Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Macushla]

I have a question about the order granting the motion for Statement of Particulars Providing Notice of Aggravating Circumstances. My friend works for a Defense Attorney and we have a minor disagreement as to exactly what the Judge granted the defense. I thought he told the State to list the specific aggravating circumstances they were going to use to argue for the death penalty, nothing more. My friend seems to think the Judge granted a motion for the State of Particulars too, which means the State will have to lay out their theory of when, where, how, etc. etc. Can anyone clarify this for me? Does the order granting this motion ONLY deal with the aggravating circumstances portion or does it also cover the Statement of Particulars in regards to what the State is going to argue about what happened, when, etc.

 

[manatee]

Considering what happened with JS speaking to a blogger...Are there any rules, ethics on attorneys posting on blogs (such as WS) and try to defend their clients? In other words, would be unethical or a violation for one of KC's attorneys to post on WS?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question about the order granting the motion for Statement of Particulars Providing Notice of Aggravating Circumstances. My friend works for a Defense Attorney and we have a minor disagreement as to exactly what the Judge granted the defense. I thought he told the State to list the specific aggravating circumstances they were going to use to argue for the death penalty, nothing more. My friend seems to think the Judge granted a motion for the State of Particulars too, which means the State will have to lay out their theory of when, where, how, etc. etc. Can anyone clarify this for me? Does the order granting this motion ONLY deal with the aggravating circumstances portion or does it also cover the Statement of Particulars in regards to what the State is going to argue about what happened, when, etc.

You're both sort of right. It was a motion for a Statement of Particulars, but the only "particulars" requested were the aggravating circumstances that would be argued. So IMO all the State has to do is provide the list. But if I were them I would give a short (2-sentence) explanation for each one as well. Otherwise JB will be back in court claiming he can't understand the list.

Considering what happened with JS speaking to a blogger...Are there any rules, ethics on attorneys posting on blogs (such as WS) and try to defend their clients? In other words, would be unethical or a violation for one of KC's attorneys to post on WS?

You mean under a false name or false pretenses of not being involved with the defense? And/or intentionally making false statements? Yes, that would be unethical. I suppose it would be OK for JB to post as "JoseBaez" and say things like "I feel I must correct a prejudicial misimpression of the evidence that has been released to the public. There is no evidence that my client or any member of the A family ever searched the name "ZFG" prior to the date of the 911 calls."

 

[manatee]

You're both sort of right. It was a motion for a Statement of Particulars, but the only "particulars" requested were the aggravating circumstances that would be argued. So IMO all the State has to do is provide the list. But if I were them I would give a short (2-sentence) explanation for each one as well. Otherwise JB will be back in court claiming he can't understand the list.



You mean under a false name or false pretenses of not being involved with the defense? And/or intentionally making false statements? Yes, that would be unethical. I suppose it would be OK for JB to post as "JoseBaez" and say things like "I feel I must correct a prejudicial misimpression of the evidence that has been released to the public. There is no evidence that my client or any member of the A family ever searched the name "ZFG" prior to the date of the 911 calls."

Hi AZ,
Yes, I mean under false pretense...using an Alias, not their real name, then post defending KC...and poking holes on the SA case? is that allowed?

 

[ynotdivein]

As far as the financial gain aggravating factor: if CA had sued for & won custody of Caylee, as she apparently threatened to do, would KC have been expected to pay some amount of child support? If so, could this be argued as a "financial gain" motive for KC to do away with Caylee--not premeditated gain so much as premeditated loss prevention?

 

[Macushla]

I asked this question on another thread, then realized this would be the best place to ask it, so again:

Does Pro Bono mean the attorney or expert witness is going to pay ALL the expenses they incur in connection with the case or does it mean they are simply waiving their fees but still want to be paid for expenses?

 

[logicalgirl]

Hi AZ,
Yes, I mean under false pretense...using an Alias, not their real name, then post defending KC...and poking holes on the SA case? is that allowed?

Sorry for the OT, but do you mean.....gulp.....cloaked?

