Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[ThinkTank]

Right, but MN knew about those remarks at the time he supposedly agreed to the new doc review session. I'm starting to think that HHJP's order regarding the doc review was a little inaccurate regarding what happened at the sidebar conference.

It looked to me like MN was not able to adequately present his case in that rushed and brief sidebar.
Brief in comparison to being able to fully lay out his position in the Hearing as he thought he was going to be able to do.
It seemed to me that MN was focused on filing his bad faith motion, and then the Judge would understand.

I don't think MN did agree with the guidelines for the document review, but instead of knitpicking on each issue such as note taking, MN decided to just ask that the entire Order be thrown out. Getting down to the bottom line of it all, the defense has shown that they really do not need ANY of the TES searcher documents to tell what the ground conditions were.

 

[AZlawyer]

It looked to me like MN was not able to adequately present his case in that rushed and brief sidebar.
Brief in comparison to being able to fully lay out his position in the Hearing as he thought he was going to be able to do.
It seemed to me that MN was focused on filing his bad faith motion, and then the Judge would understand.

I don't think MN did agree with the guidelines for the document review, but instead of knitpicking on each issue such as note taking, MN decided to just ask that the entire Order be thrown out. Getting down to the bottom line of it all, the defense has shown that they really do not need ANY of the TES searcher documents to tell what the ground conditions were.

Well, IMO HHJP will allow the review whether or not he thinks the defense attorneys are acting in bad faith (which they are). HHJP does not want any successful appeals, and if CM's verbal face-plant actually resulted in KC's team not seeing potential evidence, there might be an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at that point.

 

[beach]

Well, IMO HHJP will allow the review whether or not he thinks the defense attorneys are acting in bad faith (which they are). HHJP does not want any successful appeals, and if CM's verbal face-plant actually resulted in KC's team not seeing potential evidence, there might be an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at that point.

BBM

ITA and I cannot quit laughing over CM! :floorlaugh:

Just a few months ago, who'd have thought it would be CM that we'd be worrying about having an issue with IAC?!? He is making JB look smart.

haha!

 

[ThinkTank]

RE: the audio tapes of phone call(s) between JB and Inmate Robin L...
Is JB supposed to include the institution (prison) when he sends copies of his Motion(s) about the audio tapes? He only certifies that he sent a copy to LDB -- not to the prison.
Or, does JB only have to send a separate "Notice" to the prison when this matter gets set for a Hearing, so the prison rep can be present at the Hearing?
Is JB going to conveniently forget to Notice the prison (as the defense has done in the past)?

 

[Kathy1964]

In general, can attorneys be held to statements made outside the courtroom?

 

[Katprint]

In general, can attorneys be held to statements made outside the courtroom?

Depends on what you mean by "held to."

An attorney's presentation of evidence and legal arguments on a case will not be limited by what they say outside the courtroom.

Ethically, attorneys - and especially prosecutors - have a duty not to poison the prospective jury pool with false statements. For example, in the Duke LaCrosse team rape prosecution, the prosecutor ended up being disbarred for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation" for his false and inflammatory statements to the media. [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case[/ame]

Also, there is no special privilege for lawyers to say false things about anyone outside of court. A lawyer might accuse someone, like George or Lee Anthony for example, during court hearings and/or trial and have the protection of the "litigation privilege" even if those accusations are untrue. Those same accusations out of court might constitute defamation if they are untrue. The reason for the difference is the attorney's role as an advocate on behalf of his client (it is the rare attorney who was actually present when the bad thing happened - in fact, attorneys are ethically required to recuse themselves from cases where they might be a witness) but that advocacy protection is limited to the court, not the general public.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Woe.be.gone]

There's a thread about a court reporter who is billing JB and then he is passing the bill onto JAC. The invoice was denied.

How does that system work? Whenever there is a hearing or something to do with a trial, doesn't a court reporter have to be present? Why would their services be billed through a Lawyer? Since all the hearings are scheduled in advance, I would think the court reporter is scheduled/assigned bypassing any involvement with the Lawyers on either side.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I think I just ran across the answer to my question above. It is that Court Reporters are used in depositions not just in courtroom settings. Is this correct? Therefore, if JB has a person record the depo he has to pay the person. How should he do that when his client is indigent?

