Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[logicalgirl]

Just how much leeway in time do you believe JBP will give A.Lyon(s) in court tomorrow to discuss her presentations regarding the setting aside the death penalty motion?

JBP seems to love brevity and Andrea appears to (cough) give expanded explanations complete with what she believes are the appropriate "emotes".

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

I personally recall that the defense mentioned in a document filed not long after that what they meant was that they interpreted the evidence already released by the State to prove KC's innocence--it was the same evidence but they interpreted it differently.

IIRC, this document was not labelled as "Notice of Compliance with That Order You Are All Waiting for Us to Comply With." But IMHO that is what the defense intended it to be.

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?

Just how much leeway in time do you believe JBP will give A.Lyon(s) in court tomorrow to discuss her presentations regarding the setting aside the death penalty motion?

JBP seems to love brevity and Andrea appears to (cough) give expanded explanations complete with what she believes are the appropriate "emotes".

I think JBP will not allow Professor Lyon to get theatrical in his courtroom. But it is my understanding that most of her theatrics are saved for the jury in any event, not for motions hearings. She might, however, have to figure out how to answer a question directly and succinctly or risk getting slapped down by the judge.

JBP...Jay Blanchard Park, Judge Belvin Perry...we need some new abbreviations.

 

[logicalgirl]

I personally recall that the defense mentioned in a document filed not long after that what they meant was that they interpreted the evidence already released by the State to prove KC's innocence--it was the same evidence but they interpreted it differently.

IIRC, this document was not labelled as "Notice of Compliance with That Order You Are All Waiting for Us to Comply With." But IMHO that is what the defense intended it to be.





I think JBP will not allow Professor Lyon to get theatrical in his courtroom. But it is my understanding that most of her theatrics are saved for the jury in any event, not for motions hearings. She might, however, have to figure out how to answer a question directly and succinctly or risk getting slapped down by the judge.

JBP...Jay Blanchard Park, Judge Belvin Perry...we need some new abbreviations.

Darn forgot about the park with the initials - how about HHJP? He needs more than two letters.

 

[AZlawyer]

Darn forgot about the park with the initials - how about HHJP? He needs more than two letters.

I agree..besides, "JP" is JP Ch***, Ricardo's roommate. Unless we're calling him JPC. :waitasec:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Darn forgot about the park with the initials - how about HHJP? He needs more than two letters.

Love and endorse HHJP. I always felt JB never gave the Honorable Judge Strickland his due!

 

[logicalgirl]

Love and endorse HHJP. I always felt JB never gave the Honorable Judge Strickland his due!

HHJP it is then - and very deserving if you ask me!

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

Found it - hooray - it was posted by BeanE post #25 in the mitigation thread. BeanE linked to a pdf, page 91 of the Florida Court Advanced Judicial Studies and Conducting the Penalty Phase of a Capitol Case.

I didn't print it out when I first read it because I needed a lot of ink - lol. But will do so I have it for reference.

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

Found it - hooray - it was posted by BeanE post #25 in the mitigation thread. BeanE linked to a pdf, page 91 of the Florida Court Advanced Judicial Studies and Conducting the Penalty Phase of a Capitol Case.

I didn't print it out when I first read it because I needed a lot of ink - lol. But will do so I have it for reference.

OK, after you look at that again let me know if you still have a question.

And thanks everyone for sticking up for me on That One Thread today lol. Whenever I have to step away to do some actual legal work, I come back to see that you all had my back. :blushing:

 

[MD MOMMY]

Okay so now the prosecution needs to spell out which aggravating factors they are using to prosecute KC. Could JA list them all and then "suddenly" not decide to use most of them? I guess what I'm asking is if he lists them does it necessarily mean he HAS to use them?

 

[Cher352]

Okay so now the prosecution needs to spell out which aggravating factors they are using to prosecute KC. Could JA list them all and then "suddenly" not decide to use most of them? I guess what I'm asking is if he lists them does it necessarily mean he HAS to use them?

Good thought!

And I would like to ask our experienced lawyers if this is common for the State to have to tell the Defense this before the actual trial starts?

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay so now the prosecution needs to spell out which aggravating factors they are using to prosecute KC. Could JA list them all and then "suddenly" not decide to use most of them? I guess what I'm asking is if he lists them does it necessarily mean he HAS to use them?

No, it would be a "maximum" list of aggravators.

Good thought!

And I would like to ask our experienced lawyers if this is common for the State to have to tell the Defense this before the actual trial starts?

Yes, and IMO it is required by due process, although there are some cases (like this one) in which the defense ought to be able to figure out which aggravators apply...just go down the list and check 'em off..under 12, parental relationship, aggravated child abuse, heinous and cruel, premeditated...not too hard really. :waitasec:

 

[beach]

And thanks everyone for sticking up for me on That One Thread today lol. Whenever I have to step away to do some actual legal work, I come back to see that you all had my back. :blushing:

:blowkiss:

uh...and THANK YOU...well, for saving me from myself.

 

[butterfly1978]

HL has a pretty bad rep, about distorting the facts, I know that you stated up thread that his prior misconducts would only be brought up if beleived he did the same in this case. I have a two part question, #1. Why does his prior misconducts not automatically disqualify him from praticipating in this or any case? He could really screw somethings up pampering with evidence and such.
#2 If he was found to have misconduct in this case or screw something up and he was no longer allowed to be the defence expert, would that lead to a mistrial, or what kind of ramifications would that have if the defence expert was not allowed to testify?

