Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Macushla]

If the call from Robyn was recorded not just because inmates calls are recorded but because Robyn was being investigated herself, would that call be part of whatever case they may have against her? If it is considered part of a case against her, then it could be released under the Sunshine Law if it is requested right? Or would it not be rleased until the investigation is over with? Does Judge Perry have the authority to seal evidence in another case that intersects with this case in just this one area?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the call from Robyn was recorded not just because inmates calls are recorded but because Robyn was being investigated herself, would that call be part of whatever case they may have against her? If it is considered part of a case against her, then it could be released under the Sunshine Law if it is requested right? Or would it not be rleased until the investigation is over with? Does Judge Perry have the authority to seal evidence in another case that intersects with this case in just this one area?

Inmate calls don't have to be related to any case to be released under the Sunshine Laws. Someone just has to make a public records request.

If the call was recorded as part of a wiretap in a continuing investigation, LE could hold it back for now--but I guess LE isn't doing that, as the SA expects to receive a copy soon.

JP couldn't seal evidence in another case, but he can seal evidence in this case even if it also happens to be evidence in another case.

 

[Macushla]

AZ: Just taking a minute to thank you again for your patience in answering all our questions. A nod to all the other legal eagles on this thread too. You all make things so easy for us to understand.

A little O/T but I would love to hear what all of you say. I recently learned, while watching "The first 48" and then coming across the same info in a book I am reading, that in some states both the prosecution and defense remain seated when they question people during a trial. Does this level the playing field if you have a more dramatic personality on one side then you do on the other? Do you think it has a different effect on a jury than if the lawyers were mobile and animated, so to speak? Last, but certainly not least - do attorneys prefer to be seated? - if you know, that is.

 

[beach]

Oh, I'm sure they aren't done filing motions yet. But I have a feeling the jury will get to hear the "huge waste/all anyone cares about is getting Caylee back" call.

BBM

Interesting! I was going to ask you if you thought that call would come in. I personally feel that call is every bit as damning as the 3rd 911 call, if not more so. Would somebody just give her Tony's # for God's sake?!

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ: Just taking a minute to thank you again for your patience in answering all our questions. A nod to all the other legal eagles on this thread too. You all make things so easy for us to understand.

A little O/T but I would love to hear what all of you say. I recently learned, while watching "The first 48" and then coming across the same info in a book I am reading, that in some states both the prosecution and defense remain seated when they question people during a trial. Does this level the playing field if you have a more dramatic personality on one side then you do on the other? Do you think it has a different effect on a jury than if the lawyers were mobile and animated, so to speak? Last, but certainly not least - do attorneys prefer to be seated? - if you know, that is.

It would absolutely drive me crazy to remain seated while questioning a witness. I don't think it would level the playing field--I think it would put the attorney on the far side of the courtroom (the opposite side from the jury and the witness) at a terrible disadvantage. Also, from that distance it would be difficult to evaluate whether the witness was being truthful, evasive, wanted to say more, etc. I need to see their eyes.

 

[Paintr]

This may be an obvious question but here goes. While KC is sitting in county jail awaiting her trial for murder, is she also serving her time for the cheque fraud convictions? What will happen to the counts that the judge hasn't ruled on yet?

 

[AZlawyer]

This may be an obvious question but here goes. While KC is sitting in county jail awaiting her trial for murder, is she also serving her time for the cheque fraud convictions? What will happen to the counts that the judge hasn't rulled on yet?

IIRC, she was sentenced to time served, so she has already served her time on those charges. She will be on probation when released (hopefully never or the day after that), and it is my understanding that under Florida law nothing will happen on the other charges unless she violates probation.

 

[butterfly1978]

This is a hypothetical question but, I think something similar is going to happen. Lets say during the trial, that Cindy and or George claim to have killed Caylee, of course it wouldn't be true but just said to raise doubt what would happen? I am thinking it would lead to a mistrial, because the judge could ask the jury to disregard what they've heard but you cant unring a bell.
I am fully expecting this to happen especially if it appears the SAO is winning.

 

[butwhatif?]

Is it normal procedure to be focusing/working on mitigating factors before a trial has even started?
TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

This is a hypothetical question but, I think something similar is going to happen. Lets say during the trial, that Cindy and or George claim to have killed Caylee, of course it wouldn't be true but just said to raise doubt what would happen? I am thinking it would lead to a mistrial, because the judge could ask the jury to disregard what they've heard but you cant unring a bell.
I am fully expecting this to happen especially if it appears the SAO is winning.

I really don't think it will happen, but if it did the judge certainly couldn't ask the jury to disregard it. What could be more relevant than a confession from a third party?