I'm thinking that maybe the CR would have the Lawyer who she worked for sign something to confirm the services but then turn it into the AP department of the courthouse. Could that be the system?

Another question that everyone but me probably knows the answer to - why are some criminals sentenced to a Life sentence but have parole in their future? Why do they call it a life sentence then?

Is LWOP really what it says it is?

 

[Kathy1964]

Depends on what you mean by "held to."

An attorney's presentation of evidence and legal arguments on a case will not be limited by what they say outside the courtroom.

Ethically, attorneys - and especially prosecutors - have a duty not to poison the prospective jury pool with false statements. For example, in the Duke LaCrosse team rape prosecution, the prosecutor ended up being disbarred for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation" for his false and inflammatory statements to the media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Also, there is no special privilege for lawyers to say false things about anyone outside of court. A lawyer might accuse someone, like George or Lee Anthony for example, during court hearings and/or trial and have the protection of the "litigation privilege" even if those accusations are untrue. Those same accusations out of court might constitute defamation if they are untrue. The reason for the difference is the attorney's role as an advocate on behalf of his client (it is the rare attorney who was actually present when the bad thing happened - in fact, attorneys are ethically required to recuse themselves from cases where they might be a witness) but that advocacy protection is limited to the court, not the general public.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Katprint, thanks for your answer.
I guess what made me think of this is the fact that MN's bad faith motion regarding the defense's request for the TES documents seems to be based on what CM said during a press conference. That's what I meant about being "held to" something said outside the courtroom by one of the lawyers.
It didn't seem logical to me, and I was surprised that MN filed that motion.
What do you think?

 

[Katprint]

Katprint, thanks for your answer.
I guess what made me think of this is the fact that MN's bad faith motion regarding the defense's request for the TES documents seems to be based on what CM said during a press conference. That's what I meant about being "held to" something said outside the courtroom by one of the lawyers.
It didn't seem logical to me, and I was surprised that MN filed that motion.
What do you think?

If Attorney Abraham representing Alice Adams says, "A, A, A" during a press conference then Attorney Bloomenthal representing Barney Biggens can use that public statement in support of Bloomenthal's motion. The public statement constitutes an offer of proof as to what Abraham would be expected to testify to if called as a witness.

Attorney Abraham theoretically could file a responsive declaration saying under oath, "Judge, I was lying/mistaken/misinformed when I said A, A, A. The truth is actually B, B, B." However, this rarely happens and if the untrue public statement was the trigger for the filing of the motion then the judge would probably impose sanctions against the offending party or their attorney.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

RE: the audio tapes of phone call(s) between JB and Inmate Robin L...
Is JB supposed to include the institution (prison) when he sends copies of his Motion(s) about the audio tapes? He only certifies that he sent a copy to LDB -- not to the prison.
Or, does JB only have to send a separate "Notice" to the prison when this matter gets set for a Hearing, so the prison rep can be present at the Hearing?
Is JB going to conveniently forget to Notice the prison (as the defense has done in the past)?

Someone said on another thread that JB was specifically ordered to notice the prison, i.e., to send the prison a copy of the motion and notice of any hearing.

There's a thread about a court reporter who is billing JB and then he is passing the bill onto JAC. The invoice was denied.

<snipped>

I think I just ran across the answer to my question above. It is that Court Reporters are used in depositions not just in courtroom settings. Is this correct? Therefore, if JB has a person record the depo he has to pay the person. How should he do that when his client is indigent?

I'm thinking that maybe the CR would have the Lawyer who she worked for sign something to confirm the services but then turn it into the AP department of the courthouse. Could that be the system?

Another question that everyone but me probably knows the answer to - why are some criminals sentenced to a Life sentence but have parole in their future? Why do they call it a life sentence then?

Is LWOP really what it says it is?

I think (IIRC) the invoice was denied only because the court reporter did not have a contract to provide services for indigent defendants. Apparently there is a system in place providing for payment of court reporters in these situations, but JB and/or the court reporter were unaware of the requirements of that system.

