Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Numbers]

Yeah, like that. My guess is that HHJP can see that JB is a nincompoop (although I stand by my earlier statements that he is not the WORST attorney I've seen in active practice) but does not want Casey to get any good appeal issues out of that fact. So he's trying to get JB to do his job, rather than punishing JB for not doing his job. Getting JB to do his job means no serious ineffective assistance of counsel issues. Punishing him for not doing his job would just give Casey something to quote on appeal to show that JB's ineffectiveness affected her case.

Bumping this. The bolded sentences give me great hope.

 

[cbcrime]

When JBP brings up the Kronk motion at the 12/20/10 hearing JB indicates that he had a deadline of 12/31. The way he stated this it seems he was saying he had until 12/31 to file on the Kronk motion. JBP responds by stating that he thought that it must be heard by 12/31 and JA agreed that was his recollection also. I wanted to clarify in my mind exactly what had been said to see if there was leeway for JB to squirm out of this deadline. I found this:

Order dated 9/2/10: Second Amended Order Setting Discovery and Hearing Deadlines and Trail Date states:
6. ORDER AS TO ALL OTHER MOTIONS
Non-forensic/scientific legal motions requiring no testimony before the court shall be
filed and hear no later than December 31, 2010.

At the 11/29/10 hearing JBP asks about the status of the Kronk motion – he specifically states that this falls under #6 of the order dated 9/2/10. He further states it must be filed and heard by 12/31/10 or it will not be heard.

Then again at the 12/20 hearing he restates it must be heard by 12/31 – that he has vacation the week following 12/27. He gives two dates he might be available that week – I believe the 22nd and 23rd. It would seem that it was stated in writing and multiple times in hearings what the deadline requirements where for this motion. This is my question for our wonderful lawyers. Is there any way for JB to wiggle out of this deadline. Can he use the excuse that JBP was not available for the last week of December to hear this motion thereby impinging on his ability to get this heard?

Also on 12/20 JBP states that if it is not heard before the 31st then there will be no ruling before trail. Does this mean it can be brought up at trail and a decision made then?

I thought at first he might use the excuse that he had to only file by the 31st but it is pretty clear that he knew it must be filed and heard by the 31st. Thank you for your time to answer this question.

 

[AZlawyer]

RSBM

AZ, I guess this is what I was trying to hone in on. How will HHJP define "shortly before"?

If I am a juror, who has been trucked a number of miles, and who has been asked to consider only the facts presented by the two sides, then not being able to consider KC's "scandalous" and lying behavior prior to June (oh let's say) 9th may give me room to think that her behavior post-Caylee's-disappearance was really unusual for her, and therefore she is not culpable due to ??? mental defect?

If we erase all evidence of her behavior pre-June 15 2008 then it seems to me it will be harder for the prosecution to argue premeditation.

I very much want to be argued down here, btw.

By "shortly before" I mean several months--i.e., long enough to show that Casey's behavior didn't suddenly change in June-ish due to, e.g., a threat by Zanny/Jesse.

Is there a point where enough is enough? To further clarify, is there a point where the defense undermining their own client's right to a fair trial overrules appeal issues? Or do judges worry more about appeal than the defense doing what they are supposed to do for trial? I guess I'm just trying to figure out if I should get my hopes up about sanctions or get ready to be disappointed yet again. I can't believe Baez hasn't come under scrutiny before now.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Monetary sanctions might get JB on the ball (as much as possible) but wouldn't affect Casey's rights at all. Excluding evidence as a sanction is a bigger concern appeal-wise. That's why I hope HHJP grants the motion but limits the sanction to $$$.