Is it normal procedure to be focusing/working on mitigating factors before a trial has even started?
TIA

Yes. Yes yes yes yes. Very important.

 

[butterfly1978]

I really don't think it will happen, but if it did the judge certainly couldn't ask the jury to disregard it. What could be more relevant than a confession from a third party?

REALLY?????????:sick:
That is definately not a good thing as I think they would do anything to "save their princess".. So would the trial just continue as they try to prove that Casey is indeed the real killer and her family is just trying to create doubt?

 

[gamom]

REALLY?????????:sick:
That is definately not a good thing as I think they would do anything to "save their princess".. So would the trial just continue as they try to prove that Casey is indeed the real killer and her family is just trying to create doubt?

Sorry, but CA is spiteful. I doubt anyone in the A's would volunteer to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Maybe, GA...but that was before she called him a a molester. I just could not see it. Nor do I think that after everything this family has been through, the jury would believe it. Surly, they would have just come out earlier. If you think about it, we would have never known Caylee was missing had it not been for CA making that call.

 

[butterfly1978]

Sorry, but CA is spiteful. I doubt anyone in the A's would volunteer to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Maybe, GA...but that was before she called him a a molester. I just could not see it. Nor do I think that after everything this family has been through, the jury would believe it. Surly, they would have just come out earlier. If you think about it, we would have never known Caylee was missing had it not been for CA making that call.

Not nessasarily...... this would just be to get the case thrown out against Casey to save her then whichever decided to make the claim would recant thier confession saying it was stress. The state would then have to prove it and they cant because the evidence points to Casey... Get what I am saying,,,, okay maybe this is a little to far fetched for even the Anthony's but who knows they are trying everything else why not.

 

[ThinkTank]

My question is - what power or authority does Judge P. have to discipline or suspend an attorney in an active case being heard before him?

Say for example, an attorney on the active case has been found to have broken the law in some instance, and Judge P. is aware of the fact (not rumor), what can Judge P. do about it? Does Judge P. have the authority to remove the attorney from the case? Or to suspend the attorney from the case until a full FL Bar investigation and/or LE investigation has been completed?

Or, would the attorney continue on in the case while investigations are going on?
I remember that Judge S. filed a Bar Complaint against JB while the case was active and he was the sitting Judge on the case, but JB was not suspended or removed while the Bar complaint was investigated.

 

[nyvictoria]

I think it's pretty obvious there's a lot of texting going on at these hearings. Lee was asked to leave the courtroom while Cindy was on the stand. For all we know, JB could have been sending Lee instructions to corroborate or contradict Cindy's testimony. I've watched JB show Casey his phone several times at different hearings. I can't think of a single reason why an attorney would have the need to send/receive a text during a hearing/trial but I'm not an attorney so I'm asking the experts:

Is this a common practice?

Are there rules that prohibit or restrict cell phone use in the courtroom?

Any information would be greatly appreciated! Thanks to all the legal experts who take time out of their busy day to answer questions!!!

 

[LambChop]

I think it's pretty obvious there's a lot of texting going on at these hearings. Lee was asked to leave the courtroom while Cindy was on the stand. For all we know, JB could have been sending Lee instructions to corroborate or contradict Cindy's testimony. I've watched JB show Casey his phone several times at different hearings. I can't think of a single reason why an attorney would have the need to send/receive a text during a hearing/trial but I'm not an attorney so I'm asking the experts:

Is this a common practice?

Are there rules that prohibit or restrict cell phone use in the courtroom?

Any information would be greatly appreciated! Thanks to all the legal experts who take time out of their busy day to answer questions!!!

And, more importantly isn't it distracting to an attorney to be texting while testimony is going on as he could miss something that is being stated on the stand that would be very important to his case. Since CM has admitted he has a hearing problem and now JB is texting and missing something that was said, too, should this be allowed by the judge?

 

[Katprint]

And, more importantly isn't it distracting to an attorney to be texting while testimony is going on as he could miss something that is being stated on the stand that would be very important to his case. Since CM has admitted he has a hearing problem and now JB is texting and missing something that was said, too, should this be allowed by the judge?

Is texting inherently more distracting than typing on your laptop? (which is how I tend to take notes because I type much faster and more legibly than I write by hand.) Or more distracting than thinking about what you're planning to argue next? Or daydreaming about your hot date last night?

