Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

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?

I don't think we know the answers to these questions.

 

[CoalCat]

Richard, I understand there is a fairly new law in Florida wherein judges are now required to allow jurors to question witnesses, including defendants (Yikes!) while they are on the stand testifying. Just a few questions for you regarding this issue:

1. I would surmise any questions are first given to the judge for review, but is it the judge who questions the witness, or does the actual juror pose the question?

2. Does the State or defense get a chance to view the juror questions; and, if so, can either side object to the question?

3. Since this law went into effect, has it become a common, everyday practice used by juries in the trials that you are personally involved in and/or Florida courtrooms, in general?

4. Is there a limit to the number of questions a juror can ask, or is it limitless until the witness is done testifying, thereby extensively adding to the length of time to complete a trial?

5. For you, as a criminal defense attorney, this must suck...yes?

Sorry for all the questions, but I only recently learned of this new law, and I can't imagine how this will affect Casey's case as far as appeal issues, adding to the length of the trial, etc., especially since it is a high profile case. Richard, I appreciate your thoughts and any light you can shed on this issue. Thanks!!

 

[AZlawyer]

Richard, I understand there is a fairly new law in Florida wherein judges are now required to allow jurors to question witnesses, including defendants (Yikes!) while they are on the stand testifying. Just a few questions for you regarding this issue:

1. I would surmise any questions are first given to the judge for review, but is it the judge who questions the witness, or does the actual juror pose the question?

2. Does the State or defense get a chance to view the juror questions; and, if so, can either side object to the question?

3. Since this law went into effect, has it become a common, everyday practice used by juries in the trials that you are personally involved in and/or Florida courtrooms, in general?

4. Is there a limit to the number of questions a juror can ask, or is it limitless until the witness is done testifying, thereby extensively adding to the length of time to complete a trial?

5. For you, as a criminal defense attorney, this must suck...yes?

Sorry for all the questions, but I only recently learned of this new law, and I can't imagine how this will affect Casey's case as far as appeal issues, adding to the length of the trial, etc., especially since it is a high profile case. Richard, I appreciate your thoughts and any light you can shed on this issue. Thanks!!

I am interested in seeing RH's response to this question, but thought I would give you my :twocents: as well, as we have had this rule in AZ for several years now.

1. The judge reviews the questions, and the questions are asked by the judge, not by the juror.

2. At the end of the testimony of a witness, both sides review any jury questions and make objections outside the presence of the jury. The judge rules on the objections and either asks the witness the question(s) or tells the jury that the question(s) could not be asked due to the rules of evidence. If jury questions are asked, both sides have the opportunity to ask follow-up questions of the witness.

3. Since this rule has gone into effect in AZ, every jury trial I have done has had juror questions.

4. There is no limit on the number of questions, but they do tend to slow down a bit after the judge responds to a couple of them by saying that the questions cannot be asked. In my experience, the jury questions have never significantly added to the length of the trial.

5. I'm not a criminal defense attorney, so I don't know if they think the rule sucks. But I like it, because it helps you understand what the jury is thinking as the trial goes along.

 

[CoalCat]

I am interested in seeing RH's response to this question, but thought I would give you my :twocents: as well, as we have had this rule in AZ for several years now.

1. The judge reviews the questions, and the questions are asked by the judge, not by the juror.

2. At the end of the testimony of a witness, both sides review any jury questions and make objections outside the presence of the jury. The judge rules on the objections and either asks the witness the question(s) or tells the jury that the question(s) could not be asked due to the rules of evidence. If jury questions are asked, both sides have the opportunity to ask follow-up questions of the witness.

3. Since this rule has gone into effect in AZ, every jury trial I have done has had juror questions.

4. There is no limit on the number of questions, but they do tend to slow down a bit after the judge responds to a couple of them by saying that the questions cannot be asked. In my experience, the jury questions have never significantly added to the length of the trial.

5. I'm not a criminal defense attorney, so I don't know if they think the rule sucks. But I like it, because it helps you understand what the jury is thinking as the trial goes along.

AZ, thank you, and I appreciate your very informative response. Wonder if the rules are the same in FL as they are in AZ?

A question I forgot to ask, which I think is important regarding this law...Are the jurors allowed to ask questions of any witnesses during the penalty phase? Thanks again!

