Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

On Casey's statement to police, where it asks "Will you testify in court?" She has written yes and initialed. Can she be held to that?

No. I wish.

 

[nssherlock]

Thank you AZ - I always check your posts first - you're just the best!
Q- The Defense's response today to judge's order that they provide specific defense expert information to SA not only fell short of what HHJP ordered but also was disrespectfully written. In your opinion will JBP take the defense to the woodshed - or will he just let it go?
FWIW I believe it is a mistake to allow officers of the court to become desensitized to the requirement that they act professionally. TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZ - I always check your posts first - you're just the best!
Q- The Defense's response today to judge's order that they provide specific defense expert information to SA not only fell short of what HHJP ordered but also was disrespectfully written. In your opinion will JBP take the defense to the woodshed - or will he just let it go?
FWIW I believe it is a mistake to allow officers of the court to become desensitized to the requirement that they act professionally. TIA

HHJP might limit the testimony of their experts at trial to what they have disclosed. But then KC might whine about ineffective assistance of counsel after she's found guilty. :banghead: The reason the defense gets away with so much is that HHJP doesn't want JB's incompetence to affect Casey's substantive rights. He's trying to avoid appeal issues.

If the state pushes the issue, HHJP might order JB to provide more detail. Otherwise, I suspect he will just continue to look at JB with that "what a huge waste" look.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

HHJP might limit the testimony of their experts at trial to what they have disclosed.

~Respectfully snipped for content~

Thanks for the reminder. Could this be similar to what happened in the Nilton Diaz case? Diaz lost his appeal, but this line came to mind.

Diaz says he lost his freedom because of Baez's trial performance, strategy and failure to disclose evidence to prosecutors, a tactical decision that prevented jurors from viewing a defense video.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-03-28/news/baez28_1_baez-diaz-conviction

This was taken from post #17 by SuziQ on the Nilton Diaz thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81831&highlight=Nilton+Diaz

 

[AZlawyer]

~Respectfully snipped for content~

Thanks for the reminder. Could this be similar to what happened in the Nilton Diaz case? Diaz lost his appeal, but this line came to mind.

Diaz says he lost his freedom because of Baez's trial performance, strategy and failure to disclose evidence to prosecutors, a tactical decision that prevented jurors from viewing a defense video.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-03-28/news/baez28_1_baez-diaz-conviction

This was taken from post #17 by SuziQ on the Nilton Diaz thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81831&highlight=Nilton+Diaz

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.

 

[ynotdivein]

Many of us are scratching our heads about why successive doc dumps contain the same materials. Can you give us any insight into why this happens?

(And AZ, you are invaluable to this thread, this forum, and WS in general. Thank you so much for the generous gift of your time and intellect! :blowkiss

 

[AZlawyer]

Many of us are scratching our heads about why successive doc dumps contain the same materials. Can you give us any insight into why this happens?

(And AZ, you are invaluable to this thread, this forum, and WS in general. Thank you so much for the generous gift of your time and intellect! :blowkiss

Sometimes there's a slight difference--audio/video vs. a written transcript; the same materials from 2 different sources (e.g., information printed from a witness's computer and the same information sent from the witness's Internet Service Provider); copies of originals vs. copies of faxes; etc. But sometimes IMO it's just that the SA has lost track of whether or not it disclosed something, and figures it's easier to disclose it again than to go through all the old disclosures and check.

 

[Katprint]

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.

I have also seen equally bad attorneys as JB - the local legal community nicknamed one famously bad attorney "Dim Witty" which rhymes with his real name - but the big difference is that they were not defending death penalty cases.

As a matter of principle, I am troubled by the abstract prospect that whether a defendant is convicted and executed or imprisoned for the rest of their life may depend on whether that defendant has a nincompoop for an attorney. OTOH I also believe that clients tend to choose their attorneys who mirror themselves, kind of like how some dog owners tend to look like their dogs. Casey's defense problems originated with Casey (in particular, her extensive outrageous lies) then were made worse by JB's inexperienced mishandling of her case. Casey's family has also helped dig her in deeper, not least by believing their own hype and falsely reassuring each other and Casey that Casey is certain to beat this rap. Also, Casey does not benefit from prolonged trial delays while she remains in custody year after year nor from Baez' frittering away a quarter of a million dollars without getting any real bang for those bucks.

If HHJP orders JB to basically stop being so lazy and get the job done so the case is ready for trial next spring, I am all for it. I really want Casey to have a fair trial, and if she has some genuine defenses/mitigations then I want those to be presented in a competent manner.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[5stars]

With the sunshines laws in Florida.Can both sides agree to withhold things from the media that would point to guilt?

 

[AZlawyer]

With the sunshines laws in Florida.Can both sides agree to withhold things from the media that would point to guilt?

No. The law is there for the benefit of the public, so the state and the defense cannot agree between themselves to give up a right that does not belong to them.

 

[rhornsby]

No. The law is there for the benefit of the public, so the state and the defense cannot agree between themselves to give up a right that does not belong to them.

That is not quite true. The defense is not required to release anything in their possession to the media; only the State.

