Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Wysteria]

Apologies in advance if my question has been asked and answered.
I tried very hard to read all the pertinent threads and I did not see my question.

Oh, and by the way many thanks for your informative posts. Your posts clear up lots of questions I have and are easy for a lay person to understand. I appreciate your time and work.

Here is my question:

Dr. Henry Lee is supposed to testify at the trial.
While satisfiying the judge/court that Dr. Lee is indeed an expert, via questions from attorney/s could the SA ask about the prior trials when Dr. Lee had given testimony? Could SA ask about Dr. Lee's participation in the OJ trial? Not particulars; just that Dr. Lee did testify for the supposed OJ "dream team"?

IMO, that would be great for obvious reasons (at least to me). I hope that the jury; while deliberating would call Dr. Lee's capability and crediblity into question.

Would the questioning by the SA be considered cross examination? I've forgotten, is cross allowed while satisfying Dr. Lee's expertise? Or does that come in at a different part in the trial? Perhaps JB is foolish enough to ask on direct examination.

Again, many thanks for your time and help, it's much appreciated.

 

[rhornsby]

HF- please see my new thread. They were gazing adoringly at the law clerk, intern for Baez as he was being sworn in. I'm asking if anyone knows for what position he was being sworn in.

As a lawyer.

 

[LambChop]

Is it normal to have a new attorney sworn in during a hearing when there was a jury waiting to come into the courtroom for another trial?

 

[nums24]

What are the legal ramifications if any, if the defense failed to file their witness lists today as ordered?

 

[AZlawyer]

Apologies in advance if my question has been asked and answered.
I tried very hard to read all the pertinent threads and I did not see my question.

Oh, and by the way many thanks for your informative posts. Your posts clear up lots of questions I have and are easy for a lay person to understand. I appreciate your time and work.

Here is my question:

Dr. Henry Lee is supposed to testify at the trial.
While satisfiying the judge/court that Dr. Lee is indeed an expert, via questions from attorney/s could the SA ask about the prior trials when Dr. Lee had given testimony? Could SA ask about Dr. Lee's participation in the OJ trial? Not particulars; just that Dr. Lee did testify for the supposed OJ "dream team"?

IMO, that would be great for obvious reasons (at least to me). I hope that the jury; while deliberating would call Dr. Lee's capability and crediblity into question.

Would the questioning by the SA be considered cross examination? I've forgotten, is cross allowed while satisfying Dr. Lee's expertise? Or does that come in at a different part in the trial? Perhaps JB is foolish enough to ask on direct examination.

Again, many thanks for your time and help, it's much appreciated.

If there is a challenge to Mr. Lee's ability to testify as an expert witness, it will not be resolved in front of the jury, and the SA will be asking only relevant questions about his expertise, not questions about OJ. I'm not sure what the SA could say about the OJ trial anyway. "Isn't it true that you testified at the OJ trial about forensic evidence and the jury thought you were right?" is hardly effective cross-examination.

Is it normal to have a new attorney sworn in during a hearing when there was a jury waiting to come into the courtroom for another trial?

No clue if this is normal in Florida. When I was admitted in AZ, we had to be sworn in at a ceremony before the Chief Justice of the AZ Supreme Court. Nowadays, I understand you just sign a piece of paper promising to be good.

What are the legal ramifications if any, if the defense failed to file their witness lists today as ordered?

Didn't the defense personally hand the list to the SA at the hearing yesterday? If so, there will be no ramifications if they are a day or so late with the actual filing. But I would think they would have taken care of the filing while they were at the courthouse yesterday.

 

[nums24]

Could it be an appellate issue if J. Barrett has "treated" ICA while not having a license in FL? Or could ICA sign a waiver or stipulation consenting?

 

[Macushla]

I asked this on another thread, but thought I would put it here too. I guess it boils down to what credentials does someone have to have to be a mitigation specialist? Or do they have to have 'credentials at all, other than saying "I am a mitigation specialist"?

We know that Barrett is a mitigation expert and she has been working on this case for a long time. The JAC rules seem to say that if you are a Social Worker, Psychologist, or something like that you must have a FL licences to 'practice' in FL. Well, is Barrett actually 'practicing in FL?" Does her work as a Mitigation Expert include using her degree, if I can say it that way? Let me try this another way: Can you be a mitigation expert without a degree that requires you to have a FL license to practice in FL? I guess what I want to know is do mitigation experts have to have a license or can they call themselves mitigation experts just because they do background work? See what I mean. If Barrett is not using anything other than questions, does she have to be licensed in FL?

