Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[nort]

I wanted to know if Casey changes her story does she then have to testify? Thanks in advance for your help...

 

[rhornsby]

I have a question that has been brought up on two threads, and I'm wanting to make sure I'm right about it. Casey can defy her lawyers and get on the stand and testify, right? I'm pretty sure I've seen cases where the defendant got on the stand despite their defense telling them not to.

If Casey has not testified, the judge will then make sure it was her decision not to testify and that nobody prohibited her from doing so.

Also, if she does testify, the judge would inquire that she understands that she is not required to testify and has the right to remain silent.

 

[beach]

I think voir dire is going to be one of the most important aspects -

Considering KC's indigency status, will it even be fiscally reasonable to expect they can afford to hire a consultant? Wouldn't those funds have to be approved?

 

[shotgun09]

Question: IF in fact Casey is convicted of Manslaughter( accident ) or some lesser sentence can she be charged later in a Civil Court for falsely leading OCSO, FDLE, FBI on wild goose chases in searching for Caylee? IOW can we 'make her pay' later?

 

[Bittiness39]

Do any of the legal experts believe that KC will take the stand in her own defense at trial? I personally believe that she will not. Whether or not she may want to (and she is in control of her own defense...sure she is given advice by her attorneys but ultimately, as her parents put it in a jail visit to her via camera "She is in control") is irrelevant...she holds the cards...but I tend to believe that KC testifying in her own defense would be detrimental to her case and not helpful. Too many questions to answer...too many lies that she has already told.

Also, understanding how a prosecution works (from personal experience as well): being much like a brick layer...laying out their facts sequentially and leaving out too much data...do any of the legal experts on the board believe that the defense will defer their opening statement until after the prosecution has rested their case?

I think that is a pretty viable option...given all of the information the defense has put out in the media already...I would imagine that the jury is going to expect some teeth behind the "SODDI" theory if that is the way the defense is going and not the run of the mill poking holes in the state's evidence deal. The jury will not take kindly, I would imagine to the defense alleging that SODDI and then not putting forth any information that would suggest that SODDI. I am aware the defense is not trying the case and does not have to put forth said "proof."

I just think the defense will defer their opening statement until after the state has rested. JMO.

Sorry for the long winded and strange questions.

 

[logicalgirl]

Here's a question I've been mulling over without knowing the answer for sure.

If the Defense and Casey change their defense strategy at trial and present yet another SODDI, can the prior information re ZFG be brought in by the prosecution?

Because if the jury is making the decision on evidence only presented at trial, and ZFG wasn't included, then we suppose the jury would exclude any information they watched, heard or read prior to the trial.

Or is it as simple as the prosecution submitting Casey's original statement at her arrest?

This trial is going to be a mess!

 

[sleutherontheside]

I think voir dire is going to be one of the most important aspects -

Considering KC's indigency status, will it even be fiscally reasonable to expect they can afford to hire a consultant? Wouldn't those funds have to be approved?

Andrea has some facinating thoughts on Voir Dire!!! In case you were interested.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

:wave: Just a compliment for your guest shot on Steph Watts radio show tonight. I must say, I was impressed. You held your own. I was tickled when the caller asked you about your blogging habits.

I hope you visit the Haleigh Cummings section to give us your legal opinions sometime.

Thanks for telling your thoughts on Judge Perry. I hope you are correct. :gavel:

 

[beach]

:wave: Just a compliment for your guest shot on Steph Watts radio show tonight. I must say, I was impressed. You held your own. I was tickled when the caller asked you about your blogging habits.

I hope you visit the Haleigh Cummings section to give us your legal opinions sometime.

Thanks for telling your thoughts on Judge Perry. I hope you are correct. :gavel:

Thanks aksleuth! :blowkiss:

I missed it, but for anyone who wants to listen, here is the link

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

 

[babycat]

If Casey has not testified, the judge will then make sure it was her decision not to testify and that nobody prohibited her from doing so.

