Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[LambChop]

This is an interesting question- I doubt it though since she claims to have been around 18 when she disclosed it to the doc.

It'll be interesting to see what the legal eagles have to say.
You guys are so great for taking the time out to answer all of our questions. It's much appreciated.

But KC is talking of the abuse happening when she was 12 years old. Would that not still have been a crime and have to be reported?

 

[ZsaZsa]

When/if Mr Mason defends Casey can the SA bring up his prior public statements as to his opinion of her obvious guilt?

 

[Hell's Belle]

When/if Mr Mason defends Casey can the SA bring up his prior public statements as to his opinion of her obvious guilt?

No, it's not relevant.

 

[ZsaZsa]

No, it's not relevant.

I understand, it would be ruled that way, but to a lay observer I am incredulous that it would not be relevant.. :innocent:

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

What can Baez face since it's now been said how he takes letters in and out of jail, this is contraband, which he doesn't seem to care if he breaks the rules of the jail.

Will/Can there be ramifications for Baez behind doing this???

 

[Hell's Belle]

I understand, it would be ruled that way, but to a lay observer I am incredulous that it would not be relevant.. :innocent:

He had no testimonial (actual) knowledge of her guilt, he was just flapping his gums as an outsider. He wasn't under oath at the time that he made the statements. I guess I would say it's not so much that it's not "relevant" as that it doesn't rise to the level of actual EVIDENCE. It was just his opinion as to her guilt. Opinion evidence doesn't come in from lay witnesses and he is not an "expert" as to guilt or innocence.* It's no more relevant than opinions on WS as to her guilt or innocence. Would you expect, say, Nancy Grace's testimony about her opinions to come in? Really?


[SIZE=-1]90.701 Opinion testimony of lay witnesses.--If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness's testimony about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](1) The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy, communicate what he or she has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inferences or opinions and the witness's use of inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of the objecting party; and [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, experience, or training." (Emphasis added)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC701.HTM&Title=-%3E2009-%3ECh0090-%3ESection%20701#0090.701
[/SIZE]

 

[ZsaZsa]

He had no testimonial (actual) knowledge of her guilt, he was just flapping his gums as an outsider. He wasn't under oath at the time that he made the statements. I guess I would say it's not so much that it's not "relevant" as that it doesn't rise to the level of actual EVIDENCE. It was just his opinion as to her guilt. Opinion evidence doesn't come in from lay witnesses and he is not an "expert" as to guilt or innocence.* It's no more relevant than opinions on WS as to her guilt or innocence. Would you expect, say, Nancy Grace's testimony about her opinions to come in? Really?


[SIZE=-1]90.701 Opinion testimony of lay witnesses.--If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness's testimony about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](1) The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy, communicate what he or she has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inferences or opinions and the witness's use of inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of the objecting party; and [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, experience, or training." (Emphasis added)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC701.HTM&Title=-%3E2009-%3ECh0090-%3ESection%20701#0090.701
[/SIZE]

Yes, I understand, I'm not the professional, you are, but it seems relevant to me. He is publicly proclaiming her guilt, then defending her... he's not a blogger, or Nancy Grace, he is directly involved with her. I wonder why Casey does not feel he may not be her best advocate, is he going to defend her bearing in mind what he has publicly said about her?

 

[JBean]

Yoohoo this is not a discussion thread

Leave a question for an attorney
Answer the question if you are an attorney that has been verified
Do not answer or comment if you are not an attorney
Feel free to comment back to the attorney with a follow up question or thanks if he/she answers your questions.
Please do not have discussion about the answers. This is a reference thread and not for chit chat.

If your post was removed it is because it was not a question for an attorney, or you answered a question and you are not an attorney.

Thanks all.

 

[AZlawyer]

He had no testimonial (actual) knowledge of her guilt, he was just flapping his gums as an outsider. He wasn't under oath at the time that he made the statements. I guess I would say it's not so much that it's not "relevant" as that it doesn't rise to the level of actual EVIDENCE. It was just his opinion as to her guilt. Opinion evidence doesn't come in from lay witnesses and he is not an "expert" as to guilt or innocence.* It's no more relevant than opinions on WS as to her guilt or innocence. Would you expect, say, Nancy Grace's testimony about her opinions to come in? Really?