 

[CoalCat]

Muzikman, OT, but I noticed today that on May 7th a Correspondence to Judge was filed in this case. Since this was the day after the Budget Hearing, I am wondering if this is a letter from a concerned citizen who may be suspicious, as many of us are, of the defense's shenanigans/antics regarding $$$ the defese has/had versus the amount of work they have done since the beginning of this case. Have you seen this letter? I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I just noticed this filing and find it quite interesting. Thanks!

 

[Anais]

Richard, I understand there is a fairly new law in Florida wherein judges are now required to allow jurors to question witnesses, including defendants (Yikes!) while they are on the stand testifying. Just a few questions for you regarding this issue:

1. I would surmise any questions are first given to the judge for review, but is it the judge who questions the witness, or does the actual juror pose the question?

2. Does the State or defense get a chance to view the juror questions; and, if so, can either side object to the question?

3. Since this law went into effect, has it become a common, everyday practice used by juries in the trials that you are personally involved in and/or Florida courtrooms, in general?

4. Is there a limit to the number of questions a juror can ask, or is it limitless until the witness is done testifying, thereby extensively adding to the length of time to complete a trial?

5. For you, as a criminal defense attorney, this must suck...yes?

Sorry for all the questions, but I only recently learned of this new law, and I can't imagine how this will affect Casey's case as far as appeal issues, adding to the length of the trial, etc., especially since it is a high profile case. Richard, I appreciate your thoughts and any light you can shed on this issue. Thanks!!

I know the lawyers will answer this but I just wanted to share something. Recently I watched a trial covered on TruTV in the state of Michigan which also enacted this very same law. It was truly cool because the jurors had some extremely interesting & relevant questions to ask! I think it is the very coolest and can be very helpful for a jury.

In that case the judge presiding first read all the questions and decides if they are legal and relevant. He sets the ones that are not relevant or denied aside. Then the judge proceeds to ask the witness himself and the attorney may object to him.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Can you (or any other legal genius) explain how this is done? Does Jose call each and every person on his list and say, "Hey, let's talk. I'm thinking June 11, say 2:15 in the afternoon. You busy then, or can you drop by?"

Or do they send out Official Notices that say, "You WILL be at ---- on June 11 at 2:15 pm, or you WILL be escorted by a deputy." [This makes no sense to me, because by the time they figure out that the person isn't coming and they have to find a deputy to hunt the person up, it's going to be well past 2:15.]

What happens if the assigned date is inconvenient/impossible for that person?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, thank you, and I appreciate your very informative response. Wonder if the rules are the same in FL as they are in AZ?

A question I forgot to ask, which I think is important regarding this law...Are the jurors allowed to ask questions of any witnesses during the penalty phase? Thanks again!

I don't see why not.

Muzikman, OT, but I noticed today that on May 7th a Correspondence to Judge was filed in this case. Since this was the day after the Budget Hearing, I am wondering if this is a letter from a concerned citizen who may be suspicious, as many of us are, of the defense's shenanigans/antics regarding $$$ the defese has/had versus the amount of work they have done since the beginning of this case. Have you seen this letter? I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I just noticed this filing and find it quite interesting. Thanks!

I think MM posted this letter in the docs thread a week or so back.

Can you (or any other legal genius) explain how this is done? Does Jose call each and every person on his list and say, "Hey, let's talk. I'm thinking June 11, say 2:15 in the afternoon. You busy then, or can you drop by?"

Or do they send out Official Notices that say, "You WILL be at ---- on June 11 at 2:15 pm, or you WILL be escorted by a deputy." [This makes no sense to me, because by the time they figure out that the person isn't coming and they have to find a deputy to hunt the person up, it's going to be well past 2:15.]

What happens if the assigned date is inconvenient/impossible for that person?

You call the person or their lawyer and try to set up a date that's mutually convenient. If they are being difficult, you send a subpoena and they can file an objection with the court if they have a problem with it. If they violate the subpoena, they can be found in contempt of court, and I suppose the judge could also order a deputy to escort them to the deposition at a new date and time. I've never had to ask a judge to do that.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In the current situation, the reluctant witnesses are out of state. How would a FL subpoena work in another state?

 

[AZlawyer]

In the current situation, the reluctant witnesses are out of state. How would a FL subpoena work in another state?

