your client took us on a wild goose chase, kept telling us she her daughter was alive, and I was just praying that possibly, just possibly she was being truthful - or there was some truth to her statement - and that maybe, just maybe that god awful smell was two squirrels that just happened to have died in her trunk even though no animal hair was found...

 

[whats the punch line]

Hope for the best and expect the worst comes to mind pretty quickly.

But to answer your question legally, while I am sure that Baez could try to "impeach" Sgt. Allen with this "admission," I think the resulting answer Baez would receive would not be good for his client - because then it allows Sgt. Allen to testify to his state of mind when he made that statement.

I can hear it now, well Mr. Baez, you see, your client took us on a wild goose chase, kept telling us she her daughter was alive, and I was just praying that possibly, just possibly she was being truthful - or there was some truth to her statement - and that maybe, just maybe that god awful smell was two squirrels that just happened to have died in her trunk even though no animal hair was found...

FYI, even more far fetched, she stated 2 DEAD squirrels crawled into the engine compartment, and died.... (stated to Lee).

But to Amy she texted that her Dad hit an animal and it was "plastered" to the frame.

How will these two different stories injure the defense? Can the prosecution find a way to infer she was attempting to cover her actions?
Thanks

 

[whats the punch line]

Oh, ps...the dead squirrels in WNY just aren't that clever.

 

[RR0004]

Got married this weekend, so was a little busy...

But to answer your question, I would think the entire interview would be admissible; as it is either a statement against interest, prior inconsistent statement, or flat out lie.

If anything, parts of it might get redacted (edited) if it is irrelevant. Generally, when the interviewer says things that other people told him (hearsay) or if the interviewer says inflammatory things (irrelevant, prejudicial value outweighs probative value, etc.).

But, in sum, I think the majority of all her statements would come in, as they are basically all being offered to show she is a liar (in layman's terms).

What?! No honeymoon?!!

 

[RR0004]

BBM, if that be the case why do you think he sealed the video of Casey's reaction to Caylee's body being discovered? TYIA.

My guess...it's highly inflammatory (and prejudicial).