 

[AZlawyer]

Could it be an appellate issue if J. Barrett has "treated" ICA while not having a license in FL? Or could ICA sign a waiver or stipulation consenting?

J. Barrett is not treating ICA, so she would not need a license.

I asked this on another thread, but thought I would put it here too. I guess it boils down to what credentials does someone have to have to be a mitigation specialist? Or do they have to have 'credentials at all, other than saying "I am a mitigation specialist"?

We know that Barrett is a mitigation expert and she has been working on this case for a long time. The JAC rules seem to say that if you are a Social Worker, Psychologist, or something like that you must have a FL licences to 'practice' in FL. Well, is Barrett actually 'practicing in FL?" Does her work as a Mitigation Expert include using her degree, if I can say it that way? Let me try this another way: Can you be a mitigation expert without a degree that requires you to have a FL license to practice in FL? I guess what I want to know is do mitigation experts have to have a license or can they call themselves mitigation experts just because they do background work? See what I mean. If Barrett is not using anything other than questions, does she have to be licensed in FL?

No credentials at all are necessary to be a mitigation specialist. Most of them are social workers. Some of them are also paralegals.

I am certain that the JAC rules do not require mitigation specialists to have a license. I would also be stunned if social workers in Florida are required to have a license. Psychologists would need a license, but J Barrett is not a psychologist and is not pretending to be a psychologist.

 

[nums24]

J. Barrett is not treating ICA, so she would not need a license.



No credentials at all are necessary to be a mitigation specialist. Most of them are social workers. Some of them are also paralegals.

I am certain that the JAC rules do not require mitigation specialists to have a license. I would also be stunned if social workers in Florida are required to have a license. Psychologists would need a license, but J Barrett is not a psychologist and is not pretending to be a psychologist.

Respectfully asking for clarification, page 16 of this file of procedures of the JAC, it states that the mitigation specialist must be licensed: http://justiceadmin.com/faq/Training Modules/InvestBilling1.pdf


ETA - Also a social worker is required to have a license: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5858913&postcount=117"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Defense Files Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents[/ame]

 

[AZlawyer]

Respectfully, but on page 16 of this file of procedures of the JAC, it states that the mitigation specialist must be licensed: http://justiceadmin.com/faq/Training Modules/InvestBilling1.pdf

Thanks for the link. It looks like the JAC won't PAY for "mitigation specialists" unless they are licensed Florida investigators (or some other kind of licensed professional like a lawyer or psychologist). So mitigation specialists don't have to be licensed just to be a mitigation specialist, but the JAC doesn't want to pay for them unless they have some additional skill/knowledge like investigating, psychology, law, etc.

In this case, though, I thought HHJP had expressly approved the use of J Barrett as the to-be-paid-for-by-JAC mitigation specialist. If so, his order would override the JAC guidelines.

 

[nums24]

Thanks for the link. It looks like the JAC won't PAY for "mitigation specialists" unless they are licensed Florida investigators (or some other kind of licensed professional like a lawyer or psychologist). So mitigation specialists don't have to be licensed just to be a mitigation specialist, but the JAC doesn't want to pay for them unless they have some additional skill/knowledge like investigating, psychology, law, etc.

In this case, though, I thought HHJP had expressly approved the use of J Barrett as the to-be-paid-for-by-JAC mitigation specialist. If so, his order would override the JAC guidelines.

Will the order have to be re-written then?

The order specifically states: "These persons have agreed and shall comply with the rates, policies and procedures as established by the JAC and Indigent Services Committee." .

Link to the orders:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5859082&postcount=119"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Defense Files Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents[/ame]

 

[LambChop]

Will the order have to be re-written then?

The order specifically states: "These persons have agreed and shall comply with the rates, policies and procedures as established by the JAC and Indigent Services Committee." .

Link to the orders:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Defense Files Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents

Could it be the rates the JAC were willing to pay would not be enough to make the trip to Florida?

 

[AZlawyer]

Will the order have to be re-written then?

The order specifically states: "These persons have agreed and shall comply with the rates, policies and procedures as established by the JAC and Indigent Services Committee." .

Link to the orders:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Defense Files Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents

No, the order expressly approved the use of J Barrett as the mitigation specialist, so the part of the order you quoted would be read to mean "Except as provided otherwise herein," these persons shall comply with the JAC rules.

Hasn't the JAC actually paid her for some of her work already?

Could it be the rates the JAC were willing to pay would not be enough to make the trip to Florida?

Probably. The rate is $40/hour IIRC.

 

[nums24]

No, the order expressly approved the use of J Barrett as the mitigation specialist, so the part of the order you quoted would be read to mean "Except as provided otherwise herein," these persons shall comply with the JAC rules.

