Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[mysteriew]

Originally Posted by Patriciao
Do you think at this point that Casey's best defense would be to admit she did it but it was an accident? She drowned in the pool, Casey freaked, put the duct tape on to make it look like a kidnapping, and in fear of her mother hid the body in her trunk and then the woods. Would this get her a much lighter sentence and if so what do you think she would get?

You mean if she could convince the jury that this was true? Yes, she would get a much lighter sentence; in fact, I'm not sure she's even charged with anything she could get convicted of if those were the facts.

This is probably what scares me most about the case. In the letter that JB sent to the pros. before Caylee was found, he hinted at an "accident." I think that letter maybe the key to the defense theory, and if so IMO it could present a problem.

 

[AZlawyer]

This is probably what scares me most about the case. In the letter that JB sent to the pros. before Caylee was found, he hinted at an "accident." I think that letter maybe the key to the defense theory, and if so IMO it could present a problem.

Well, I think he (actually I believe it was the other lawyer who has since left the case) suggested it was an "accidental" overdose of something, which is not what I meant about the kind of "accident" that would get her a lighter sentence. If she "accidentally" overdosed Caylee on chloroform or Xanax, for example, that would be felony murder IMHO.

 

[Paintr]

What would a defense attorny do in this situation...

At the begining, when you take a case, you honestly believe your client is innocent of a horrible crime. As time draws nearer and nearer to trial, the prosecution releases more and more evidence. Over the same time period, you come to realize that your client has lied to you and is, in your honest opinion, guilty of this horrible crime.

Are you obligated to continue defending them? Do attornies just detach themselves from considerations of guilt and innocence and argue the 'mechanics' of the law?

 

[JBean]

Would any of our lawyers mind answering one question in another forum?
thanks.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5193434#post5193434"]Legal Q&A Answers from VERIFIED Legal professionals only - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[RR0004]

AZlawyer...just have to say you're amazing!

 

[AZlawyer]

What would a defense attorny do in this situation...

At the begining, when you take a case, you honestly believe your client is innocent of a horrible crime. As time draws nearer and nearer to trial, the prosecution releases more and more evidence. Over the same time period, you come to realize that your client has lied to you and is, in your honest opinion, guilty of this horrible crime.

Are you obligated to continue defending them? Do attornies just detach themselves from considerations of guilt and innocence and argue the 'mechanics' of the law?

I have done criminal work on appeal, but have never been in this position. However, from speaking with crim. defense attorneys, my impression is that they are generally too cynical (or maybe just too realistic?) to "truly honestly believe" in the innocence of very many of their clients--and on the rare occasions when they do believe it, they are usually right.

But no, they do not withdraw from representation just because they find out that the client is guilty. The idea is that, even if your client is guilty, you are still serving the higher purpose of protecting the constitutional rights of the entire community by making the State prove its case in compliance with all legal standards and beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

How do the automatic appeals work if she gets the DP? I thought usually a person had to have a reason to appeal - it's not just an "I didn't like the decision - I want another opinion" type of thing, like it's sometimes portrayed. What arguments do they use? Will it just be a rehash of the Andrea Lyon gimmicks? Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

How do the automatic appeals work if she gets the DP? I thought usually a person had to have a reason to appeal - it's not just an "I didn't like the decision - I want another opinion" type of thing, like it's sometimes portrayed. What arguments do they use? Will it just be a rehash of the Andrea Lyon gimmicks? Thanks.

Don't worry, they'll have a list of reasons, including all the constitutional issues raised in the motions thus far. But in addition, the appellate court will review the entire record of the case to ensure that there was no "fundamental error." This is part of that "death is different" thing that you're probably sick of hearing about by now. As a clerk for the AZ Supreme Court during my first year of practice, that took up a big chunk of my time...sitting down with dozens of boxes of transcripts and exhibits and trying to make sure that the defense attorneys had "caught" all the potential problems.

 

[Anais]

Don't worry, they'll have a list of reasons, including all the constitutional issues raised in the motions thus far. But in addition, the appellate court will review the entire record of the case to ensure that there was no "fundamental error." This is part of that "death is different" thing that you're probably sick of hearing about by now. As a clerk for the AZ Supreme Court during my first year of practice, that took up a big chunk of my time...sitting down with dozens of boxes of transcripts and exhibits and trying to make sure that the defense attorneys had "caught" all the potential problems.

I take it that this is exactly why for example any judge hearing a dp case would be a stickler about things? Because what ever he shall miss would also cause an appellate issue? Can a judge who notices a potential lawyer error put a stop to it before hand?

 

[AZlawyer]

I take it that this is exactly why for example any judge hearing a dp case would be a stickler about things? Because what ever he shall miss would also cause an appellate issue? Can a judge who notices a potential lawyer error put a stop to it before hand?

Yes, this is why the DP judges are sticklers, and generally err on the side of the defense when making rulings that are "close calls."

Not sure what you mean about stopping a lawyer error beforehand. How would a judge know about an error until it has happened? But certainly, if the judge notices the SA doing something that will cause an appellate issue, he will try to "fix" the situation ASAP--for example, by instructing the jury to ignore a comment made by the SA.

 

[Anais]

Yes, this is why the DP judges are sticklers, and generally err on the side of the defense when making rulings that are "close calls."