LWOP is life without the possibility of parole. "Life" is usually life with the possibility of parole. But it's only a possibility, so they still call it "life."

If Attorney Abraham representing Alice Adams says, "A, A, A" during a press conference then Attorney Bloomenthal representing Barney Biggens can use that public statement in support of Bloomenthal's motion. The public statement constitutes an offer of proof as to what Abraham would be expected to testify to if called as a witness.

Attorney Abraham theoretically could file a responsive declaration saying under oath, "Judge, I was lying/mistaken/misinformed when I said A, A, A. The truth is actually B, B, B." However, this rarely happens and if the untrue public statement was the trigger for the filing of the motion then the judge would probably impose sanctions against the offending party or their attorney.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Thanks, KP. It should be fascinating to see what CM says in this case. IMO the honest response would be, "I just got all my talking points jumbled up in my brain and said the wrong thing."

 

[faefrost]

If Attorney Abraham representing Alice Adams says, "A, A, A" during a press conference then Attorney Bloomenthal representing Barney Biggens can use that public statement in support of Bloomenthal's motion. The public statement constitutes an offer of proof as to what Abraham would be expected to testify to if called as a witness.

Attorney Abraham theoretically could file a responsive declaration saying under oath, "Judge, I was lying/mistaken/misinformed when I said A, A, A. The truth is actually B, B, B." However, this rarely happens and if the untrue public statement was the trigger for the filing of the motion then the judge would probably impose sanctions against the offending party or their attorney.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

A follow up question to this. While an Attorney could make the statement that I was "lying/mistaken/misinformed" and have it be permissible before the court. Does it have any other implications for the lawyer. In other words do they then bump up against ethics issues and their status with the bar? So while CM could state to the court that "I lied to the press", would doing so cause an issue with his ethical obligation to speak the truth and risk disbarment or sanctions?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I think (IIRC) the invoice was denied only because the court reporter did not have a contract to provide services for indigent defendants. Apparently there is a system in place providing for payment of court reporters in these situations, but JB and/or the court reporter were unaware of the requirements of that system.

So there is an approved list of court reporters to choose from for hire. That makes sense to ward off any monkey business regarding what is written within the report. But, how could a team of Lawyers with ____ years of combined experience, manage to overlook this safety feature? Once again I'm befuddled. :waitasec:

 

[Katprint]

A follow up question to this. While an Attorney could make the statement that I was "lying/mistaken/misinformed" and have it be permissible before the court. Does it have any other implications for the lawyer. In other words do they then bump up against ethics issues and their status with the bar? So while CM could state to the court that "I lied to the press", would doing so cause an issue with his ethical obligation to speak the truth and risk disbarment or sanctions?

IMO there is no way CM, Baez, LKB or any other attorney is going to admit that they "lied." I agree with AZlawyer that if backed against the wall with no other escape, they might admit to having mis-spoken.

Also, at some point in their career, every attorney gets suckered in by a client who lies to them and then the attorney repeats those lies to the court. In my case, a client gave me a medical report which the client had altered by using photocopy magic to delete an adverse paragraph, and I submitted that fraudulently altered report as an exhibit to an arbitration brief. It is fair to say that I had been "misinformed" by my client as to the authenticity of the bogus report.

Subsequently I discovered what had occurred, and the court let me get away with submitting an "amended" exhibit to replace the bogus one. In a way, I was fortunate that this happened to me while I was still in law school working as a certified law clerk (allowed to handle cases under the supervision of an attorney) because 1) the court might not have let me off so easily if I had been a licensed for-pay attorney rather than a pro bono trainee attorney and 2) it taught me an important lesson which stayed with me throughout my career so I didn't get bitten in the butt when the stakes were high.

