Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[beach]

Below I linked a copy of Dianna Tennis' Notice of Conclusion in re. Dominic Casey. (Thanks to our beloved MM!)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38690284/05072010-Notice-of-Conclusion---Diana-Tennis

It is no secret that I am a bit obsessed over what Dominic Casey knows and whether he has finally given the SA his depo (aka investigative interview).

So, since this isn't a Motion to Withdraw, can we read anything into this?

 

[logicalgirl]

Hi AZLawyer - would love your valued opinion on this. Over on the aggravators thread, we were discussing the Huck, which TWA and Muzikman were kind enough to pull up quotes from - particularly the appeals decisions.

The Florida Supreme Court Judge stated there was no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes or mouth shut after death. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive.

Would the SA be able to quote this during the guilt phase of the trial or as rebuttal to some kind of information the Defense may offer as to why the duct tape was on Caylee's face?

Or at all for that matter? TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

The judge ruled the defense could not use State funds to pay for a Jury Consultant. Can JB go out and hire one and pay for it himself or have someone else pay for it?

And if he did can I piggyback with Macushia and ask if he did that would it affect ICA indigent status?

I don't know if the Florida ethics rules might prohibit him from using his own money. I suppose the As could finance it. They are a waste of money IMHO anyway.

Below I linked a copy of Dianna Tennis' Notice of Conclusion in re. Dominic Casey. (Thanks to our beloved MM!)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38690284/05072010-Notice-of-Conclusion---Diana-Tennis

It is no secret that I am a bit obsessed over what Dominic Casey knows and whether he has finally given the SA his depo (aka investigative interview).

So, since this isn't a Motion to Withdraw, can we read anything into this?

Unless there's something weird in the Fla. rules, I don't see why she would have to file a motion to withdraw to withdraw from representing a witness (as opposed to a party)--so I don't think you can read much into this notice except that DT is no longer representing Dominic Casey. I really think that DC must have given that interview by now, though. If he was still refusing, the SA would have filed a motion to compel.

Hi AZLawyer - would love your valued opinion on this. Over on the aggravators thread, we were discussing the Huck, which TWA and Muzikman were kind enough to pull up quotes from - particularly the appeals decisions.

The Florida Supreme Court Judge stated there was no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes or mouth shut after death. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive.

Would the SA be able to quote this during the guilt phase of the trial or as rebuttal to some kind of information the Defense may offer as to why the duct tape was on Caylee's face?

Or at all for that matter? TIA

No. They will need to convince the jury that the alternatives aren't logical, and you aren't permitted to convince the jury of facts by quoting case law at them. The case might be brought up by the SA at some point during the appeal process, though.

 

[ynotdivein]

They are a waste of money IMHO anyway.

Respectfully snipped by me... AZ, can you elaborate on this opinion? Until recently I never even realized such a profession existed. TIA!

 

[beach]

Unless there's something weird in the Fla. rules, I don't see why she would have to file a motion to withdraw to withdraw from representing a witness (as opposed to a party)--so I don't think you can read much into this notice except that DT is no longer representing Dominic Casey. I really think that DC must have given that interview by now, though. If he was still refusing, the SA would have filed a motion to compel.

Gotcha in re. the difference between a witness as opposed to a party. I didn't even think about that. I get tunnel vision when it comes to DC 'cause like LE opined to GA, "I think you are a man who knows a lot about a lot of things." I feel the exact same about DC. lol I agree, if he hadn't already complied with the SA, we would have seen a motion to compel.

One follow up question - since DC's depo hasn't been released, would we even know if it has been sealed? Or, what is your best guess as to why it hasn't been released?

Does it show that I'm a little bit anxious to read it?

 

[nancy botwin]

Say someone is convicted of first degree murder. The sole count of the indictment is first degree murder and the jury receives no instructions on lesser included offenses. The conviction is reversed on appeal (trial court erred in admitting improper hearsay evidence). The State will reprosecute.

Is the State limited by the original indictment-- that is, are they only able to try the defendant for first degree murder, or could they reindict and include lesser offenses to be considered at retrial?

The reversal was based on the admission of impermissible hearsay evidence via a letter from the decedent. Is the State forever barred from using that letter as evidence for any purpose, or could it be admitted under different permissible circumstances at retrial?

 

[rhornsby]

RE Affirmative defense- how can you admit the act but have an alibi?

