Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[angeldust]

AZlawyer

Thanks you very much for clearing that up for me

your a star

 

[Aedrys]

Can a lawyer be ordered off of a case by the presiding judge? If a lawyer got too outrageous or was just way too incompetent in the court room, could the judge say enough is enough and take that lawyer off of the case? I am asking because I am wondering if Jose Baez is trying to get kicked off of this case rather than leave it. And since Casey apparently won't fire him, maybe he thinks if he po's the judge enough, the judge will force him off of the case?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can a lawyer be ordered off of a case by the presiding judge? If a lawyer got too outrageous or was just way too incompetent in the court room, could the judge say enough is enough and take that lawyer off of the case? I am asking because I am wondering if Jose Baez is trying to get kicked off of this case rather than leave it. And since Casey apparently won't fire him, maybe he thinks if he po's the judge enough, the judge will force him off of the case?

Technically, yes. But JB is nowhere close to that stage.

 

[Snaz]

What needs to be released in discovery is MUCH broader than what will (or can) actually be used at trial. And what must be released upon request of the media is MUCH broader than what needs to be released in discovery.

In the case of KC, she may be planning to use the defense that Caylee was kidnapped by the Zanni Gang, who gave KC "instructions" to follow, and then killed Caylee in retaliation for Cindy calling the police. In addition, the defense has suggested that Caylee might have been killed while Casey was in prison. So, if I were the SA, I would think all letters to KC are potentially relevant and subject to disclosure, as they could be coded messages from the Zanni Gang or others involved with the "real killer." IOW, if the defense is going to suggest crazy, soap-opera worthy scenarios, then the SA must take a broader view of what should be disclosed. It is JB's own fault that the SA cannot simply look at these letters and say, "Oh, well, those are obviously irrelevant."

In addition, if someone from the media filed a public records request for these letters, they would have to be released regardless of whether they were at all relevant to the case. And at that point, the SA might as well call the documents "discovery" as well as a "public records release."

AZ, thank you for this wonderful explanation.

If I may add to this.... how would the State know about, much less have copies of, the letters KC received in jail? I feel pretty certain KC wouldn't have offered them up as evidence..... LOL

TIA!!

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, thank you for this wonderful explanation.

If I may add to this.... how would the State know about, much less have copies of, the letters KC received in jail? I feel pretty certain KC wouldn't have offered them up as evidence..... LOL

TIA!!

Well, they would assume she received letters, because she's a high-profile prisoner. Also, KC herself said in the letters to her jail pen pal that she was receiving lots of letters. It would not be too hard to get copies--the jail would have kept copies and would release them to the SA upon request. HHJP told the SA to collect everything they could think of to release to the defense, and I think that's what the SA is doing.

 

[The World According]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWb_ZztZOKM[/ame]
For AZ lawyer, I thought you would get a laugh out of this little gem. Thank you ever so for helping us. I just noticed there are over one thousand posts in here. You ARE Websleuths!!!

 

[beach]

AZ, I have a question in re. what evidence may be denied admission because the judge may deem it 'too prejudicial'. Where exactly is the line drawn? i.e., the video tape of Casey's reaction to the discovery of Caylee's remains (I understand that may not be the best example because it has currently only been denied for public consumption and there are other legal arguments that could be made in re. how it was obtained). But, in general, where is the line drawn?

 

[faefrost]

And as a follow up to Beach2yall's question over evidence. The defense filed a Motion of Compliance right on the deadline today for when they were supposed to provide the list of what specific evidence they wished to examine. The Motion contained no actual listing and instead basically says that they met with the prosecution and told them what they want. Will this be sufficient for HHJP< when he specified he wanted a list? Is the actual list something that can be submitted to the judge via private back channels or simply verbally communicated?

Thanks

 

[Katprint]

AZ, I have a question in re. what evidence may be denied admission because the judge may deem it 'too prejudicial'. Where exactly is the line drawn? i.e., the video tape of Casey's reaction to the discovery of Caylee's remains (I understand that may not be the best example because it has currently only been denied for public consumption and there are other legal arguments that could be made in re. how it was obtained). But, in general, where is the line drawn?

Generally, the evidence is excluded as "too prejudicial" when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its likely prejudicial effect on the jury.