Thanks AZ...so if Baez files it anyway and His Honor denies that motion, for he surpassed the "drop dead" date, will this be enough for an appeal, when ICA is found guilty?
As far as Baez suggesting he should be considered a suspect is due to his Ex claiming she duct taped her hands...so, it could cause concern/reasonable doubt. I just hope it doesn't go that way...JMHO

I would LOVE to see ICA take the stand in her own defense. Just to hear the lies flow out of her mouth would be such a treat and would also get her that guilty verdict. The State would rip her to shreds..Wondering if ICA will insist she take the stand to explain those compelling reasons she didn't notify authories in those crucial 31 days...I recall Baez stating she had compelling reasons we would hear at trial. Coming out of his mouth would do no good, it must come from the accused herself...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Justice for Caylee

If HHJP denies a motion asking for permission to bring in Kronk's "bad acts" solely because the motion date has passed, I assume he would still let JB attempt to bring in that "evidence" (ha) at trial, and would rule on any substantive objections at that time (because, AFAIK, there's no requirement that JB file any motion before attempting to offer the evidence). So there would be no appeal issue IMO.

Casey might believe that she could take the stand and convince everyone. If JB lets her do it, he is an idiot IMO.

When JBP brings up the Kronk motion at the 12/20/10 hearing JB indicates that he had a deadline of 12/31. The way he stated this it seems he was saying he had until 12/31 to file on the Kronk motion. JBP responds by stating that he thought that it must be heard by 12/31 and JA agreed that was his recollection also. I wanted to clarify in my mind exactly what had been said to see if there was leeway for JB to squirm out of this deadline. I found this:

Order dated 9/2/10: Second Amended Order Setting Discovery and Hearing Deadlines and Trail Date states:
6. ORDER AS TO ALL OTHER MOTIONS
Non-forensic/scientific legal motions requiring no testimony before the court shall be
filed and hear no later than December 31, 2010.

At the 11/29/10 hearing JBP asks about the status of the Kronk motion – he specifically states that this falls under #6 of the order dated 9/2/10. He further states it must be filed and heard by 12/31/10 or it will not be heard.

Then again at the 12/20 hearing he restates it must be heard by 12/31 – that he has vacation the week following 12/27. He gives two dates he might be available that week – I believe the 22nd and 23rd. It would seem that it was stated in writing and multiple times in hearings what the deadline requirements where for this motion. This is my question for our wonderful lawyers. Is there any way for JB to wiggle out of this deadline. Can he use the excuse that JBP was not available for the last week of December to hear this motion thereby impinging on his ability to get this heard?

Also on 12/20 JBP states that if it is not heard before the 31st then there will be no ruling before trail. Does this mean it can be brought up at trail and a decision made then?

I thought at first he might use the excuse that he had to only file by the 31st but it is pretty clear that he knew it must be filed and heard by the 31st. Thank you for your time to answer this question.

I think the deadline was clear, and I think everyone knows judges go on vacation around Christmas just like the rest of the country. However, IMO there is no need for JB to file his silly motion pre-trial. He can just try to get the "evidence" in at trial.

 

[Macushla]

You answered a question I had about who, specifically, get sanctioned if sanctions are given out, and now I am going to take the question a bit further.

IF the defense team is sanctioned, would that sanction apply to Ms. Finnell? She is only on board to deal with the mitigation issue and has no role in the actual trial, at least from what I can gather. She also was retained just recently and her name was not on the motion listing the defense witnesses and their qualifications, etc.

If she is 'tarred with the same brush' just because she is a member of the team, does this apply to any/all attorneys who are working on the case, like other attorneys in JB's law firm?

And lastly, IF the sanctions are applied to everyone, how much of a black eye does this give an attorney? Would Ms. Finnell be upset enough over being part of a sanctioned defense team to want to disassociate herself as quickly as possible from it? Or are sanctions (when given) more of a routine happening and not held against the attorney, because it is something that is done, but has no real reprercussions?

Would HHJP take into consideration the other attorneys in this case when deciding to levy sanctions? Would he hesitate because of the position of someone like Ms. Finnell and other minor players on the defense team or would he feel that the team as a whole could have/should have directed the course of the response regarding the experts and must bear the same responsibilities?

 

[Numbers]

*IF* the JAC and Judge Perry disallow a certain number of the investigative hours alloted, does the PI have to eat that income, or is Jose held responsible for paying him for those disallowed hours?

And if Jose is held responsible, can the PI bill him at his usual rate, rather than the JAC rate?

TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

You answered a question I had about who, specifically, get sanctioned if sanctions are given out, and now I am going to take the question a bit further.