Not sure what you mean about stopping a lawyer error beforehand. How would a judge know about an error until it has happened? But certainly, if the judge notices the SA doing something that will cause an appellate issue, he will try to "fix" the situation ASAP--for example, by instructing the jury to ignore a comment made by the SA.

I think that what I am really asking is that for example I read the SA's response to order regarding depo schedule. Okay it appears as if the defense team has been way far passed it's 15 day time limit since Jan. 2009! This is just one example of the many irresponsibilites of how this defense team operates. Then the repeated waste of time with going to MN's office for the very same TES records that the SA obtained in 5-6 hours but the defense still cannot manage?!

So what can a judge do? Would this not beconsidered ineffective?

Please accept my apologies in advance if this has already been asked and I overlooked!

 

[AZlawyer]

Hey Lawyers!

Do the FL taxpayers have any legal ground to stand on as far as inquiring where the monies spent for Casey's defense have gone thus far?

Do we have any right to ask that her defense be in-state and consist of public defenders?

Are there any motions that can be filed by the taxpayers to find out why so many depositions weren't done before when they had 300,000 to do it with?

Can we ask for the "closed" information regarding defense funding and the missing 163,000 be revealed since we ARE paying her defense now?

Basically, what rights do we have? None? That wouldn't surprise me. Argh. Thanks!

The rights that the taxpayers have are already being protected by the JAC, the judge, and the media. There is no right to insist that she have public defenders, because her lawyers are now working pro bono so are not being paid by the state.

I think that what I am really asking is that for example I read the SA's response to order regarding depo schedule. Okay it appears as if the defense team has been way far passed it's 15 day time limit since Jan. 2009! This is just one example of the many irresponsibilites of how this defense team operates. Then the repeated waste of time with going to MN's office for the very same TES records that the SA obtained in 5-6 hours but the defense still cannot manage?!

So what can a judge do? Would this not beconsidered ineffective?

Please accept my apologies in advance if this has already been asked and I overlooked!

The defense's delay tactics and pretended inability to review the TES docs are not ineffective assistance of counsel, because, thus far, they have not harmed Casey's case.

 

[Anais]

The rights that the taxpayers have are already being protected by the JAC, the judge, and the media. There is no right to insist that she have public defenders, because her lawyers are now working pro bono so are not being paid by the state.



The defense's delay tactics and pretended inability to review the TES docs are not ineffective assistance of counsel, because, thus far, they have not harmed Casey's case.

Darn. Can't blame me for trying/wondering. Still and all HHJP can put his foot down when it comes to their delaying etc. Correct? What would he do?

 

[AZlawyer]

Darn. Can't blame me for trying/wondering. Still and all HHJP can put his foot down when it comes to their delaying etc. Correct? What would he do?

He did it already. He said (paraphrasing) these deadlines are real; don't think you can ignore them.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm not convinced Baez is taking him seriously. On Tuesday last week, HHJP said to take the deadlines seriously, and today Baez asked for an extension. And I guess he'll get it - do you?

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm not convinced Baez is taking him seriously. On Tuesday last week, HHJP said to take the deadlines seriously, and today Baez asked for an extension. And I guess he'll get it - do you?

I interpreted HHJP's comment as being about the deadlines to complete things like depositions, not just the deadline to arrange the dates for depositions. I'm sure HHJP will have to give some leeway on dates that require the cooperation of third parties.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Can witnesses be deposed over and over or is it a one shot deal? I seem to remember a few people already being deposed and now they on the defense list again to be deposed. Maybe I am wrong or maybe they can get a do-over?

 

[Muzikman]

Can witnesses be deposed over and over or is it a one shot deal? I seem to remember a few people already being deposed and now they on the defense list again to be deposed. Maybe I am wrong or maybe they can get a do-over?

Just to add to this, here are they people I believe they have deposed already:
Anthony Lazzaro - Oct 2008
Richard Cain - March/April 2009
Roy Kronk - November 2009
John Allen - March 9 2010
Eric Edwards - March 10 2010

 

[AZlawyer]

Can witnesses be deposed over and over or is it a one shot deal? I seem to remember a few people already being deposed and now they on the defense list again to be deposed. Maybe I am wrong or maybe they can get a do-over?

Normally it's a one-time thing, but if significant new information has come to light since the first deposition, sometimes you need to take a follow-up depo.

Just to add to this, here are they people I believe they have deposed already:
Anthony Lazzaro - Oct 2008
Richard Cain - March/April 2009
Roy Kronk - November 2009
John Allen - March 9 2010
Eric Edwards - March 10 2010

The SA and defense counsel reported to HHJP that they had taken 30+ depositions. In addition to the people above, I believe the defense deposed the officers involved in the sealed videotape of KC learning about the discovery of the body, and the SA deposed the A family. But obviously there were more depositions that we never heard about. :waitasec:

 

[Star12]

Regarding the ABC money, just who was it paid to? In which account did it reside as it was being disbursed? Would it go into Jose's trust account? And if so, what implications would it have? Would Jose have set up a bank account for KC from which to make disbursals? Would the money go into a bank account in KCs name and then transferred to Jose's TA? Who would be paying taxes on it - KC if it went into her account first? Jose if it went into a TA?