You don't deny that a crime occurred, say a robbery or burglary, but take the additional step of also presenting evidence that you were somewhere else when the crime occurred.

 

[I Din Doot]

RH, I think you play law like you played football. You are a BULLDOZER !!
No attys on my team but you, for your tenacity and MN, for his pure suave.

 

[logicalgirl]

I hope this isn't the STUPIDEST question I've asked on this board, but something just hit me over in the Casey's Lies thread, and how she lives in, and creates her own reality.

Pre-trial/guilt phase, does ICA's get to read all the depositions, see the evidence, etc., the State has submitted or do her lawyers just tell her about it? I understand about the Sunshine Laws, etc., but it is hard to believe she has seen or read any of it.

And from there, does this mean ICA will be able to read George's Grand Jury testimony if it is released to the Defense?

 

[ZsaZsa]

I hope this isn't the STUPIDEST question I've asked on this board, but something just hit me over in the Casey's Lies thread, and how she lives in, and creates her own reality.

Pre-trial/guilt phase, does ICA's get to read all the depositions, see the evidence, etc., the State has submitted or do her lawyers just tell her about it? I understand about the Sunshine Laws, etc., but it is hard to believe she has seen or read any of it.

And from there, does this mean ICA will be able to read George's Grand Jury testimony if it is released to the Defense?

Is it possible she has already read GA's testimony/or been told what he said, and hence the abuse allegations were her retaliation? Is it still sealed?

 

[AZlawyer]

Respectfully snipped by me... AZ, can you elaborate on this opinion? Until recently I never even realized such a profession existed. TIA!

I guess I should clarify that I believe jury consultants are a waste of time IF the lawyer is able to pay attention to and interpret body language, facial expressions, etc and has experience with people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Some lawyers are disabled in that area and have to hire "experts" to tell them things that, to me, are common sense.

Gotcha in re. the difference between a witness as opposed to a party. I didn't even think about that. I get tunnel vision when it comes to DC 'cause like LE opined to GA, "I think you are a man who knows a lot about a lot of things." I feel the exact same about DC. lol I agree, if he hadn't already complied with the SA, we would have seen a motion to compel.

One follow up question - since DC's depo hasn't been released, would we even know if it has been sealed? Or, what is your best guess as to why it hasn't been released?

Does it show that I'm a little bit anxious to read it?

Apparently there have been 30+ depos taken so far. Only a few have been released. Perhaps the SA has not ordered transcripts, so there is nothing to release. Or perhaps the media has not asked for these documents. I don't think they would be included in a "notice of supplemental discovery," and maybe that's all the media has asked for. :waitasec:

Say someone is convicted of first degree murder. The sole count of the indictment is first degree murder and the jury receives no instructions on lesser included offenses. The conviction is reversed on appeal (trial court erred in admitting improper hearsay evidence). The State will reprosecute.

Is the State limited by the original indictment-- that is, are they only able to try the defendant for first degree murder, or could they reindict and include lesser offenses to be considered at retrial?

The reversal was based on the admission of impermissible hearsay evidence via a letter from the decedent. Is the State forever barred from using that letter as evidence for any purpose, or could it be admitted under different permissible circumstances at retrial?

The judge is supposed to instruct on lesser included offenses, so I don't think he would be precluded from correcting that error on retrial.

On the hearsay question, the appellate court's decision would have been based upon the actual presentation of evidence and objection at trial, not upon other possible uses of the evidence and objections, so I don't see that the SA would be precluded from trying to offer it for some other purpose.

I hope this isn't the STUPIDEST question I've asked on this board, but something just hit me over in the Casey's Lies thread, and how she lives in, and creates her own reality.

Pre-trial/guilt phase, does ICA's get to read all the depositions, see the evidence, etc., the State has submitted or do her lawyers just tell her about it? I understand about the Sunshine Laws, etc., but it is hard to believe she has seen or read any of it.

And from there, does this mean ICA will be able to read George's Grand Jury testimony if it is released to the Defense?

Her lawyers can show the evidence to her if they want to, or if she asks.

Is it possible she has already read GA's testimony/or been told what he said, and hence the abuse allegations were her retaliation? Is it still sealed?

My understanding is that KC's lawyers have not seen this testimony yet, because they filed a motion asking for it. Therefore, KC has not seen it either.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I guess I should clarify that I believe jury consultants are a waste of time IF the lawyer is able to pay attention to and interpret body language, facial expressions, etc and has experience with people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Some lawyers are disabled in that area and have to hire "experts" to tell them things that, to me, are common sense.