Also, if she does testify, the judge would inquire that she understands that she is not required to testify and has the right to remain silent.

Sorry to get off topic, but you were great on Steph Watts show tonight. I subscribe to his podcast, and was pleased to hear you would be a guest. I hope you'll do his show again in the future!

Hated to knock the thread off topic, but your visitor messages are down so I couldn't post it there :/

Cheers to azlawyer and rhornsby for answering the questions on this thread.


We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
:crazy:

 

[butterfly1978]

Can Judge Perry tell the defense that they can not use AL because Casey is now indigent that they have to use someone in state?

 

[LC446]

When this is filed does it usually include several dates that you are unavailable in a specific time period or is it filed in response to a hearing that is already scheduled?

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry to be a bother but I have another question.

When the SA releases documents and information, who decides what gets released when. I know the defense requests certain things, but what about the rest of the evidence the SA releases?

TIA for your help.

There are rules, of course...but as a practical matter they are not followed to the "T." In making my own disclosures, I mostly send things out when I look at the pile of docs to be disclosed and say to myself, "Hmm. That pile's getting pretty big, and some of the stuff at the bottom is a couple of months old. I'd better do a disclosure."

With a new judge would AL have to attend Friday's hearing?????

Good question....kinda like a "meet and greet" ? So LKB as well?

I don't see why any particular lawyer would have to attend the hearing, unless the order said, "All attorneys of record shall attend," or something similar.

I wanted to know if Casey changes her story does she then have to testify? Thanks in advance for your help...

She doesn't have to testify, but I suppose it's possible that the defense would decide that the only way to convince the jury of another story would be to have Casey testify. I personally would be stunned if this happened, as she will easily be exposed as a liar on the stand.

I think voir dire is going to be one of the most important aspects -

Considering KC's indigency status, will it even be fiscally reasonable to expect they can afford to hire a consultant? Wouldn't those funds have to be approved?

I don't believe a voir dire consultant would be approved as a "necessary" expense.

Question: IF in fact Casey is convicted of Manslaughter( accident ) or some lesser sentence can she be charged later in a Civil Court for falsely leading OCSO, FDLE, FBI on wild goose chases in searching for Caylee? IOW can we 'make her pay' later?

She has already been charged with making false statements to LE.

Here's a question I've been mulling over without knowing the answer for sure.

If the Defense and Casey change their defense strategy at trial and present yet another SODDI, can the prior information re ZFG be brought in by the prosecution?

Because if the jury is making the decision on evidence only presented at trial, and ZFG wasn't included, then we suppose the jury would exclude any information they watched, heard or read prior to the trial.

Or is it as simple as the prosecution submitting Casey's original statement at her arrest?

This trial is going to be a mess!

The SA will definitely present the original "ZFG" story, whether or not Casey sticks with that story at trial.

Can Judge Perry tell the defense that they can not use AL because Casey is now indigent that they have to use someone in state?

It is my understanding that the State is paying only for costs, not for attorneys' fees. JP could refuse to pay AL's travel costs, but that doesn't necessarily mean she will withdraw from the case.

When this is filed does it usually include several dates that you are unavailable in a specific time period or is it filed in response to a hearing that is already scheduled?

I haven't read the notice, but I assume it was filed in response to the hearing that was scheduled for this Friday. It is not uncommon to inform the court if you will be unavailable for a string of dates in a certain time period--otherwise, the court might just reset the hearing for the next day, and you'd have to say, "Oh, I'm unavailable that day too--sorry."

 

[TrY]

1. For this Friday, April 30th hearing, will Judge Perry still allow Casey to wear civilian clothes in court since these status hearings don't involve being in front of a jury?

2. Can Judge Perry decide that Casey will have to wear jail garb from now on at all court hearings until there's an actual trial in front of a jury?

 

[AZlawyer]

1. For this Friday, April 30th hearing, will Judge Perry still allow Casey to wear civilian clothes in court since these status hearings don't involve being in front of a jury?