So the Defense could disclose the existence of information to the State and even allow the State to "inspect" read view the information; but by agreement, not provide the State with copies of the information (say sensitive photographs for example).

In such a case, Florida public records laws would not apply, because the State does not have anything actually in their possession.

Now in reality, the State would not cooperate with the defense this way; so it is just an academic, although fully authorized, example.

 

[AZlawyer]

That is not quite true. The defense is not required to release anything in their possession to the media; only the State.

So the Defense could disclose the existence of information to the State and even allow the State to "inspect" read view the information; but by agreement, not provide the State with copies of the information (say sensitive photographs for example).

In such a case, Florida public records laws would not apply, because the State does not have anything actually in their possession.

Now in reality, the State would not cooperate with the defense this way; so it is just an academic, although fully authorized, example.

Right, good point. I assumed that the question being asked was whether or not the State and defense could agree to withhold things from the media that otherwise would have to be released to the media.

I agree that, if the defense did not give copies of something to the State, the State would have nothing to release to the media under the Sunshine Laws.

 

[Reagan]

WS Lawyers...thanks for answering our questions. I'm not sure if this has ever been asked, and I'm sorry I don't have much time to go through the entire thread again but:

Many people worry that Baez is "acting" incompetent so his client can appeal on grounds of ineffective counsel (I don't believe this is the case). If that were true, wouldn't Baez and co. have to be put on the stand in the appeals process and actually admit that they were incompetent and did not represent their clients best interests? I just don't see Baez and his ego admitting that.

I remember a case (sorry I can't remember the reference) where the defense team did have to be questioned on the stand regarding their incompetence, and they blamed the prosecution for not turning over evidence, thus, they could not adequately represent their client. I don't believe the State in this case has done so, but if casey anthony were to appeal on those grounds, wouldn't her attorneys have to be questioned on the stand during an appellate process and basically admit that they were incompetent?

I'm sorry if my question is not more clear, but I hope someone gets what I'm trying to ask. It would be nice to put peoples minds at ease regarding the whole ineffective counsel argument.

Thanks.

 

[LancelotLink]

Reagam thanks for asking this. I too share this concern. Seems that after CM joined the case, JB has only regressed...

 

[AZlawyer]

WS Lawyers...thanks for answering our questions. I'm not sure if this has ever been asked, and I'm sorry I don't have much time to go through the entire thread again but:

Many people worry that Baez is "acting" incompetent so his client can appeal on grounds of ineffective counsel (I don't believe this is the case). If that were true, wouldn't Baez and co. have to be put on the stand in the appeals process and actually admit that they were incompetent and did not represent their clients best interests? I just don't see Baez and his ego admitting that.

I remember a case (sorry I can't remember the reference) where the defense team did have to be questioned on the stand regarding their incompetence, and they blamed the prosecution for not turning over evidence, thus, they could not adequately represent their client. I don't believe the State in this case has done so, but if casey anthony were to appeal on those grounds, wouldn't her attorneys have to be questioned on the stand during an appellate process and basically admit that they were incompetent?

I'm sorry if my question is not more clear, but I hope someone gets what I'm trying to ask. It would be nice to put peoples minds at ease regarding the whole ineffective counsel argument.

Thanks.

Reagam thanks for asking this. I too share this concern. Seems that after CM joined the case, JB has only regressed...

They would not have to admit incompetence. There would be a different lawyer at the appellate stage, and the evidence of ineffective assistance would be, e.g., "The defense team failed to take the following crucial steps: X, Y, Z; the failure to take those steps likely affected the outcome of the trial." There will be no need for the defense attorneys to testify that they failed to take those steps; it will be apparent from the record.

I really really really don't think the minimal level of competence is an act. Failing to properly defend your client as a strategy to create an appellate issue after she's convicted is such an amazingly bad strategy that even JB wouldn't come up with it. I think he believes he is doing a good job. And to be fair, he doesn't have much to work with.

 

[Reagan]

Thanks AZLawyer. I don't think it's an act either. I know there would be different lawyers during the appellate process, but was wondering if the current lawyers would have to be on the stand and have to admit or testify to such a thing IF casey anthony claimed ineffective counsel. Thanks!!

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZLawyer. I don't think it's an act either. I know there would be different lawyers during the appellate process, but was wondering if the current lawyers would have to be on the stand and have to admit or testify to such a thing IF casey anthony claimed ineffective counsel. Thanks!!

Nobody gets on the stand for an appeal. It is all done by reviewing the record (trial transcripts, documents filed in court, exhibits filed in court, etc.).

 

[Mrs G Norris]

With the new motions from Casey's defense regarding the shovel, sexual relations with Tony etc ... would the state be locked into whatever they say at a hearing in regards to why they want to be able to bring in each piece of evidence, or can they switch it up a little come trial?

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I realize Judge Perry is doing his utmost to see to it that things are being done in a manner that will, hopefully, circumvent appeal. But doesn't every death penalty verdict get an automatic appeal?

 

[tygomuk]

Apologies - I'm unverified