IF the defense team is sanctioned, would that sanction apply to Ms. Finnell? She is only on board to deal with the mitigation issue and has no role in the actual trial, at least from what I can gather. She also was retained just recently and her name was not on the motion listing the defense witnesses and their qualifications, etc.

If she is 'tarred with the same brush' just because she is a member of the team, does this apply to any/all attorneys who are working on the case, like other attorneys in JB's law firm?

And lastly, IF the sanctions are applied to everyone, how much of a black eye does this give an attorney? Would Ms. Finnell be upset enough over being part of a sanctioned defense team to want to disassociate herself as quickly as possible from it? Or are sanctions (when given) more of a routine happening and not held against the attorney, because it is something that is done, but has no real reprercussions?

Would HHJP take into consideration the other attorneys in this case when deciding to levy sanctions? Would he hesitate because of the position of someone like Ms. Finnell and other minor players on the defense team or would he feel that the team as a whole could have/should have directed the course of the response regarding the experts and must bear the same responsibilities?

It is completely up to HHJP how he decides to deal with less-involved members of the defense team. There are no rules about this.

Sanctions are not "routine," but on the other hand don't generally lead to long-term career repercussions unless they are for some really horrible behavior or an attorney develops a habit of being sanctioned lol. Also, even if the entire defense team gets sanctioned, someone like Ms. Finnell is not going to have her reputation tarnished, because everyone will know it was not her decision that led to the sanctions.

*IF* the JAC and Judge Perry disallow a certain number of the investigative hours alloted, does the PI have to eat that income, or is Jose held responsible for paying him for those disallowed hours?

And if Jose is held responsible, can the PI bill him at his usual rate, rather than the JAC rate?


TIA!

If Jose has a contract with the PI holding the PI to JAC-approved bills, then the PI will have to "eat" the unapproved hours. If not, Jose will have to pay the PI. The rate also depends on what the contract says.

 

[Numbers]

So now we have the JAC's response to the PI's billings. They question over 350 hours, many because the tasks could have been carried out by secretaries/couriers/paralegals. If/when (and I"m leaning towards "when") the JAC denies these hours, what happens? The bills have already been paid (ridiculous way to do business!). Will the PI have to return the money? Will Baez be held responsible for returning the fees? Or is it a case of too little, too late?

 

[AZlawyer]

So now we have the JAC's response to the PI's billings. They question over 350 hours, many because the tasks could have been carried out by secretaries/couriers/paralegals. If/when (and I"m leaning towards "when") the JAC denies these hours, what happens? The bills have already been paid (ridiculous way to do business!). Will the PI have to return the money? Will Baez be held responsible for returning the fees? Or is it a case of too little, too late?

If the bills have been paid by JB, I assume that was because the PI had a contract that required payment of his bills regardless of whether or not the JAC approved them. If so, I don't see why they would return any of the money.

Or are you saying that the JAC prepaid the bills before reviewing them?? I can't imagine they operate that way. :waitasec:

 

[LancelotLink]

Just curious if the 6 things listed in the Six Things document from JAC need to be submitted with each request for payment. TIA.

 

[Numbers]

If the bills have been paid by JB, I assume that was because the PI had a contract that required payment of his bills regardless of whether or not the JAC approved them. If so, I don't see why they would return any of the money.

Or are you saying that the JAC prepaid the bills before reviewing them?? I can't imagine they operate that way. :waitasec:

Sure seems that way. We have seen the JAC records that show when the checks were cut. Now we're seeing the questioned items on the invoices. I can't imagine, but that what it looks like.

 

[manatee]

How likely do you think it is that the case MAY NOT be televised or available online? Considering that witness may see/hear what others say before hand may be a strong argument for the prosecutors to ask for no cameras in courtroom.
Thoughts?

 

[Snaz]

How likely do you think it is that the case MAY NOT be televised or available online? Considering that witness may see/hear what others say before hand may be a strong argument for the prosecutors to ask for no cameras in courtroom.
Thoughts?

I, personally, think it is very unlikely that the trial won't be streamed live online.... and truTV has already said they will be carrying the trial.

 

[AZlawyer]

Just curious if the 6 things listed in the Six Things document from JAC need to be submitted with each request for payment. TIA.