 

[AZlawyer]

As far as the financial gain aggravating factor: if CA had sued for & won custody of Caylee, as she apparently threatened to do, would KC have been expected to pay some amount of child support? If so, could this be argued as a "financial gain" motive for KC to do away with Caylee--not premeditated gain so much as premeditated loss prevention?

Custody and child support doesn't work exactly the same when the person trying to get "custody" is not the other parent. So GA and CA would have had to call CPS or whatever they call it in Florida (child protective services), in order to get Caylee declared a ward of the state and them appointed as her caregivers. (BTW, unless they knew something we don't know, there was absolutely no legal basis for them to do so.) During this time KC likely would have been ordered to pay a small amount for child support. But then if they wanted permanent "custody" of Caylee, CA and GA would have had to fight for the termination of parental (KC's) rights and adoption of Caylee by CA and GA, after which KC would NOT have had to pay support.

I asked this question on another thread, then realized this would be the best place to ask it, so again:

Does Pro Bono mean the attorney or expert witness is going to pay ALL the expenses they incur in connection with the case or does it mean they are simply waiving their fees but still want to be paid for expenses?

Normally (and in this case) they still get paid for out-of-pocket costs.

 

[Anais]

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.

I watched a little yesterday.

Hope you are feeling much better.

I am just sooo happy to be back home, hospitals are awful, you never get any sleep! LOL I am beginning to feel a little better. Thanks for all of the well wishes!

 

[manatee]

Sorry for the OT, but do you mean.....gulp.....cloaked?

Yes. Is it permissible for JB or any other of KC's attorneys to post, for example here at WS, using a different name or identity...pretend to just be a "regular" person?

 

[5stars]

Can anything we say on WS be used in court?I can't see how .

 

[countzero]

In some of the current and past threads, there has been mention of ICA being on prescriptions to "calm" her during the trial. My ? is this: could the use of prescription drugs by ICA lead to a possible appeal matter and would HHJP have to approve of them prior to the trial? I know the jail medics would probably have to approve this as well, and then there is the factor of her counsel asking for them too.

Based on legal experience, what do the legal's say. Thanks.

 

[Macushla]

A general question regarding attorneys and their practice of law. Once they have passed the bar, do they have to obtain a license to practice law in whatever State they choose to live/work in? Do they have to take so many hours of 'continuing education' as some doctors do? Bill Shaffer, the legal analyst does not practice law any more, from what I can gather. does he have to do certain things to maintain his position as a 'lawyer in good standing' I guess I am wondering if a lawyer chooses to not practice any more, do they become inactive or could they turn around after say 2 years of non practice and start doing business again (whichever they speciality is) without having to re apply for a license or something?

 

[merker]

Hello and apologies if this is a repeat question.

Online Sunshine lists 15 aggravating factors a thru o:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...e&Search_String=921.141&URL=CH0921/Sec141.HTM
(copywright 2010 Statute as of 2009)

The DP Info Center lists 17 for FL 1 thru 17:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/aggravating-factors-capital-punishment-state
(copywright 2010 with sources dated 1998 and 2006)

So which one is correct???

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes. Is it permissible for JB or any other of KC's attorneys to post, for example here at WS, using a different name or identity...pretend to just be a "regular" person?

I think I answered this one, but no. It would be unethical for them to post pretending to be someone else.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can anything we say on WS be used in court?I can't see how .

I can't see how either.

In some of the current and past threads, there has been mention of ICA being on prescriptions to "calm" her during the trial. My ? is this: could the use of prescription drugs by ICA lead to a possible appeal matter and would HHJP have to approve of them prior to the trial? I know the jail medics would probably have to approve this as well, and then there is the factor of her counsel asking for them too.

Based on legal experience, what do the legal's say. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean. If she is on psych drugs, she must have obtained them by seeing a Dr. at the jail. The judge would not get involved unless it seemed like Casey was really "out of it" at trial. To clarify, the way she has looked in her court appearances thus far would not raise any concern.

