Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

I have a question re: students helping an attorney with a trial.
If there is an attorney using the students for various tasks, giving them info, even if it isn't direct but a leading thought so to speak does that nulify the privledge?
I hope I explained what I mean well enough.

I don't believe using student helpers would violate the privilege, as long as you're giving them the information in order for them to help with the case. Sure does increase the chances of a "leak," but on the other hand these are law students and they wouldn't want to kick off their careers by violating client confidentiality and getting caught for it.

When I read that hearsay motion, I mentioned in a couple of posts that I thought AL had said to her students, "Go through all the witness statements and highlight everything that's hearsay." Then the students' list was just tacked on to the motion, which barely mentioned the list.

 

[LC446]

This may have been asked and answered so forgive me if I'm repeating. If Jose stated under oath in the hearing that he did not broker the ABC deal and then ABC is stating that they made this deal with an attorney for the parties involved and then specifically named Baez as the attorney that they dealt with, where would this put him legally? I thought I heard Hornsby say something to the effect of his using legalese to get around this, that technically he wasn't lying. Can one of our attorneys clear this up for me?

 

[AZlawyer]

This may have been asked and answered so forgive me if I'm repeating. If Jose stated under oath in the hearing that he did not broker the ABC deal and then ABC is stating that they made this deal with an attorney for the parties involved and then specifically named Baez as the attorney that they dealt with, where would this put him legally? I thought I heard Hornsby say something to the effect of his using legalese to get around this, that technically he wasn't lying. Can one of our attorneys clear this up for me?

I'd be interested in knowing what Hornsby said. The only thing I've heard so far is that maybe JB had his daughter act as a go-between to broker the deal for Casey. If so, it might save him from a perjury charge (which I doubt would be pursued in any event) but it won't save him from an ethics charge (assuming Hornsby and other Florida lawyers I've heard are correct that brokering this deal would have violated the Florida ethics rules).

 

[LC446]

I'd be interested in knowing what Hornsby said. The only thing I've heard so far is that maybe JB had his daughter act as a go-between to broker the deal for Casey. If so, it might save him from a perjury charge (which I doubt would be pursued in any event) but it won't save him from an ethics charge (assuming Hornsby and other Florida lawyers I've heard are correct that brokering this deal would have violated the Florida ethics rules).

Thanks for your quick response! I've linked the radio show where Hornsby talked about this. It is near the end if I remember correctly. I'm going to go back and re listen to see if I can get you a better time frame. It is a long show.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/watts-up-with-this

 

[TallyHo]

I have no particular reason for asking this - just curious. When does the judge see the discovery? Does he see it before it is turned over to the defense?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have no particular reason for asking this - just curious. When does the judge see the discovery? Does he see it before it is turned over to the defense?

Except when the judge is specifically asked to rule on some aspect of the discovery, he would normally never see it. He would just see whatever items were ultimately offered into evidence at trial.

 

[whiteangora]

I'd be interested in knowing what Hornsby said. The only thing I've heard so far is that maybe JB had his daughter act as a go-between to broker the deal for Casey. If so, it might save him from a perjury charge (which I doubt would be pursued in any event) but it won't save him from an ethics charge (assuming Hornsby and other Florida lawyers I've heard are correct that brokering this deal would have violated the Florida ethics rules).

Then why would ABC come out with their statement that "the deal was brokered by an attorney and that attorney was Baez?"
Christina is not an attorney as far as I know.

 

[AZlawyer]

The following is a clip from the bio of Christine Baez. My question....is Jose riding on technicality in claiming that HE has not acted as broker for KC in August of 2008, when technically it was his daughter, as employee at the time, who may have been the "front man"?

She also has a background in media relations and crisis management matched by few other public relations students. During the summer of 2008, Christina was hired by her father, Jose Baez, to handle all media relations in the Casey Anthony case and the search for her missing daughter, Caylee Anthony. During this period, Christina handled all national and local media appearances for her father in print, network and cable television, and radio. Christina has worked closely with major print publications such as People magazine and the Orlando Sentinel. She also worked daily with major network shows such as Good Morning America, NBC's Today show, Fox American News Live and ABC's 20/20. She has worked with programs on CNN, including Larry King Live and Nancy Grace.

http://entitycube.research.microsoft.com/p/christina_baez.htm
(disregard 19 facebook links....click MORE on bio to read entirety)

I think JB does believe this is a "technicality" that will save him. And I agree it might save him from perjury, but not from an ethics charge. The ethics rules in Florida probably say the same as AZ--you can't get someone else to do something that you aren't permitted to do yourself.

Then why would ABC come out with their statement that "the deal was brokered by an attorney and that attorney was Baez?"
Christina is not an attorney as far as I know.

For the same reason I might say I "negotiated" a settlement with Mr. X, even though most of the time I actually left messages with his secretary and he with mine. CB would have been pretty obviously working for JB and passing messages for him, to the extent that ABC would probably say they were negotiating with JB.

 

[AZlawyer]

Brigning this over from other thread for official attorney response...

So we know that last week, KC was declared indigent so state will be funding defense in CRIMINAL TRIAL. Baez testified that KC has NO MONEY.

So what will be the source of income to pay expenses to defend herself in this CIVIL trial from this point on?

Cause that sure is a lot of witnesses to possibly depose....just asking....

Hmmm good point. The state doesn't finance civil litigation. And if she appears to be paying her civil attorney, the SA might ask where the heck the money's coming from....

 

[Gnatcatcher]

I have a sort of legal question that is off topic, but I hope somebody doesn't mind me asking.