By way of example, photos of an automobile accident victim showing gaping bloody wounds are probative i.e. they tend to prove something about the nature and extent of the victim's injuries. However, those photos would probably be excluded because the probative value would be outweighed by the strong emotional effect of the pictures. By contrast, photos showing the victim's cleaned/stitched wounds or their healed scars would be equally probative and much less likely to elicit the same disproportionate emotional response.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

And as a follow up to Beach2yall's question over evidence. The defense filed a Motion of Compliance right on the deadline today for when they were supposed to provide the list of what specific evidence they wished to examine. The Motion contained no actual listing and instead basically says that they met with the prosecution and told them what they want. Will this be sufficient for HHJP< when he specified he wanted a list? Is the actual list something that can be submitted to the judge via private back channels or simply verbally communicated?

Thanks

I haven't seen the actual order. It's possible that the order required the defense to provide the list of items to the prosecution , not to file it with the court. After all, the point of the list was so that the prosecution and LE could set up the air-conditioned inspection facility, correct?

 

[LinasK]

Question for any of our WS lawyers who can answer it, Themis included: If Casey hypothetically (because I really don't think it's gonna happen) were to change her plea from Not Guilty to Guilty, does that guarantee she will be spared the Death Penalty and be reduced to Life, or does Judge Perry get to say she still gets Death???:waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

Question for any of our WS lawyers who can answer it, Themis included: If Casey hypothetically (because I really don't think it's gonna happen) were to change her plea from Not Guilty to Guilty, does that guarantee she will be spared the Death Penalty and be reduced to Life, or does Judge Perry get to say she still gets Death???:waitasec:

Without any kind of agreement with the State, if Casey just changes her plea to guilty, there would still be a sentencing hearing and she could still get the death penalty.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Without any kind of agreement with the State, if Casey just changes her plea to guilty, there would still be a sentencing hearing and she could still get the death penalty.

And if this were to happen at any point before a jury is seated or sworn in, Judge Perry would decide fate?

 

[AZlawyer]

And if this were to happen at any point before a jury is seated or sworn in, Judge Perry would decide fate?

I believe a jury would still be empaneled for the sentencing phase, but the judge makes the final sentencing decision. The jury just makes a "recommendation."

On the other hand, I doubt HHJP would impose death if a jury recommended LWOP.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Any opinions on the liklehood of someone being jailed for contempt? I fear if Cindy's attitude or desperation to save Casey (which seems to be a holy crusade for her) doesn't change she may get into trouble.

 

[Kimster]

Some members in the Kyron Horman forum asked if we would open a lawyer's question thread in there. We have three accumulated at this point. If one of our verified lawyers has the time to visit, it would be greatly appreciated! :blowkiss:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108830"]Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[texaslb218]

Some members in the Kyron Horman forum asked if we would open a lawyer's question thread in there. We have three accumulated at this point. If one of our verified lawyers has the time to visit, it would be greatly appreciated! :blowkiss:

Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

You're gonna have to start paying these people! They are working as hard as the mods!

 

[AZlawyer]

Any opinions on the liklehood of someone being jailed for contempt? I fear if Cindy's attitude or desperation to save Casey (which seems to be a holy crusade for her) doesn't change she may get into trouble.

I have only twice in 16 years seen people get fined for contempt, and never seen anyone get jailed. Both people who were fined were lawyers who directly violated clear court orders.

So I would say there is almost no chance of Cindy being jailed for contempt. :snooty:

 

[Luv4kids]

AZ.........I so value your opinions in this case. What do you think about the fact that the defense handed their "wish list" of things to be examined next week straight to the judge instead of filing it with the court clerk? Will the judge be angry about this? Other blogs and news outlets have said that it will still be released to the public sometime next week. Is that true?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ.........I so value your opinions in this case. What do you think about the fact that the defense handed their "wish list" of things to be examined next week straight to the judge instead of filing it with the court clerk? Will the judge be angry about this? Other blogs and news outlets have said that it will still be released to the public sometime next week. Is that true?

I think it was silly. Obviously the judge has to file it with the clerk anyway. :waitasec:

Yes, it should end up being released. But I doubt HHJP will waste any energy getting angry over this.