Hmmm well I think you can skip them if you don't mind getting your request denied.

How likely do you think it is that the case MAY NOT be televised or available online? Considering that witness may see/hear what others say before hand may be a strong argument for the prosecutors to ask for no cameras in courtroom.
Thoughts?

I have a vague recollection that this was already discussed in court at some point, but I don't remember what the result was. I agree that witnesses might watch live testimony of other witnesses, but even in non-televised trials witnesses (and lawyers) tell each other what they said on the stand, in complete disregard for the witness seclusion rule. And maybe it's not a very important rule anymore in any event, because with the newer disclosure and discovery rules, everyone knows perfectly well what the witnesses are going to say long before the trial begins. What would Cindy learn from watching George testify, for example? That he tried to defend Casey but ended up looking like a total fool? Presumably she already knows that's going to happen.

HHJP has shown an inclination to protect the rights of the public and the media, and I expect him to allow the trial to be televised.

 

[Snaz]

I apologize for answering a question on this thread.... didn't even realize I was on the legal thread!! :doh:

 

[Cabin girl]

AZ what are your thoughts on the motion to suppress the video of ICA's reaction to the discovery of Suburban Drive? Could the prosecution cite the difference in ICA's reaction to when LP thought they found something at the park and ICA stating they're looking in the wrong place as compared to her reaction to Suburban Drive find? At least I thought I read that was her reaction to LP's find but could be wrong.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ what are your thoughts on the motion to suppress the video of ICA's reaction to the discovery of Suburban Drive? Could the prosecution cite the difference in ICA's reaction to when LP thought they found something at the park and ICA stating they're looking in the wrong place as compared to her reaction to Suburban Drive find? At least I thought I read that was her reaction to LP's find but could be wrong.

I think the video will be excluded. First of all, IMO the manner of obtaining the video was completely improper. Second, it appears to be irrelevant--i.e., the reaction as described is consistent with guilt but also consistent with innocence.

As far as Casey's reaction to LP's search, I don't think it's of much interest if she reacted by, e.g., rolling her eyes, rather than by saying "oh no" and breathing rapidly. It is consistent with innocence to have a different reaction to the announcement of a cowboy media hound that he has found some beads and lake debris vs. the announcement of law enforcement that they have found the skeleton of a small child right next to your home.

Don't misunderstand--I believe Casey is guilty. I just don't think this video is much good for proving that fact.

As far as the evidence that Casey said LP was searching in the "wrong place," that is much more interesting. IIRC, she allegedly said this to the guard, with no questioning. I hope that comment comes into evidence, and I hope the guard can manage to come across as a credible witness.

 

[BondJamesBond]

With the understanding that this case isn't necessarily 'typical'...

Is it reasonable to assume that we've seen all of the forensic evidence that is available to the SA for trial? That is, save for any 'new' testing that might have to be done to refute any 'new' claim revealed by defense witness statements.

IOW...would it be very atypical for the SA to have any forensic evidence in its possession @ this point that has not been released to the defense, and subsequently the public via Sunshine Laws (excepting anything that we know was sealed, such as the autopsy photos)?

TIA!

 

[Omachka]

Do Motions in Limine not require a certificate of service? There isn't one on any of the motions we've seen so far.

 

[sumbunny]

If HHJBP orders the tape be sealed. Is it still possible to have the guard explain how casey reacted watching the news story?

 

[AZlawyer]

With the understanding that this case isn't necessarily 'typical'...

Is it reasonable to assume that we've seen all of the forensic evidence that is available to the SA for trial? That is, save for any 'new' testing that might have to be done to refute any 'new' claim revealed by defense witness statements.

IOW...would it be very atypical for the SA to have any forensic evidence in its possession @ this point that has not been released to the defense, and subsequently the public via Sunshine Laws (excepting anything that we know was sealed, such as the autopsy photos)?

TIA!

Yes, I think we've seen all the forensic evidence in this case that will be offered at trial. The SA has announced that the investigation is complete, I believe we've seen responses from the FBI for all the forensic requests sent to the FBI by LE, and the state's forensics experts have submitted reports.