Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Mystery Mouse]

Welcome!

The order says "30 days from the date of this order," so I guess March 26.

I missed that when I read the order. Thanks! :blushing:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I've been lurking in the corners like any good mouse will do, but have to come out of hiding to ask this question. Forgive me if this is the wrong place or if it has been asked and I just missed it.

The prosecution first asked for the incamera ex parte hearing on Feb 3 requesting to delay sharing discovery. On Feb 24, JS gave them 30 days to withhold the discovery. When would that 30 days begin, the date of the original request, or the date of the court's response?

Love your avatar and . . .

:Welcome-12-june:

 

[cuppy199]

I've been lurking in the corners like any good mouse will do, but have to come out of hiding to ask this question. Forgive me if this is the wrong place or if it has been asked and I just missed it.

The prosecution first asked for the incamera ex parte hearing on Feb 3 requesting to delay sharing discovery. On Feb 24, JS gave them 30 days to withhold the discovery. When would that 30 days begin, the date of the original request, or the date of the court's response?

I've been lurking in the corners like any good mouse will do,

After this part of your post I like you already Welcome and please keep posting

 

[AZlawyer]

Please forgive me if this has been asked previously.

If either CA of GA were to be charged with obstruction or accessory (after the crime) would they then be subject to the Son of Sam law? and if so, is the Son of Sam law "retroactive"? For example if one or both are charged would money from appearances, an "intentional" foreclosure and money spent from the "foundation" Fall under scrutiny (due to Son of Sam law)?

I don't know if Florida is even one of the states that enacted a "Son of Sam law," or, if so, what the specific provisions are. But I have never heard of one of these laws that would look retroactively back at funds received prior to being charged with the crime.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I don't know if Florida is even one of the states that enacted a "Son of Sam law," or, if so, what the specific provisions are. But I have never heard of one of these laws that would look retroactively back at funds received prior to being charged with the crime.

It only applies to funds from conviction forward.....AND only to funds paid pertaining to the case conviction.

 

[Macushla]

Is it true that a DP verdict is always followed by an automatic appeal? I thought I had read that somewhere. If the same does not apply with a LWOP verdict, then an attorney who files appeals in a LWOP case would have to be paid for his/her time. Is this correct? I am not talking about cases where they do it pro bono or are working with an organization that takes on cases where they feel the person was innocent.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it true that a DP verdict is always followed by an automatic appeal? I thought I had read that somewhere. If the same does not apply with a LWOP verdict, then an attorney who files appeals in a LWOP case would have to be paid for his/her time. Is this correct? I am not talking about cases where they do it pro bono or are working with an organization that takes on cases where they feel the person was innocent.

It is in Arizona. Not sure about Florida.

Whether the appeal is automatic or not, though, has nothing to do with whether the attorney gets paid. We generally like to get paid either way.

 

[Macushla]

It is in Arizona. Not sure about Florida.

Whether the appeal is automatic or not, though, has nothing to do with whether the attorney gets paid. We generally like to get paid either way.

Oh I am sure you do like to get paid, and I probably didn't word that question as well as I could have. Thanks for answering.
By the way, I love AZ - mostly because my son and his family live there and I go visit them quite often. I try to avoid going out there in late summer though, just too darn hot!

 

[butterfly1978]

I have a question for our wonderful lawyers. Can JS deny her indigent request and if so on what grounds and also if he did deny it what would happen then?

 

[Nore]

Hi and thanks to all Attornies for your input. Is there any possibility that having the State pay the tab,will they be able to put a rocket on the defense to move along faster?
P.S. I wanted to say where the rocket should be attached :dance:

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question for our wonderful lawyers. Can JS deny her indigent request and if so on what grounds and also if he did deny it what would happen then?

He could deny it on the grounds that she's not indigent, but I think she is, don't you?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi and thanks to all Attornies for your input. Is there any possibility that having the State pay the tab,will they be able to put a rocket on the defense to move along faster?
P.S. I wanted to say where the rocket should be attached :dance:

The State would not be allowed to interfere with the defense.

Don't worry, Judge S has the power to make the case move faster if he thinks that needs to happen. But he's going to make sure that the defense team has all the time they need, to avoid any appellate issues.

 

[Cher352]

Thanks in advance!

If Baez stays on the case and the state pays only the expenses will they also pay the travel expenses for her out-of-state lawyers??? That does not seem fair to the FL taxpayers as they would not have those type of expenses if KC was using the Public Defenders office.

 

[butterfly1978]

He could deny it on the grounds that she's not indigent, but I think she is, don't you?

I think she probably is now, however she was not and the money that she did have her lawyers did really nothing with it, they did nothing but file stupid motions wasting time and money when they should have been examing evidence and giving depo's. I do not think it is right that her lawyers can blow the money and now say they want tax payers to pay the bill, they should somehow be accountable, its not right.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks in advance!

If Baez stays on the case and the state pays only the expenses will they also pay the travel expenses for her out-of-state lawyers??? That does not seem fair to the FL taxpayers as they would not have those type of expenses if KC was using the Public Defenders office.

I don't think they would cover those kind of expenses.

 

[savannahanna]

I missed that when I read the order. Thanks! :blushing:

I know this is OT needed to say hi!
Housemouse:dance:
So good to see you posting!!!! Hope you and Mr. Mouse doing okay!
Thanking of you with best wishes
Savannahanna

 

[Snaz]

Question for one of the lawyers on the board: If KC, by some miracle, decides to plead guilty to the murder of her child, doesn't that take the DP off the table? Isn't LWOP the most she can get, at that point?

As I understand it, that is one of the reasons defendants will sometimes plead guilty at some point along the way; to avoid the DP.

TIA!

 

[Mystery Mouse]

I know this is OT needed to say hi!
Housemouse:dance:
So good to see you posting!!!! Hope you and Mr. Mouse doing okay!
Thanking of you with best wishes
Savannahanna

Please forgive the OT, but feel I need to set things straight.

Being that there is no Mr. Mouse in my house, I think you must have the wrong person.

I'll say hi in return anyway. :wave:

 

[LawRig]

Please forgive the OT, but feel I need to set things straight.

Being that there is no Mr. Mouse in my house, I think you must have the wrong person.

I'll say hi in return anyway. :wave:

just to help out: there are TWO "house mouses" now at WS

one is previously known from Astrology forum... Housemouse
and a new one... House Mouse...

:whistle:

 

[logicalgirl]

Question for one of the lawyers on the board: If KC, by some miracle, decides to plead guilty to the murder of her child, doesn't that take the DP off the table? Isn't LWOP the most she can get, at that point?

As I understand it, that is one of the reasons defendants will sometimes plead guilty at some point along the way; to avoid the DP.

TIA!

Thanks for this question Snaz, and I'd like to tag along with it - just to get the plea process clear in my mind once and for all. I believe you've answered this in the past AZ or Themis, but once more please?:waitasec:

If and when the defense comes to the table with a guilty plea, doesn't the SA then begin a negotiation process, starting with the DP, since that's what's on the table and negotiate from there?

In other words, the SA can say these are the conditions and the consequences we outline for a plea, and the defense can accept the conditions or no?

Do you think the SA will drop the DP for LWOP for a guilty plea, if the defense approaches for said guilty plea? Or does the judge make this decision?