We were watching "House" the other night and Cuddy was making Dr. House perform his obligatory clinic hours. My boyfriend asked me why he would "have" to do the free clinic hours, and I said I didn't know, maybe it was kind of like how lawyers have to work a certain amount of pro-bono cases in order to keep their licenses. That sparked a discussion about Casey's attorneys working pro-bono, and what that means. He was astonished that this was a requirement to keep their licenses, and I think it's because it's the price you pay for upholding the U.S. constitution, and I think he finally settled down and agreed that I was right, that it was a requirement. Is this, indeed, so? And if so, is it the only profession where performing services for free is a requirement to keep your license? We certainly know plumbers and mechanics don't have to do this. Do doctors? Can attorneys sub-out their pro-bono cases? Do public defenders have to do this too? I guess I'm asking a lot of stuff I could probably look up myself, except what I've bolded. Thanks a bunch in advance for anyone who can answer, it's very interesting to me.

 

[shotzie]

Just saw Morgans List.
Why is Morgans List so Long?, it seems he is calling every witness the SA will be calling..can he ask questions not related to Zenaida? Will these be depos like the "A"s an will we see them?..I am confused for the LONG list.

Can he actually get Casey to talk?

 

[Themis]

I have a sort of legal question that is off topic, but I hope somebody doesn't mind me asking.

We were watching "House" the other night and Cuddy was making Dr. House perform his obligatory clinic hours. My boyfriend asked me why he would "have" to do the free clinic hours, and I said I didn't know, maybe it was kind of like how lawyers have to work a certain amount of pro-bono cases in order to keep their licenses. That sparked a discussion about Casey's attorneys working pro-bono, and what that means. He was astonished that this was a requirement to keep their licenses, and I think it's because it's the price you pay for upholding the U.S. constitution, and I think he finally settled down and agreed that I was right, that it was a requirement. Is this, indeed, so? And if so, is it the only profession where performing services for free is a requirement to keep your license? We certainly know plumbers and mechanics don't have to do this. Do doctors? Can attorneys sub-out their pro-bono cases? Do public defenders have to do this too? I guess I'm asking a lot of stuff I could probably look up myself, except what I've bolded. Thanks a bunch in advance for anyone who can answer, it's very interesting to me.

Attorneys are encouraged to provide some pro bono services. It is not a legal requirement to keep their licenses.

 

[AZlawyer]

Just saw Morgans List.
Why is Morgans List so Long?, it seems he is calling every witness the SA will be calling..can he ask questions not related to Zenaida? Will these be depos like the "A"s an will we see them?..I am confused for the LONG list.

Can he actually get Casey to talk?

This is just a CYA list; there is no way he intends to call all these witnesses at trial. But, in theory, they might all have something relevant to say. Morgan's strategy is to prove that Casey lied when she said ZG kidnapped Casey--by proving that Casey had already killed Caylee before she made that statement. So everything relevant to the murder case is also relevant to the ZG case.

He can't make Casey talk, no.

 

[shotzie]

Can Leonard P. get on TV an almost call Tim a liar about the" x thing NOT happening"???
without some repercussion? He wasn't even in the house since he got kicked out by cindy an was staying in the trailer...:banghead:

 

[Brattigirle]

Can Leonard P. get on TV an almost call Tim a liar about the" x thing NOT happening"???
without some repercussion? He wasn't even in the house since he got kicked out by cindy an was staying in the trailer...:banghead:

Worse yet he is saying that TM lied Under Oath... right? I would like to hear the answer to this as well.

 

[nums24]

In regard to the Joseph J. transcripts and the defense allegedly manufacturing documents and witnesses, if what is being alluded to is true, will this prompt another bar investigation? Or even better yet, could Baez be charged with obstruction of justice or witness tampering?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can Leonard P. get on TV an almost call Tim a liar about the" x thing NOT happening"???
without some repercussion? He wasn't even in the house since he got kicked out by cindy an was staying in the trailer...:banghead:

Worse yet he is saying that TM lied Under Oath... right? I would like to hear the answer to this as well.

I didn't hear what LP said, but if he only ALMOST called Tim a liar, that's not actionable. And anyway, even if LP really called Tim a liar, Tim would have to prove that (1) the "x" incident actually happened (which most of the people in the house at the time will deny) and (2) that LP knew it happened (which he couldn't have known because he wasn't there).

In regard to the Joseph J. transcripts and the defense allegedly manufacturing documents and witnesses, if what is being alluded to is true, will this prompt another bar investigation? Or even better yet, could Baez be charged with obstruction of justice or witness tampering?

Oh yes, this could definitely be a problem for JB.

 

[steadychick]

JH went to TES on November 8, just a few days before he and DC searched the area based on the psychic tip. He reported that the Anthony family had received a tip that a young girl/neighborhood child had seen Casey's car backed into the woods with the trunk open. If what JH said was true, then surely LE has interviewed the young girl. But we've seen no such interview released, and I can't find anywhere where LE has asked JH or the Anthony's about this.

Is it possible that this information/interviews are still being held by LE and we will see it in a future doc dump? Or is it something that would have had to be released to the defense by now if it exists?

 

[AZlawyer]

JH went to TES on November 8, just a few days before he and DC searched the area based on the psychic tip. He reported that the Anthony family had received a tip that a young girl/neighborhood child had seen Casey's car backed into the woods with the trunk open. If what JH said was true, then surely LE has interviewed the young girl. But we've seen no such interview released, and I can't find anywhere where LE has asked JH or the Anthony's about this.

Is it possible that this information/interviews are still being held by LE and we will see it in a future doc dump? Or is it something that would have had to be released to the defense by now if it exists?

Technically, under the rules, we should have seen it by now if it exists. But discovery is rarely handed over within the timeline required by the rules.

The TES people say JH made this statement, but has JH acknowledged it? If JH denies having spoken with this child, maybe LE doesn't have the name of the child to interview.

 

[okiedokietoo]

just asking - is everyone that is answering questions on this thread a Lawyer?