It is really not up to the judge to make sure the attorneys are paying attention. There have been unsuccessful ineffective assistance of counsel appeals involving attorneys who actually slept during portions of the trial. http://www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/39-3_pdf/vanarsdel.pdf I suppose if an attorney actually fell asleep and was the only attorney at counsel table, then a particularly fair-minded judge would have the bailiff wake up that attorney. However, attorneys are generally expected to police their own conduct when it comes to paying attention in court so that they don't miss some important piece of testimony/evidence, and most likely the judge is going to assume that with two or more attorneys present on behalf of a single defendant, at least one of the attorneys is going to hear what needs to be heard. Of course, no one is allowed to make a lot of distracting noise so if the phone beeped each time a text letter was entered or there was some other problem like that then the judge would probably intervene.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[LambChop]

Is texting inherently more distracting than typing on your laptop? (which is how I tend to take notes because I type much faster and more legibly than I write by hand.) Or more distracting than thinking about what you're planning to argue next? Or daydreaming about your hot date last night?

It is really not up to the judge to make sure the attorneys are paying attention. There have been unsuccessful ineffective assistance of counsel appeals involving attorneys who actually slept during portions of the trial. http://www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/39-3_pdf/vanarsdel.pdf I suppose if an attorney actually fell asleep and was the only attorney at counsel table, then a particularly fair-minded judge would have the bailiff wake up that attorney. However, attorneys are generally expected to police their own conduct when it comes to paying attention in court so that they don't miss some important piece of testimony/evidence, and most likely the judge is going to assume that with two or more attorneys present on behalf of a single defendant, at least one of the attorneys is going to hear what needs to be heard. Of course, no one is allowed to make a lot of distracting noise so if the phone beeped each time a text letter was entered or there was some other problem like that then the judge would probably intervene.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

I can see taking notes on your computer but a cell phone which has access to the outside world and you are receiving messages from the same or worse within the courtroom should not be allowed. Would the judge permit CA to raise her hand in the middle of testimony and ask if she could be permitted to ask Mr. Baez a question? Because basically that is what appears to may have happened here. Just trying to understand where you can draw the line.

 

[Katprint]

"Would the judge permit CA to raise her hand in the middle of testimony and ask if she could be permitted to ask Mr. Baez a question?"

Cindy Anthony would not be permitted to raise her hand in the middle of testimony to ask Mr. Baez a question, just like Mr. Baez' own paralegals and secretaries would not be permitted to raise their hands in the gallery in the middle of testimony and ask if they could ask Mr. Baez a question, nor would Brad Conway be permitted to interrupt ongoing testimony so that he could ask Mr. Baez a question. However, the attorneys sitting at counsel table can lean over and whisper in each other's ears or quietly converse with their client while the other side's attorney is questioning a witness. Also pretty much anyone who wishes can write notes to others. Spectators can write notes to each other. ("Caylee's still alive? WTF?" "No clue.")

Cindy Anthony would be permitted to write a note containing her question then give that note to the bailiff to hand to Mr. Baez.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is - what power or authority does Judge P. have to discipline or suspend an attorney in an active case being heard before him?

Say for example, an attorney on the active case has been found to have broken the law in some instance, and Judge P. is aware of the fact (not rumor), what can Judge P. do about it? Does Judge P. have the authority to remove the attorney from the case? Or to suspend the attorney from the case until a full FL Bar investigation and/or LE investigation has been completed?

Or, would the attorney continue on in the case while investigations are going on?
I remember that Judge S. filed a Bar Complaint against JB while the case was active and he was the sitting Judge on the case, but JB was not suspended or removed while the Bar complaint was investigated.

Obviously the judge could call the State Bar and/or LE if he had any concerns. I think he would only remove an attorney from the case if it appeared that the attorney had developed an irreconcilable conflict of interest due to his own career/freedom being at risk as a result of his actions relating to the case.

I think it's pretty obvious there's a lot of texting going on at these hearings. Lee was asked to leave the courtroom while Cindy was on the stand. For all we know, JB could have been sending Lee instructions to corroborate or contradict Cindy's testimony. I've watched JB show Casey his phone several times at different hearings. I can't think of a single reason why an attorney would have the need to send/receive a text during a hearing/trial but I'm not an attorney so I'm asking the experts:

Is this a common practice?

Are there rules that prohibit or restrict cell phone use in the courtroom?

Any information would be greatly appreciated! Thanks to all the legal experts who take time out of their busy day to answer questions!!!

I have sent and received texts in court to/from witnesses re: scheduling, to/from staff re: bringing things to the courthouse, etc. Most judges could not care less as long as you aren't texting while the judge is talking to you and your phone is not making any noise. However, some judges require all cell phones to be OFF in the courtroom, so you can only use them in the hall during breaks. I don't know what HHJP's rules are.

Texting that facilitates unsupervised communication between the inmate and third parties, or that provides information about testimony to a sequestered witness, would be improper. I agree that the texting in this case "looks bad" in that regard, but apparently no one has been caught breaking the rules yet.