[SIZE=-1]90.701 Opinion testimony of lay witnesses.--If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness's testimony about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](1) The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy, communicate what he or she has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inferences or opinions and the witness's use of inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of the objecting party; and [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, experience, or training." (Emphasis added)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC701.HTM&Title=-%3E2009-%3ECh0090-%3ESection%20701#0090.701
[/SIZE]

Hmmm. This is different from AZ's rule on lay opinion evidence. Are you a FL lawyer, or does your jurisdiction have a similar rule? Do you think in order to get CA/GA/tow yard guy's "smells like death" opinions in, the SA will have to either (1) show that it requires no special experience to be able to discern the smell of death or (2) get them qualified as experts? I would think it does require special experience (the experience of smelling dead bodies) to recognize the smell.

Or do you think the SA can get it in by avoiding "opinion" questions and instead asking things like, "Was the smell familiar to you? When have you smelled something like that before?" etc.? Seems to me this evidence is going to come in one way or the other...

RH, I would love to hear your thoughts too.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Baez also broke jail rules by secretly passing messages to Casey

Baez brought in a third party into this IMO. It was Cindy's (Who knows who else) emails to Casey, and Casey's to Cindy I would assume., so how would that fit into attorney/client privilege if the SA were to ask the judge for Baez's laptop files pertaining to the message passing since it is against law to do so?

The allegations are surfacing that Jose Baez also broke jail rules by secretly passing messages to his client.

Outside the attorney's entrance at the jail, a sign clearly states that "Attorneys are not authorized to convey to an inmate any written communication of a personal nature."http://www.clickorlando.com/news/23085002/detail.html

 

[LambChop]

I would think JB can't claim attorney/client priviledge for anything that was written by KC to others and visa versa. I'm surprised we have not heard that LE is asking him for that correspondence?

 

[AZlawyer]

Baez also broke jail rules by secretly passing messages to Casey

Baez brought in a third party into this IMO. It was Cindy's (Who knows who else) emails to Casey, and Casey's to Cindy I would assume., so how would that fit into attorney/client privilege if the SA were to ask the judge for Baez's laptop files pertaining to the message passing since it is against law to do so?

I would think JB can't claim attorney/client priviledge for anything that was written by KC to others and visa versa. I'm surprised we have not heard that LE is asking him for that correspondence?

There would be no A/C privilege for the family messages/letters. Maybe that's what the secret conference was about after the hearing--when Ashton seemed all giddy afterward?

 

[LambChop]

I know this sounds silly but I have a question about Costa Rica. Does the US have an extradiction agreement with Costa Rica?

 

[AZlawyer]

I know this sounds silly but I have a question about Costa Rica. Does the US have an extradiction agreement with Costa Rica?

Yes.

http://sanjose.usembassy.gov/exttreatyeng.html

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Yes.

http://sanjose.usembassy.gov/exttreatyeng.html

AZ, first let me thank you for all you do for this board. Certainly not to downplay anyone else's opinion, but I look for your posts in each thread that I read, knowing they will come from a professional, legal viewpoint. There are a lot of very clear, thinking minds here and I very much value that.

My question is this, and I have discussed this with a few other attorneys, but I would like your opinion. The State can "use" Casey's claim about sexual abuse to their favor/advantage if they wanted to, or so I would think. They could pursue charges against George and Lee, which "may", (but doubtful, IMO), turn a tide with Casey if she cared enough about her father and brother, that she may decide to plea, or at least come clean with the truth.

Another advantage to this would be that if Casey decided to back away from her sexual abuse claim so that George and Lee would not be charged, that would also disqualify Casey from being able to use the sexual abuse as part of her emotional plea for mercy during her Sentencing phase, thus perhaps more ensuring the DP.

The first part of my question is, do you see this as a productive route, as I do? Secondly, do you see the possibility of the State opting for this? TIA.

 

[Hell's Belle]

Hmmm. This is different from AZ's rule on lay opinion evidence. Are you a FL lawyer, or does your jurisdiction have a similar rule? Do you think in order to get CA/GA/tow yard guy's "smells like death" opinions in, the SA will have to either (1) show that it requires no special experience to be able to discern the smell of death or (2) get them qualified as experts? I would think it does require special experience (the experience of smelling dead bodies) to recognize the smell.