A general question regarding attorneys and their practice of law. Once they have passed the bar, do they have to obtain a license to practice law in whatever State they choose to live/work in? Do they have to take so many hours of 'continuing education' as some doctors do? Bill Shaffer, the legal analyst does not practice law any more, from what I can gather. does he have to do certain things to maintain his position as a 'lawyer in good standing' I guess I am wondering if a lawyer chooses to not practice any more, do they become inactive or could they turn around after say 2 years of non practice and start doing business again (whichever they speciality is) without having to re apply for a license or something?

You don't HAVE to get a license, but then AFAIK in all states you could not then represent yourself as a "lawyer" unless and until you do get a license. Yes, in most states there are continuing education requirements, even if you are not actively practicing, if you wish to maintain your license. Most states also have "inactive status" options, with varying requirements for re-activation of the license.

Hello and apologies if this is a repeat question.

Online Sunshine lists 15 aggravating factors a thru o:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...e&Search_String=921.141&URL=CH0921/Sec141.HTM
(copywright 2010 Statute as of 2009)

The DP Info Center lists 17 for FL 1 thru 17:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/aggravating-factors-capital-punishment-state
(copywright 2010 with sources dated 1998 and 2006)

So which one is correct???

The first link is correct. The second link has some outdated items on the list and some new items.

 

[eaglemom]

So now that we have the aggravating factors..I have an additional question-- under what factor would this/does this have fallen/fall (I got it from the 5/13/10 news thread here at WS):

In a report, NBC’s Kerry Sanders explained that Caylee’s official cause of death (”homicide by undetermined means&#8221 was “a rare conclusion by the medical examiner who had limited forensics to work with.”

Sanders said Perry had established “a fast-paced agenda.”

And Sanders talked to former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey. His view: “If the prosecution can prove that a mother intentionally murdered her own child in order to pursue a wild social life, then this is indeed a death-penalty case.”

Thanks!

 

[Mamabear1963]

So now that we have the aggravating factors..I have an additional question-- under what factor would this/does this have fallen/fall (I got it from the 5/13/10 news thread here at WS):

In a report, NBC’s Kerry Sanders explained that Caylee’s official cause of death (”homicide by undetermined means”) was “a rare conclusion by the medical examiner who had limited forensics to work with.”

Sanders said Perry had established “a fast-paced agenda.”

And Sanders talked to former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey. His view: “If the prosecution can prove that a mother intentionally murdered her own child in order to pursue a wild social life, then this is indeed a death-penalty case.”

Thanks!

Okay, piggybacking a question here...(in bed with bronchitis and walking pneumonia so be paitient with my sick brain)

Do you think the above has anything to do with our expert witness on the 11th? With the gender bias garbage...I mean slant?

 

[AZlawyer]

So now that we have the aggravating factors..I have an additional question-- under what factor would this/does this have fallen/fall (I got it from the 5/13/10 news thread here at WS):

In a report, NBC’s Kerry Sanders explained that Caylee’s official cause of death (”homicide by undetermined means”) was “a rare conclusion by the medical examiner who had limited forensics to work with.”

Sanders said Perry had established “a fast-paced agenda.”

And Sanders talked to former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey. His view: “If the prosecution can prove that a mother intentionally murdered her own child in order to pursue a wild social life, then this is indeed a death-penalty case.”

Thanks!

--Victim under 12
--Murderer was victim's parent
--Cold, calculating and premeditated

Okay, piggybacking a question here...(in bed with bronchitis and walking pneumonia so be paitient with my sick brain)

Do you think the above has anything to do with our expert witness on the 11th? With the gender bias garbage...I mean slant?

Let's see...I will replace "mother" with "father"... “If the prosecution can prove that a father intentionally murdered his own child in order to pursue a wild social life, then this is indeed a death-penalty case.”

Yep, still works for me...

 

[logicalgirl]

Can the aggravated child abuse charge stand alone or does it have to be merged with another capital murder charge at trial? I keep hearing/reading different points of view.

TIA.