Apparently there have been 30+ depos taken so far. Only a few have been released. Perhaps the SA has not ordered transcripts, so there is nothing to release. Or perhaps the media has not asked for these documents. I don't think they would be included in a "notice of supplemental discovery," and maybe that's all the media has asked for. :waitasec:



The judge is supposed to instruct on lesser included offenses, so I don't think he would be precluded from correcting that error on retrial.

On the hearsay question, the appellate court's decision would have been based upon the actual presentation of evidence and objection at trial, not upon other possible uses of the evidence and objections, so I don't see that the SA would be precluded from trying to offer it for some other purpose.



Her lawyers can show the evidence to her if they want to, or if she asks.



My understanding is that KC's lawyers have not seen this testimony yet, because they filed a motion asking for it. Therefore, KC has not seen it either.

Wasn't Baez at the GJ hearing?

 

[AZlawyer]

Wasn't Baez at the GJ hearing?

No, defense counsel is not present at GJ hearings.

 

[logicalgirl]

What if ICA doesn't know she allowed to see it or doesn't ask, is Baez obligated to tell her she "should" be aware of and see the evidence - which is another way of asking - do you think she has seen any of the evidence? To me, ICA behaves in court as if she has no idea of the evidence against her.

If Baez has made no attempt to discuss the evidence or show it to her can she use that on appeal? TIA.

 

[Bittiness39]

This may be a little silly...but does any one of the legal experts fear some kind of Primal Fear scenario (the movie with Richard Gear)? Where perhaps the defense puts KC on the stand so she can act all crazy without them having to plead insanity...? Just curious. The defense has to know where this case is going (a conviction) no matter from where the jury is bused into Orlando...

 

[AZlawyer]

What if ICA doesn't know she allowed to see it or doesn't ask, is Baez obligated to tell her she "should" be aware of and see the evidence - which is another way of asking - do you think she has seen any of the evidence? To me, ICA behaves in court as if she has no idea of the evidence against her.

If Baez has made no attempt to discuss the evidence or show it to her can she use that on appeal? TIA.

Baez is not obligated to make her look at the evidence, although I think he would have a tough time defending her if he didn't at least discuss the evidence with her. IMO he likely has discussed the evidence with her quite a bit, but she is delusionally confident that the evidence can be "explained away."

Yes, it could come up as part of an ineffective assistance of counsel argument if he kept her "in the dark" about evidence that she might have been able to explain.

 

[Susan1]

I have a legal question for one of your lawyers. I may be in the wrong thread, but this is the only thread where I found real lawyers. If a person buys a business, a corporation in Florida, does that new owner assume the liabilities of the former business owner, criminally and / or financially? And do you have any citations you can refer to that pertain to this question? Thank you for your help.

 

[AZlawyer]

This may be a little silly...but does any one of the legal experts fear some kind of Primal Fear scenario (the movie with Richard Gear)? Where perhaps the defense puts KC on the stand so she can act all crazy without them having to plead insanity...? Just curious. The defense has to know where this case is going (a conviction) no matter from where the jury is bused into Orlando...

I didn't see the movie, but just read a synopsis. I would put the chances of this happening at zero percent.

If she were insane, they would certainly plead insanity. She is clearly not insane to the point necessary to excuse her for her actions. And unlike the defendant in Primal Fear, Casey does not act more insane when questioned. She acts calm and unconcerned.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a legal question for one of your lawyers. I may be in the wrong thread, but this is the only thread where I found real lawyers. If a person buys a business, a corporation in Florida, does that new owner assume the liabilities of the former business owner, criminally and / or financially? And do you have any citations you can refer to that pertain to this question? Thank you for your help.

It sounds like you need legal advice. I am not licensed in Florida and can't give you legal advice, and I suspect that R Hornsby, although licensed in Florida, does not give personalized legal advice through WS. Also, I understand that his practice is limited to criminal defense.

ETA: Susan1 just let me know that this was a question about the Abraham Shakespeare case. I gave her some information, which she is free to post in that forum.

 

[beach]

Baez is not obligated to make her look at the evidence, although I think he would have a tough time defending her if he didn't at least discuss the evidence with her. IMO he likely has discussed the evidence with her quite a bit, but she is delusionally confident that the evidence can be "explained away."

--respectfully snipped, BBM

I can't resist the urge to say "BINGO!"