Or do you think the SA can get it in by avoiding "opinion" questions and instead asking things like, "Was the smell familiar to you? When have you smelled something like that before?" etc.? Seems to me this evidence is going to come in one way or the other...

RH, I would love to hear your thoughts too.

Not admitted in FL, admitted in two other jdx with a rule like FL. The critical difference here--I know you know this--is that George *directly observed*the smell. To use a less emotionally charged example, suppose he smelled a banana. Does a person have to be an expert to testify what a banana smells like? No. The witness has to have smelled a banana before. He's smelled a dead body before. This smelled like a dead body. George could also be qualified as a so-called "fact expert," but I think that's unnecessarily complicating my explanation.

This reminds me a little bit of getting someone to testify that someone was drunk. Rather than stating the conclusory statement, they state that their eyes were bloodshot, they were unsteady on their feet, they smelled strongly of alcohol, etc. etc.

Cheney Mason didn't *directly observe* Casey's guilt or innocence. His original view as a talking head is certainly amusing in light of later events, but his former (and for all I know current) opinon is not evidence of her guilt or innocence any more than Hornsby's opinions would be. Or yours or mine.

 

[Hell's Belle]

Yes, I understand, I'm not the professional, you are, but it seems relevant to me. He is publicly proclaiming her guilt, then defending her... he's not a blogger, or Nancy Grace, he is directly involved with her. I wonder why Casey does not feel he may not be her best advocate, is he going to defend her bearing in mind what he has publicly said about her?

But he didn't have any direct knowledge of her guilt or innocence when he was stating his opinions on the news! His former opinions are not evidence.

 

[rhornsby]

Hmmm. This is different from AZ's rule on lay opinion evidence. Are you a FL lawyer, or does your jurisdiction have a similar rule? Do you think in order to get CA/GA/tow yard guy's "smells like death" opinions in, the SA will have to either (1) show that it requires no special experience to be able to discern the smell of death or (2) get them qualified as experts? I would think it does require special experience (the experience of smelling dead bodies) to recognize the smell.

Or do you think the SA can get it in by avoiding "opinion" questions and instead asking things like, "Was the smell familiar to you? When have you smelled something like that before?" etc.? Seems to me this evidence is going to come in one way or the other...

RH, I would love to hear your thoughts too.

It does not take an expert to testify that something smelled like it was dead.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Question to one of our or any of our wonder lawyer persons: I'll post over on the question thread too.

I know that LE can't just delve into matters between KC and JB due to privilege. WHAT ABOUT IF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF JB IS GOING ON? How does that affect the KC/JB communications? If it was during a commission of a "crime"?

I apologize if this has been answered upthread. If so, just ignore. I'm gonna catch up now.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, first let me thank you for all you do for this board. Certainly not to downplay anyone else's opinion, but I look for your posts in each thread that I read, knowing they will come from a professional, legal viewpoint. There are a lot of very clear, thinking minds here and I very much value that.

My question is this, and I have discussed this with a few other attorneys, but I would like your opinion. The State can "use" Casey's claim about sexual abuse to their favor/advantage if they wanted to, or so I would think. They could pursue charges against George and Lee, which "may", (but doubtful, IMO), turn a tide with Casey if she cared enough about her father and brother, that she may decide to plea, or at least come clean with the truth.

Another advantage to this would be that if Casey decided to back away from her sexual abuse claim so that George and Lee would not be charged, that would also disqualify Casey from being able to use the sexual abuse as part of her emotional plea for mercy during her Sentencing phase, thus perhaps more ensuring the DP.

The first part of my question is, do you see this as a productive route, as I do? Secondly, do you see the possibility of the State opting for this? TIA.

I don't think it would be productive, because I don't think KC would care. And I believe another lawyer posted some time back that the statute of limitations has expired, but don't take my word for that one.

Question to one of our or any of our wonder lawyer persons: I'll post over on the question thread too.

I know that LE can't just delve into matters between KC and JB due to privilege. WHAT ABOUT IF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF JB IS GOING ON? How does that affect the KC/JB communications? If it was during a commission of a "crime"?

I apologize if this has been answered upthread. If so, just ignore. I'm gonna catch up now.

There are exceptions to privilege where the lawyer's communications with a client are in furtherance of criminal activity. But nothing like that is suspected here.