Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer - I can't find a working link, so I attached the file. Thanks for your help :angel:.

It sounds to me like they want a 2-stage discovery/disclosure process: first, discovery on the guilt phase, then the trial, then discovery on the penalty phase, then the sentencing hearing. I don't think this is normal, and I don't think Casey's case is "special," although her attorneys clearly do.

And why did they not mention this when Judge Strickland ordered the parties to propose a discovery and trial schedule??:waitasec:

 

[nums24]

It sounds to me like they want a 2-stage discovery/disclosure process: first, discovery on the guilt phase, then the trial, then discovery on the penalty phase, then the sentencing hearing. I don't think this is normal, and I don't think Casey's case is "special," although her attorneys clearly do.

And why did they not mention this when Judge Strickland ordered the parties to propose a discovery and trial schedule??:waitasec:

It looks like from this discovery schedule (linked below) the penalty phase witnesses are supposed to be discussed June 2010.

http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2010/0308/22774412.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

It looks like from this discovery schedule (linked below) the penalty phase witnesses are supposed to be discussed June 2010.

http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2010/0308/22774412.pdf

OK, so there is no order yet regarding penalty phase discovery. I'll be interested in seeing the SA's response to this motion.

 

[denjet]

AZLawyer asked me to post this order in this thread because it answers some questions asked earlier in the thread about cameras in the courtroom

Here's an administrative order by Judge Perry pertaining to special procedures and media in high profile cases:

AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS OF GENERAL MEDIA INTEREST AND PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL INTEREST/HIGH PROFILE PROCEEDINGS

Is this a sneak peek at how Judge Perry will run his courtroom? I sure hope so ...

It starts off:

(a) All representatives of the media must exhibit media credentials at all times.
(b) All representatives of the media must read this Administrative Order and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.450 governing technological coverage of judicial proceedings.
(c) All representatives of the media must exhibit proper courtroom decorum, dress appropriately, no eating or gum chewing, and place pagers and cell phones in silent mode.

 

[aeli2468]

I don't post often, but have read quite a bit here. Thanks to all the answers you give us!

I had a question about how Judge Perry was chosen for this case. Would it have been solely on who was available to take on the case? OR would the fact that this is a circus of a trial been taken into account when assigning this to the Chief Judge?

I hadn't seen this asked before, so sorry if you already answered. thanks!

~elizabeth

 

[AZlawyer]

I don't post often, but have read quite a bit here. Thanks to all the answers you give us!

I had a question about how Judge Perry was chosen for this case. Would it have been solely on who was available to take on the case? OR would the fact that this is a circus of a trial been taken into account when assigning this to the Chief Judge?

I hadn't seen this asked before, so sorry if you already answered. thanks!

~elizabeth

I read online that Judge P is not part of the "normal" case rotation list, but takes on cases that might require extra time or attention.

 

[Paintr]

I am bringing my post over from another thread because I really would like to know. Thank you kindly in advance for the help.

The judicial system, like every where else, is hurting for money. There is just never enough to cover all they wish it could. Knowing that the defense will drag this case out with costly motion after motion, tying up the court's time and resources, is it beyond a possibility that the SA's office would settle on reduced charges and therefore a reduced sentence in this case to avoid the cost of a lenghtly, media circus trial?

How many other cases will the SA's office have funds for if their budget is way over extended to convict KC of murder 1? How much do funds, or lack thereof, impact prosecution of cases?

Maybe one of our knowledgeable lawyers could offer an opinion?

 

[uhohnogo]

It sounds to me like they want a 2-stage discovery/disclosure process: first, discovery on the guilt phase, then the trial, then discovery on the penalty phase, then the sentencing hearing. I don't think this is normal, and I don't think Casey's case is "special," although her attorneys clearly do.

