Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Macushla]

Chiming in for a quick sec -

I recall it exactly like ZsaZsa. For the record, the State DID object to the ex parte. Baez was so vague when asked by JP 2-3 times to 'give him a hint' - Baez replied that he really couldn't do that. It was at that point when JP summoned ALL attorneys to the sidebar. Immediately after the sidebar, was when the defense made the motion in open court that KC be allowed to waive her right to attend future hearings. I was left with the impression that it really wasn't an 'expert' at all JB wanted to discuss in camera, - that the motion being discussed at sidebar was about KC being allowed to waive her right to attend future hearings.


I could be totally wrong, but the reason I was led to believe that is because JP never granted or denied in open court the defense ex parte request.

Whatcha think, WS attorneys?

Interesting in that I saw it completely different. It's a good thing we are not being called as eye witnesses, isn't it? I thought after JB said he could not give any more hints, the judge called ONLY the defense up for a side bar and I thought that side bar was about this mystery expert (Who I am pretty darn sure is going to be a psychologist or some other mental health professional). When they returned to their seats, JP asked if there was 'anything else' and that was when Mason brought up KC not attending future hearings. *SIGH*, I guess I had better go watch that last part of the hearing again.

ETA: I just watched the last part of the hearing again, at about 19:40 into the video, just the defense meets the judge for a side bar. Have no clue what that means, but it was onlly the defense.

 

[beach]

ETA: I just watched the last part of the hearing again, at about 19:40 into the video, just the defense meets the judge for a side bar. Have no clue what that means, but it was onlly the defense.

Thank you!!! I was just about to go watch the last portion again, too before I saw your 'ETA'. Thanks for saving me the trouble and correcting my memory!

Also, so sorry for posting anything misleading. :blushing:

eta: I agree that it was probably a psychologist / psychiatrist /mental health professional that was probably at issue.

 

[Macushla]

Thank you!!! I was just about to go watch the last portion again, too before I saw your 'ETA'. Thanks for saving me the trouble and correcting my memory!

Also, so sorry for posting anything misleading. :blushing:

I am glad I was able to save you the headache of watching JB and company all over again! We have ALL posted things that weren't quite all correct at some point, don't worry about it. You were upset that you posted something misleading - and you certainly didn't do it on purpose!!! I can't say that for everyone I have run into over the last two years. :innocent:

 

[Spangle]

Which shows why several witnesses are talked to. And even tho they might give slightly different stories, the investigators don't consider ANY of them lying. But all telling the truth, as they SEEN it.

We interpret what we see, based upon past experiences and meanings. We focus on different things, etc. Have different visions and hearings. Lighting different, angles different. Etc, etc. It all makes a difference.

ETA: I"m not a lawyer. I just think, considering the topic of this website, that this is something we should all be aware of, when investigating or reading witness statements. We shouldn't assume someone is lying or trying to lead a false trail. And these little "opps" should help us remember that.

question for the lawyers: Is stuff like this taught in law school? Or do you have to figure out human behavior on your own?

 

[AZlawyer]

Which shows why several witnesses are talked to. And even tho they might give slightly different stories, the investigators don't consider ANY of them lying. But all telling the truth, as they SEEN it.

We interpret what we see, based upon past experiences and meanings. We focus on different things, etc. Have different visions and hearings. Lighting different, angles different. Etc, etc. It all makes a difference.

ETA: I"m not a lawyer. I just think, considering the topic of this website, that this is something we should all be aware of, when investigating or reading witness statements. We shouldn't assume someone is lying or trying to lead a false trail. And these little "opps" should help us remember that.

question for the lawyers: Is stuff like this taught in law school? Or do you have to figure out human behavior on your own?

Personally, I think an understanding of human behavior is what separates the good lawyers from the crappy lawyers. There are an awful lot of people who get through law school and pass the bar but seem to be missing the empathy "chip" in their brains. Not too helpful when it comes to negotiating a settlement, convincing a client of the best course of action, picking a jury, etc.

Whether any of these subtleties are mentioned in law school basically depends upon the quality of your professors.

 

[okiedokietoo]

If the allegations of abuse by Lee and George are brought up during the penalty phase (I assume that is if and when it would be brought up) would the SA call back GA and LA and ask them about the abuse? I have no idea how the penalty phase is conducted.

 

[logicalgirl]

If the allegations of abuse by Lee and George are brought up during the penalty phase (I assume that is if and when it would be brought up) would the SA call back GA and LA and ask them about the abuse? I have no idea how the penalty phase is conducted.

And to add to that, I was reading some information re the penalty phase that suggests this information can be alluded to but not substantiated like the major part of the case. Does this mean Andrea et al can for example talk of abuse re ICA from Lee and George but not need to prove it?