It wouldn't, but there are procedures for getting an out-of-state subpoena.

 

[Numbers]

<respectfully snipped>

You call the person or their lawyer and try to set up a date that's mutually convenient. If they are being difficult, you send a subpoena and they can file an objection with the court if they have a problem with it. If they violate the subpoena, they can be found in contempt of court, and I suppose the judge could also order a deputy to escort them to the deposition at a new date and time. I've never had to ask a judge to do that.

Thank you for your response.

Sooooooooooo....... if Jose has named a person on his depo list with a date, but has *not* contacted that person, this wouldn't be good? What might happen under these circumstances if Judge Perry got wind of this?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you for your response.

Sooooooooooo....... if Jose has named a person on his depo list with a date, but has *not* contacted that person, this wouldn't be good? What might happen under these circumstances if Judge Perry got wind of this?

I would think those are the people he has contacted--didn't he ask for more time to arrange dates with other people?

 

[Numbers]

I would think those are the people he has contacted--didn't he ask for more time to arrange dates with other people?

I have been told that one person on the list with a specific date has not been contacted. (Sorry I can't be more specific.)

 

[AZlawyer]

I have been told that one person on the list with a specific date has not been contacted. (Sorry I can't be more specific.)

Hmmm. I don't know why JB wouldn't have just asked for more time to contact that person, then. Unless the person is represented by counsel and the attorney set up the depo without speaking to his client.

 

[Numbers]

Hmmm. I don't know why JB wouldn't have just asked for more time to contact that person, then. Unless the person is represented by counsel and the attorney set up the depo without speaking to his client.

I doubt this is the case, moreso because the date listed is a Friday before a traditional holiday weekend.

*ASSUME* for the moment that Jose set these dates without contacting the parties involved. What would/could/should happen?

 

[ZsaZsa]

I know the lawyers will answer this but I just wanted to share something. Recently I watched a trial covered on TruTV in the state of Michigan which also enacted this very same law. It was truly cool because the jurors had some extremely interesting & relevant questions to ask! I think it is the very coolest and can be very helpful for a jury.

In that case the judge presiding first read all the questions and decides if they are legal and relevant. He sets the ones that are not relevant or denied aside. Then the judge proceeds to ask the witness himself and the attorney may object to him.

Wishful thinking I know, but it would be even better if the Jurors could ask the accused questions too..:innocent:

 

[AZlawyer]

I doubt this is the case, moreso because the date listed is a Friday before a traditional holiday weekend.

*ASSUME* for the moment that Jose set these dates without contacting the parties involved. What would/could/should happen?

I went and read the filing again. JB doesn't exactly say that he has been coordinating with any of the witnesses, except the experts. So at least he hasn't lied to the court. And I don't believe that the court specifically instructed him to be courteous and try to work with the witnesses. :banghead:

Most likely he is sending out subpoenas to all the "little people" (non-experts), and a few of the witnesses will call him and say, "sorry, I really can't make it that day." This is especially likely for the May 28 witnesses, as the date is so close and it's before the holiday weekend. So he'll have to reschedule those depositions. However, the amount of time that the parties have to conclude the depositions in this case is long enough that this will probably not be any big deal.

 

[AZlawyer]

Wishful thinking I know, but it would be even better if the Jurors could ask the accused questions too..:innocent:

They can, if the accused decides to testify.

 

[Numbers]

I went and read the filing again. JB doesn't exactly say that he has been coordinating with any of the witnesses, except the experts. So at least he hasn't lied to the court. And I don't believe that the court specifically instructed him to be courteous and try to work with the witnesses. :banghead:

Most likely he is sending out subpoenas to all the "little people" (non-experts), and a few of the witnesses will call him and say, "sorry, I really can't make it that day." This is especially likely for the May 28 witnesses, as the date is so close and it's before the holiday weekend. So he'll have to reschedule those depositions. However, the amount of time that the parties have to conclude the depositions in this case is long enough that this will probably not be any big deal.

Thank you. So we can chalk this up to Jose's slight-of-hand method of lawyering - inconsiderate, but not illegal.

 

[zoey]

Defense is now complaining that they didn't get what they wanted from the SA....will the SA have to continue to give them all that they want? Didn't they give enough? Doesn't the defense have to do anything????:waitasec::banghead:
thanks....