And why did they not mention this when Judge Strickland ordered the parties to propose a discovery and trial schedule??:waitasec:

Thanks for being so helpful AZ Lawyer! What is the difference between a guilt phase and a penalty phase witness? I am really confused about that, and why the defense wants to preserve discovery of penalty phase witnesses? (I don't know if preserve is the right word, I can't think of it right now).

 

[nancy botwin]

Quick question for verification on this Motion to Recluse...

If I understand correctly, Casey had this option available to her on a "one shot deal", and cannot turn around and accuse the new judge of bias again?

Marinade Dave commented today that he has spoken with a "nameless legal person" (who I am assuming is probably Shaffer since he spent much time in the past blogging about his "courting" of Shaffer and his wife at various hearings) who told him "this can go on and on". He stated that in other words, there is nothing to stop Team Baez from filing the same motion against Judge Perry later down the road should it be learned that JP has "researched" this case for any purpose, including COV.

Is this true? Can the defense now try to get JP removed from the case in the hopes they will get some who is a little "greener"?

(Oh, and interestingly enough, in one of his various on camera interviews yesterday, MD also referred to a phone call of support he received from the wife of a "nameless legal person". He should really try to learn these folks names! hee)

The defense could, in the future, file a similar motion against the new judge.
This time it would be slightly different, however. The rule does afford for a sort of "one shot deal" in terms of the level of scrutiny/deference afforded the first motion to remove a judge. The first time this kind of motion is brought, all the allegations within the motion must be regarded as facts; the truth or falsity of the allegations is irrelevant.

The level of scrutiny/standard of review becomes higher if the party (here, the defense) then tries to remove the next judge. In the subsequent motion to disqualify, the new judge would be able to consider and rule on the truth/falsity of the allegations. The defense loses the presumption of truthfulness it enjoys the first time it files a motion to disqualify a judge.

Here's the applicable language from the Rule.
Rule 2.330(g)
If a judge has been previously disqualified on motion for alleged
prejudice or partiality under subdivision (d)(1), a suc-
cessor judge shall not be disqualified based on a suc-
cessive motion by the same party unless the successor
judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in
the case. Such a successor judge may rule on the truth of
the facts alleged in support of the motion.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks for being so helpful AZ Lawyer! What is the difference between a guilt phase and a penalty phase witness? I am really confused about that, and why the defense wants to preserve discovery of penalty phase witnesses? (I don't know if preserve is the right word, I can't think of it right now).

Guilt phase witnesses testify about things that tend to prove whether Casey committed the crimes of which she is accused. Penalty phase witnesses (assuming Casey is convicted) will testify about why Casey should not be put to death.

The defense seems to be worried that something they plan to present in the penalty phase might be used against Casey in the guilt phase.

 

[BChand]

The defense could, in the future, file a similar motion against the new judge.
This time it would be slightly different, however. The rule does afford for a sort of "one shot deal" in terms of the level of scrutiny/deference afforded the first motion to remove a judge. The first time this kind of motion is brought, all the allegations within the motion must be regarded as facts; the truth or falsity of the allegations is irrelevant.

The level of scrutiny/standard of review becomes higher if the party (here, the defense) then tries to remove the next judge. In the subsequent motion to disqualify, the new judge would be able to consider and rule on the truth/falsity of the allegations. The defense loses the presumption of truthfulness it enjoys the first time it files a motion to disqualify a judge.

Here's the applicable language from the Rule.
Rule 2.330(g)
If a judge has been previously disqualified on motion for alleged
prejudice or partiality under subdivision (d)(1), a suc-
cessor judge shall not be disqualified based on a suc-
cessive motion by the same party unless the successor
judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in
the case. Such a successor judge may rule on the truth of
the facts alleged in support of the motion.

Thank you for this information. Do you see any foreseeable problems with Judge Perry, considering he was also the judge at the grand jury hearing when Casey was indicted?

Can that be an issue?

 

[nancy botwin]

Thank you for this information. Do you see any foreseeable problems with Judge Perry, considering he was also the judge at the grand jury hearing when Casey was indicted?