 

[KeysBreeze]

For Mr. Hornsby,

When Casey/inmate has court hearings/trial what does she eat for lunch? Does the jail provide food during long trial days or does the attorney? What would said lunch consist of? Curious minds want to know stupid things. tia

 

[AZlawyer]

If the allegations of abuse by Lee and George are brought up during the penalty phase (I assume that is if and when it would be brought up) would the SA call back GA and LA and ask them about the abuse? I have no idea how the penalty phase is conducted.

They could. I'm not sure if they would, as GA and LA give the impression of lying even when they are telling the truth...

And to add to that, I was reading some information re the penalty phase that suggests this information can be alluded to but not substantiated like the major part of the case. Does this mean Andrea et al can for example talk of abuse re ICA from Lee and George but not need to prove it?

Evidence must be presented, but Casey saying it happened would count as evidence. Can you link to what you were reading, so I can try to explain what it meant?

 

[countzero]

Hi AZ, Short question for ya. I was just replying to the duct tape photo thread , the one where BJB showed a possible order of the tape applied.

Will Ashton be able to actually show in court HOW the state believes it was applied?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZ, Short question for ya. I was just replying to the duct tape photo thread , the one where BJB showed a possible order of the tape applied.

Will Ashton be able to actually show in court HOW the state believes it was applied?

Yes, assuming they have evidence supporting that belief.

 

[Reagan]

If/when Dr. Lee testifies, will his prior misconduct in the phil spector case
get admitted?

 

[logicalgirl]

They could. I'm not sure if they would, as GA and LA give the impression of lying even when they are telling the truth...



Evidence must be presented, but Casey saying it happened would count as evidence. Can you link to what you were reading, so I can try to explain what it meant?

I will have to go back through the threads but someone this weekend posted a very comprehensive paper about 70 pages long in pdf form about a capital murder trial, and how evidence must be presented, plus the penalty phase, and what can and cannot be said. I recall reading that "evidence" can be inferred but does not have to have specific evidence to back it up, which shocked me.

I will find it and bring back the link since Beach recently taught me how to do that.

 

[Mamabear1963]

In the order setting motion hearings here:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23433990/detail.html

It states:

2. There will be a hearing on May 10, 2010, beginning at 9 am, at which time the court will hear any pending motions that are ripe for consideration. The defense shall provide the Court with a list of said Motion, identifying those that will require the presentation of witness testimony or other evidence.


I was just reading through this again...and was wondering...did the defense need to do that before tomorrow morning at 9 or at the hearing?

 

[AZlawyer]

If/when Dr. Lee testifies, will his prior misconduct in the phil spector case
get admitted?

That depends whether or not there is some reason to think he did anything similar in this case.

In the order setting motion hearings here:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23433990/detail.html

It states:

2. There will be a hearing on May 10, 2010, beginning at 9 am, at which time the court will hear any pending motions that are ripe for consideration. The defense shall provide the Court with a list of said Motion, identifying those that will require the presentation of witness testimony or other evidence.


I was just reading through this again...and was wondering...did the defense need to do that before tomorrow morning at 9 or at the hearing?

It's pretty unclear. Normally, I would read that to mean that the list was required before the hearing, but if the list hasn't been filed yet, there's really no time to do so before the hearing...

 

[LambChop]

JB said again in the hearing the other day that Dr. Lee found 17 hairs while inspecting the trunk when Dr. Lee only found one hair in the white trash bag and LE found the other's when they examined the bag afterwards. So why are they continuing to say Dr. Lee found 17 hairs when he certainly cannot testify to that??? Would that not lead the jury to think he was being dishonest with this reporting??

 

[5stars]

With all the tv interviews the Anthony's have given, can they be used in court?

 

[AZlawyer]

JB said again in the hearing the other day that Dr. Lee found 17 hairs while inspecting the trunk when Dr. Lee only found one hair in the white trash bag and LE found the other's when they examined the bag afterwards. So why are they continuing to say Dr. Lee found 17 hairs when he certainly cannot testify to that??? Would that not lead the jury to think he was being dishonest with this reporting??

Yes, JB will need to learn the facts before trial, or the jury will not trust him on other things.

With all the tv interviews the Anthony's have given, can they be used in court?

Maybe, if they said something in those interviews that is inconsistent with their testimony at trial.

 

[MissJames]

IIRC the court ordered the defense to turn over discovery of the evidence proving KC's innocence.This was after a hearing in which TM declared they had such evidence. Whatever happened to that?

 

[Mamabear1963]

I wasn't sure where to ask this...or if it deserved its own thread...but

Because AL does not practice law in FL the likelihood of her arguing in front of JP is nil. I wonder if she has done some research on His Honor...and if we will see a different AL then we have seen in her lectures. I honestly can't see him allowing her the crying and other theatrics that she says she does?