 

[Aedrys]

My question is this: is it a common lawyer tactic to be as unprepared as Casey's defense always seems to be? I can't imagine that they will have any success during the trial if they show up to court each day so unprepared. Are they not taking this case seriously? Or is this underpreparedness just a defense attorney tactic? They keep getting slammed by the prosecution at every turn, and even to some extent now by HHJP. I just don't get how they think they can possibly get a victory at trial by continuing to be underprepared and quite frankly, underwhelming in court with each hearing. Or do you think this is all just a setup for Casey to eventually plea and that's why the defense is underachieving? I am not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like they are trying to do their best for their client at all. Too bad Casey is not more worried about that.

 

[faefrost]

A follow up on the Dr. HL questions. Would the simple fact or statement that he and not LE found 1 or 17 hairs that may or may not be used to attempt to prove SODDI open up the door to his prior misconduct and his actions in the Lana Clarckson/Phil Specter case?

What I mean is, does it seem likely that the amunition for the prosecution to challenge him on past bad acts is already in play? He himself "found" mysterious evidence that noone else did. Could just his contact with that and the chain of discovery be enough to give the SA room to bring the Specter trial actions in? (And if so why in gods name would the defense still be planning on using him?)

 

[AZlawyer]

HL has a pretty bad rep, about distorting the facts, I know that you stated up thread that his prior misconducts would only be brought up if beleived he did the same in this case. I have a two part question, #1. Why does his prior misconducts not automatically disqualify him from praticipating in this or any case? He could really screw somethings up pampering with evidence and such.
#2 If he was found to have misconduct in this case or screw something up and he was no longer allowed to be the defence expert, would that lead to a mistrial, or what kind of ramifications would that have if the defence expert was not allowed to testify?

#1. It just doesn't. You are free to hire an expert with a bad rep, and the other side is free to bring it out at trial if he does something wrong. I agree, though, that he could have really screwed up the evidence. LE kept an eye on him at the forensics garage, but I'm glad they didn't let him near the remains at the scene, as JB requested.

#2. No mistrial. He would just be roasted in cross-examination.

A follow up on the Dr. HL questions. Would the simple fact or statement that he and not LE found 1 or 17 hairs that may or may not be used to attempt to prove SODDI open up the door to his prior misconduct and his actions in the Lana Clarckson/Phil Specter case?

What I mean is, does it seem likely that the amunition for the prosecution to challenge him on past bad acts is already in play? He himself "found" mysterious evidence that noone else did. Could just his contact with that and the chain of discovery be enough to give the SA room to bring the Specter trial actions in? (And if so why in gods name would the defense still be planning on using him?)

IIRC, none of the new hairs found by HL or by LE after he left were anything unexpected (i.e., they were Anthony family hairs). Now, if a mysterious Some Other Dude hair had showed up in the trunk coincidentally with HL's visit, I'm quite sure that his prior "issues" would be raised at trial. Otherwise, there is no reason to bring in that information.

My question is this: is it a common lawyer tactic to be as unprepared as Casey's defense always seems to be? I can't imagine that they will have any success during the trial if they show up to court each day so unprepared. Are they not taking this case seriously? Or is this underpreparedness just a defense attorney tactic? They keep getting slammed by the prosecution at every turn, and even to some extent now by HHJP. I just don't get how they think they can possibly get a victory at trial by continuing to be underprepared and quite frankly, underwhelming in court with each hearing. Or do you think this is all just a setup for Casey to eventually plea and that's why the defense is underachieving? I am not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like they are trying to do their best for their client at all. Too bad Casey is not more worried about that.

I don't think the unpreparedness is a tactic. Also, I think only JB is regularly unprepared, and he's getting a little better. Their poor performance thus far in court is more the result of the poor legal arguments they have to make (for appeal purposes) than anything else.

 

[MD MOMMY]

No, it would be a "maximum" list of aggravators.



Yes, and IMO it is required by due process, although there are some cases (like this one) in which the defense ought to be able to figure out which aggravators apply...just go down the list and check 'em off..under 12, parental relationship, aggravated child abuse, heinous and cruel, premeditated...not too hard really. :waitasec:

Okay then I would list all that apply which I'm sure they are going to use all they can anyway. Then for fun, I would list a few that could apply that I wouldn't necesarily use. I have a feeling when the prosecution provides their list we are going to be scratching our heads at a few. JMO.

 

[Anais]

:blowkiss:

uh...and THANK YOU...well, for saving me from myself.

O/T Sorry, but just returning after being gone very ill and heard I missed some stuff and now realize there must've been some real fireworks yesterday!

BTW All my fellow WS'ER's rock!

 

[logicalgirl]

O/T Sorry, but just returning after being gone very ill and heard I missed some stuff and now realize there must've been some real fireworks yesterday!

BTW All my fellow WS'ER's rock!

Anais OT but I hope you are better. Sorry to hear you have been ill.:blowkiss:

The four part hearings are still available on WFTV and others - well worth a watch - definitely some fireworks during and after. And a huge change in Baez's demeanor in the post hearing chit chat outside the court house.

 

[LambChop]

O/T Sorry, but just returning after being gone very ill and heard I missed some stuff and now realize there must've been some real fireworks yesterday!

BTW All my fellow WS'ER's rock!

Hope you are feeling much better.