Hasn't the JAC actually paid her for some of her work already?



Probably. The rate is $40/hour IIRC.

BBM - No the JAC has not paid anything to Jeanene Barrett, if she is using a company name, I don't know what it is and I can't look it up.

 

[AZlawyer]

Respectfully asking for clarification, page 16 of this file of procedures of the JAC, it states that the mitigation specialist must be licensed: http://justiceadmin.com/faq/Training Modules/InvestBilling1.pdf


ETA - Also a social worker is required to have a license: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Defense Files Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents

That's for "clinical" social workers--i.e., social workers who provide counseling/other mental health treatment to clients. If you are doing other "social work" things, like advising attorneys on how to collect and present mitigation evidence and schmoozing with family members in hopes of getting them to spill the beans on childhood traumas, you should not need a license.

 

[Jomo]

First of all, thanks so much for your learned opinions on all of our questions.

I can hardly wait to hear what Judge BP is going to have to say about JA's motion to compel and the unprofessional nature of the communications. I bet he is not going to sit on it until the next status hearing, after all, the list is due TODAY.

I guess questions I have are:

- Could the Judge pick up the phone and conference both JA and JB about this motion without there being an in-court hearing on it?

-If so, would it have to be video taped like the last telephone conference?

- And the biggest question, if you were Judge BP, how would you deal with this?

- What do you expect will be done?

 

[AZlawyer]

First of all, thanks so much for your learned opinions on all of our questions.

I can hardly wait to hear what Judge BP is going to have to say about JA's motion to compel and the unprofessional nature of the communications. I bet he is not going to sit on it until the next status hearing, after all, the list is due TODAY.

I guess questions I have are:

- Could the Judge pick up the phone and conference both JA and JB about this motion without there being an in-court hearing on it?

-If so, would it have to be video taped like the last telephone conference?

- And the biggest question, if you were Judge BP, how would you deal with this?

- What do you expect will be done?

I answered this in the other thread:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5866623&postcount=407"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5866623&postcount=407[/ame]

 

[Jomo]

I have a quick question about two orders that appear on the court docket

12/03/2010 Order
Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters
12/06/2010 Response
Justice Administrative Commission's; to Defendant's Motion for Additional Hours for Investigation

12/06/2010 Correspondence
from Mr. Jackson

12/07/2010 Correspondence
from Clerk to Mr. Jackson

12/07/2010 Notice
of In-Camera Inspection

12/07/2010 Stipulation
Re: Examination of Evidence

12/07/2010 Notice of Taking Deposition(s)

12/08/2010 Motion
Defendant's; for Transcriptions Services

12/08/2010 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition(s)
Second

12/08/2010 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition(s)

12/09/2010 Order
Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters

It may be a silly question, so if so I apologize from a newbie-to-the-legal-system person.

The two orders in red both have the same title. Are they likely to be addressing different motions? Is this title a standard title that judges use to label orders dealing with multiple motions dealing with discovery matters?

These motions are not available for viewing yet, but I was just wondering if the second order would be dealing with the motions listed after the first order. My educated guess is yes.

Thanks again

 

[Sun]

Here is a link to read the 12/03/2010 Order Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a quick question about two orders that appear on the court docket

12/03/2010 Order
Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters
12/06/2010 Response
Justice Administrative Commission's; to Defendant's Motion for Additional Hours for Investigation

12/06/2010 Correspondence
from Mr. Jackson

12/07/2010 Correspondence
from Clerk to Mr. Jackson

12/07/2010 Notice
of In-Camera Inspection

12/07/2010 Stipulation
Re: Examination of Evidence

12/07/2010 Notice of Taking Deposition(s)

12/08/2010 Motion
Defendant's; for Transcriptions Services

12/08/2010 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition(s)
Second

12/08/2010 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition(s)

12/09/2010 Order
Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters

It may be a silly question, so if so I apologize from a newbie-to-the-legal-system person.

The two orders in red both have the same title. Are they likely to be addressing different motions? Is this title a standard title that judges use to label orders dealing with multiple motions dealing with discovery matters?

These motions are not available for viewing yet, but I was just wondering if the second order would be dealing with the motions listed after the first order. My educated guess is yes.

Thanks again

Here is a link to read the 12/03/2010 Order Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf

I'm hoping that today's order will clarify exactly what HHJP meant in the first order when he said JB had to disclose "the subject matter as to what the experts will testify to and the area of expertise for each expert." I'm guessing that HHJP had not seen the SA's brief about JB's snippy little emails when he signed the first order, or he would have been more clear.