Can that be an issue?

I have no real knowledge of the grand jury process in FL. That said, my guess is no. Someone with more knowledge could perhaps give you a better answer/explanation.

That said, I think the latest developments re: Judge Strickland stepping down have tended to create the impression that this sort of thing happens with some frequency. IMO, this type of situation is really quite rare. If there is any potential conflict re: the grand jury, I'd imagine that would be sorted out before he was assigned to the case.

 

[BChand]

I have no real knowledge of the grand jury process in FL. That said, my guess is no. Someone with more knowledge could perhaps give you a better answer/explanation.

That said, I think the latest developments re: Judge Strickland stepping down have tended to create the impression that this sort of thing happens with some frequency. IMO, this type of situation is really quite rare. If there is any potential conflict re: the grand jury, I'd imagine that would be sorted out before he was assigned to the case.

Thank you nancy. That's how I felt about it also. If ANYONE would know if there is a problem, I'm sure it would be Judge Perry.

 

[chefmom]

Guilt phase witnesses testify about things that tend to prove whether Casey committed the crimes of which she is accused. Penalty phase witnesses (assuming Casey is convicted) will testify about why Casey should not be put to death.

The defense seems to be worried that something they plan to present in the penalty phase might be used against Casey in the guilt phase.

BBM

AZ, thank you for all of the help you give all of us in explaining things so well! :blowkiss: We are blessed to have you and the others here helping us! Can you enlighten me as to something that JB might worry about from the penalty phase that would be used against KC in the guilt phase? That one has me stumped. TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM

AZ, thank you for all of the help you give all of us in explaining things so well! :blowkiss: We are blessed to have you and the others here helping us! Can you enlighten me as to something that JB might worry about from the penalty phase that would be used against KC in the guilt phase? That one has me stumped. TIA!

Especially when the D team keeps stating that she's innocent.:waitasec:

I'm still thinking about this one. Someone turn on the Bat Signal--I mean the RH signal--so we can ask a real live criminal defense attorney!

 

[JBean]

If you had a post removed from here, it is because this is a Q&A for our verified lawyers.
Lots of chit chat and discussion taken down ,so please find the apropriate thread.
thanks.

As always..if you are not a verified lawyer, do not answer the questions on this thread, even if you know the answer LOL.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Guilt phase witnesses testify about things that tend to prove whether Casey committed the crimes of which she is accused. Penalty phase witnesses (assuming Casey is convicted) will testify about why Casey should not be put to death.

The defense seems to be worried that something they plan to present in the penalty phase might be used against Casey in the guilt phase.

My take on this points to her complete family dysfunction, sexual abuse allegations on George and Lee, and her ongoing discourse with both her parents, particularly Cindy. They will attempt to raise all of these issues during penalty phase in hopes of a plea for mercy due to sympathy, yet, they are also tangible to her guilt, therefore damaging to her case.

Do either you or Nancy agree?

 

[LambChop]

Now that there is a new judge will he have a hearing right away to introduce himself to KC or will he wait until the next scheduled hearing date????

 

[AZlawyer]

My take on this points to her complete family dysfunction, sexual abuse allegations on George and Lee, and her ongoing discourse with both her parents, particularly Cindy. They will attempt to raise all of these issues during penalty phase in hopes of a plea for mercy due to sympathy, yet, they are also tangible to her guilt, therefore damaging to her case.

Do either you or Nancy agree?

I'm not sure...how are you thinking that those things would be relevant to the guilt phase?

Now that there is a new judge will he have a hearing right away to introduce himself to KC or will he wait until the next scheduled hearing date????

I think something just popped up in the news thread about a status conference next week.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I'm not sure...how are you thinking that those things would be relevant to the guilt phase?

As an attributing factor to motive as part of her mindset; she was stressed due to her home life, unloved, sexually abused, constantly at odds with her parents, yearning for her freedom, etc.