When I see attorneys working on the Anthony case for free and/or even contributing $70K towards defense costs (unlike Baez paying himself about $100K) then I tend to believe they truly got snookered in. They may pass along misinformation that they believe or maybe simply hope is true. Later, when they become disillusioned, they make their excuses and leave.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[doogiesgirl]

AZlawyer-

What is your take on the last question CM asks LA during the 7/15/10 hearing? It's around the 7:00 minute mark. CM asks LA if during the time they were waiting (after CA makes the 3rd 911 call) was there anything going on that would interfere with LA having a private conversation with his sister? I didn't think anything of it at the time it was asked, but now when I listen again, CM seems to imply that there was something going on to interfere with LA speaking privately with ICA. Am I the only one that is sensing some kind of undercurrent of CM "implying LA is not telling all that was happening within those minutes of his alone time with ICA"?

http://www.wftv.com/video/24272035/index.html

:cow:

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer-

What is your take on the last question CM asks LA during the 7/15/10 hearing? It's around the 7:00 minute mark. CM asks LA if during the time they were waiting (after CA makes the 3rd 911 call) was there anything going on that would interfere with LA having a private conversation with his sister? I didn't think anything of it at the time it was asked, but now when I listen again, CM seems to imply that there was something going on to interfere with LA speaking privately with ICA. Am I the only one that is sensing some kind of undercurrent of CM "implying LA is not telling all that was happening within those minutes of his alone time with ICA"?

http://www.wftv.com/video/24272035/index.html

:cow:

Didn't the cops show up (in response to the second call) while Cindy was still on the phone for the third call? Maybe that's what he meant--that the cops came in and prevented him from finishing the private conversation?

ETA: I couldn't check the actual video--looks like your link is for a different part of the hearing.

 

[ThinkTank]

AZlawyer-

What is your take on the last question CM asks LA during the 7/15/10 hearing? It's around the 7:00 minute mark. CM asks LA if during the time they were waiting (after CA makes the 3rd 911 call) was there anything going on that would interfere with LA having a private conversation with his sister? I didn't think anything of it at the time it was asked, but now when I listen again, CM seems to imply that there was something going on to interfere with LA speaking privately with ICA. Am I the only one that is sensing some kind of undercurrent of CM "implying LA is not telling all that was happening within those minutes of his alone time with ICA"?

http://www.wftv.com/video/24272035/index.html

:cow:

I interpreted that part to mean that CM was trying to lead Lee into saying that his mother and father were talking to each other, and GEORGE was telling Cindy that the smell was like a dead body. CM and Baez kept trying to make Cindy and Lee say, on the stand, that it was GEORGE who put the idea of dead body smell into Cindy's mind, and that's why she said it on the 911 call.
LDB got it out of Cindy that she made the 911 calls before George was even there.

 

[doogiesgirl]

Didn't the cops show up (in response to the second call) while Cindy was still on the phone for the third call? Maybe that's what he meant--that the cops came in and prevented him from finishing the private conversation?

ETA: I couldn't check the actual video--looks like your link is for a different part of the hearing.

Sorry AZlawyer, I tried copying the link again but it keeps coming up wrong so....not sure how to fix that. It is part 6 of the 7/15/10 hearing, around the 7:00 minute mark for anyone who is interested.

I interpreted that part to mean that CM was trying to lead Lee into saying that his mother and father were talking to each other, and GEORGE was telling Cindy that the smell was like a dead body. CM and Baez kept trying to make Cindy and Lee say, on the stand, that it was GEORGE who put the idea of dead body smell into Cindy's mind, and that's why she said it on the 911 call.
LDB got it out of Cindy that she made the 911 calls before George was even there.

That could be........you are right they were trying desperately to nail GA as the origin of the "smells like a dead body" comments and conversation. Didn't get there IMO, but they tried.

Then again, IDK....I don't think GA is the only one who needs to worry about the defense bus mowing them down.

 

[wonders]

AZlawyer,

I'm feeling so frustrated today that I could cry. I wont go into detail as it will just be a long winded vent.

My question is:
After TWO LONG YEARS if the defense were to ask for a plea deal would the state be forced to deal with them or can they refuse and continue on with the trial?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer,

I'm feeling so frustrated today that I could cry. I wont go into detail as it will just be a long winded vent.

My question is:
After TWO LONG YEARS if the defense were to ask for a plea deal would the state be forced to deal with them or can they refuse and continue on with the trial?

The state is never "forced" to make a deal. But if the defense makes a good offer, why not talk to them?