2. Can Judge Perry decide that Casey will have to wear jail garb from now on at all court hearings until there's an actual trial in front of a jury?

None of the hearings thus far have been in front of a jury, so I don't see why anything would change.

 

[Macushla]

question about defense discovery:

Defense has Mr. John Doe, resident of Orlando on their witness list. Do they have to submit any deposition they have taken from Mr. Doe? Do they have to take a deposition from him or can they just list him and call him to the stand during trial without giving any reason?

I am assuming that if they have Dr. Jane Doe on their witness list, they have to cite her C.V. and any other particulars pertaining to whatever her area of expertise is. Again, do they have to depose her and submit the deposition or can they call her to the stand without it.

Defense puts a Winnie The Pooh Blanket on their discovery list. Do they have to give any particulars about this blanket? I know they can not lie about where they got it, but do they HAVE to explain where they got it and give a reason as to why whey want it entered into evidence?

 

[denjet]

I'm wondering if there is any time requirements on filing a notice of unavailability? I mean is there a specific time required to give advance notice? Just doesn't seem like Jose gave the court very much notice ...

 

[Paintr]

If KC does plea out and is forced to allocute all of the details & specifics of Caylee's murder, would her statement be released under the Sunshine Laws, or would that be sealed as part of the plea agreement?

Secondary question assuming that there is a choice in this under the Sunshine Laws: the Defense would likely ask for her confession to be sealed, but would the State be likely to agree?

Thank you kindly for the help.

 

[AZlawyer]

question about defense discovery:

Defense has Mr. John Doe, resident of Orlando on their witness list. Do they have to submit any deposition they have taken from Mr. Doe? Do they have to take a deposition from him or can they just list him and call him to the stand during trial without giving any reason?

I am assuming that if they have Dr. Jane Doe on their witness list, they have to cite her C.V. and any other particulars pertaining to whatever her area of expertise is. Again, do they have to depose her and submit the deposition or can they call her to the stand without it.

Defense puts a Winnie The Pooh Blanket on their discovery list. Do they have to give any particulars about this blanket? I know they can not lie about where they got it, but do they HAVE to explain where they got it and give a reason as to why whey want it entered into evidence?

1. John Doe: The parties will not "submit" depositions of witnesses, but the depositions may be used to cross-examine the witnesses. (I.e., "On December 12, 2008, at your deposition, you said BLAH BLAH BLAH. Now you say BLUE BLUE BLUE. Isn't it true that your memory of this incident was clearer on 12/12/08 than it is today?" etc.) No one is required to take a deposition of a witness before trial.

2. Dr. Do: The credentials of an expert witness will have to be disclosed to the other side, and will be presented at trial in order to get the witness qualified as an expert before the witness provides any "expert" testimony. Again, no deposition is required, but IMO you would have to be an idiot not to depose the experts before trial.

3. Blanket: The defense would have to explain what the blanket tends to prove in order to get it admitted into evidence. This explanation would likely require a sub-explanation of where it came from.

I'm wondering if there is any time requirements on filing a notice of unavailability? I mean is there a specific time required to give advance notice? Just doesn't seem like Jose gave the court very much notice ...

Didn't Jose file the notice of unavailability pretty much right away after the judge announced the hearing date?

If KC does plea out and is forced to allocute all of the details & specifics of Caylee's murder, would her statement be released under the Sunshine Laws, or would that be sealed as part of the plea agreement?

Secondary question assuming that there is a choice in this under the Sunshine Laws: the Defense would likely ask for her confession to be sealed, but would the State be likely to agree?

Thank you kindly for the help.

I can't think of any reason that a statement like this would be sealed.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm trying to make sense of the new defense motion that the state brought the death penalty to the table to financially break the defendant.

When Casey was first charged, she declared herself indigent, right? Then Baez became her lawyer and raised monies selling the rights to Caylee's pictures and video's to ABC. So she then had money, which he spent.

Now she has again been declared indigent.

I don't understand how this motion makes any sense. Can you please explain?