Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[sumbunny]

Can Dominic Casey be called to the witness stand, to testify if the SA does not release the investigative report ( we think they had )to the defense prior to trial?

 

[Tink]

So possibly these former friends of Casey's could be questioned not to say "yes, she's a wonderful person and her life should be spared" but about things like:

- was her relationship with her parents so negative that she it affected her psychologically?
- did she lie and steal and could this be evidence of psychological problems?
- did she appear perfectly calm and normal after Caylee's disappearance and death - demonstrating that she was out of touch with reality?


That kind of thing. I'm just wondering if they might be intending to show that she doesn't deserve the death penalty because she was mentally ill at the time and use these friends to bring that out.

Tink

 

[AZlawyer]

Can JB ask a witness if they think her life should be spared?

No.

Can Dominic Casey be called to the witness stand, to testify if the SA does not release the investigative report ( we think they had )to the defense prior to trial?

If the SA ordered a transcript, they have to disclose it prior to trial or might be precluded from putting DC on the stand (assuming they want to). But if the SA did not order a transcript, it's up to JB to do a deposition if he wants to know what DC is going to say.

So possibly these former friends of Casey's could be questioned not to say "yes, she's a wonderful person and her life should be spared" but about things like:

- was her relationship with her parents so negative that she it affected her psychologically?
- did she lie and steal and could this be evidence of psychological problems?
- did she appear perfectly calm and normal after Caylee's disappearance and death - demonstrating that she was out of touch with reality?

That kind of thing. I'm just wondering if they might be intending to show that she doesn't deserve the death penalty because she was mentally ill at the time and use these friends to bring that out.

Tink

Yes, exactly. Maybe not "mentally ill," because her friends wouldn't be qualified to opine about that, but the jury could certainly be given the impression that there was something wrong with her.

 

[beach]

If the SA ordered a transcript, they have to disclose it prior to trial or might be precluded from putting DC on the stand (assuming they want to). But if the SA did not order a transcript, it's up to JB to do a deposition if he wants to know what DC is going to say.

<snip>

Well this could be one explanation for why we haven't seen it yet. Considering the deadlines, strategically speaking, how long could the SA hold off ordering the transcript if they wanted it handy at trial?

I was thinking about this last night, but haven't gone thread diving yet to clarify my scattered recollection - during the hearing re: the whole depo v. investigative subpoena, IIRC when JS suggested the SA go the investigative subpoena route, one of Ms. Tennis' objections/ concerns was to protect DC's testimony from being released publicly. Again, IIRC, LDB indicated that she had no plans to release it. Do you recall this??

So, if I am understanding you, the "depo" was probably done (w/o defense counsel present, of course) and the SA has not yet ordered a transcript, otherwise it would be subject to reciprocal discovery and release per the sunshine laws?

 

[AZlawyer]

<snip>

Well this could be one explanation for why we haven't seen it yet. Considering the deadlines, strategically speaking, how long could the SA hold off ordering the transcript if they wanted it handy at trial?

I was thinking about this last night, but haven't gone thread diving yet to clarify my scattered recollection - during the hearing re: the whole depo v. investigative subpoena, IIRC when JS suggested the SA go the investigative subpoeana route, one of Ms. Tennis' objections/ concerns was to protect DC's testimony from being released publicly. Again, IIRC, LDB indicated that she had no plans to release it. Do you recall this??

So, if I am understanding you, the "depo" was probably done (w/o defense counsel present, of course) and they have not yet ordered a transcript, otherwise it would be subject to reciprocal discovery and release per the sunshine laws?

They might not want the transcript at all for trial. The transcripts you really need at trial are the ones in which people admit relevant and admissible things that they might try to deny at trial. Perhaps DC's interview didn't contain anything that would fit into that category.

I don't think the SA could hold off too long for strategy purposes if they wanted to have the transcript handy for trial. I thought there was a deadline for final disclosures that has either already passed or is coming up soon? Also, what would the strategy be? There is no way HHJP will allow them to use anything at trial that the defense hasn't had plenty of time to review and address.

Ms. Tennis was confused, IIRC. She thought if the transcript wasn't "filed in court," it wouldn't have to be "released," which isn't true, because most of what we've seen on this case hasn't been filed in court. She also thought a "deposition" would have to be "filed in court," which isn't true either, unless it's going to be used at a hearing or at trial.

I think the investigative interview was done, but no transcript was ordered. Is DC on any of the witness lists anyway?

 

[beach]

They might not want the transcript at all for trial. The transcripts you really need at trial are the ones in which people admit relevant and admissible things that they might try to deny at trial. Perhaps DC's interview didn't contain anything that would fit into that category.

I don't think the SA could hold off too long for strategy purposes if they wanted to have the transcript handy for trial. I thought there was a deadline for final disclosures that has either already passed or is coming up soon? Also, what would the strategy be? There is no way HHJP will allow them to use anything at trial that the defense hasn't had plenty of time to review and address.

Ms. Tennis was confused, IIRC. She thought if the transcript wasn't "filed in court," it wouldn't have to be "released," which isn't true, because most of what we've seen on this case hasn't been filed in court. She also thought a "deposition" would have to be "filed in court," which isn't true either, unless it's going to be used at a hearing or at trial.

I think the investigative interview was done, but no transcript was ordered. Is DC on any of the witness lists anyway?

BBM


bold #1: Well, I was thinking that if they felt that they needed a transcript (just in case DC changed his testimony on the stand), they would hold off ordering it until right before deadline, because once they had it, they would have to give it to the defense. (kinda like JB's strategy re. expert reports ) However, unless they really needed it, I wouldn't order one and leave the defense in the dark, iykwim. As you said, forcing them to depose him if they wanted to know what he was going to say.

bold #2: I need to check myself, but I am almost positive he is on the SA witness list.

eta2: If [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5301066&postcount=377"]this list [/ame]is still accurate, DC is #50 and was added March 23, 2009.

eta: I agree. I think the interview was done, but no transcript ordered. Now that I've read your astute explanation. Also, thank you for clearing that up about Ms. Tennis. Now that you say that, I remember it that way as well.

Thanks!

 

[LolaMoon08]

This question is also in reference to DC's investigative interview because I am completely LOST.

I think it is safe to assume that the SA did go forward with the inverstigative interview and this is where I am lost... Dominic Casey is on the States witness list... I got that part.

This is where I have gotten lost... The State would basically know what DC would testify to because they have interviewed him, but what happens if the State doesn't order a transcript? Doesn't depose DC? Is he allowed to testify without any kind of prior statement to back up his testimony at trial? Does the State have to disclose to the defense what DC is going to testify to (like with expert witnesses) or... I am so LOST!

Let me try this... For example...

Let's say the State never orders this transcript and the defense does not depose him, can the State still call DC to testify? Let's say that DC was offered immunity for the truth and he spilled EVERYTHING in his interview with the State... is it the State's job (much like with the expert witnesses) to disclose what DC told the State so that the defense knows what DC is going to testify to, or is it their job to depose DC in order to get this information themselves?

Another ? Do all witnesses have to be deposed if the State/Defense plans on using them as witnesses at trial... or could the State simply take the information they got from DC in this investigative interview and question them as they go? Without anything (interview/deposition) to fall back on?

I am really sorry if this is confusing?!

 

[AZlawyer]

This question is also in reference to DC's investigative interview because I am completely LOST.

I think it is safe to assume that the SA did go forward with the inverstigative interview and this is where I am lost... Dominic Casey is on the States witness list... I got that part.

This is where I have gotten lost... The State would basically know what DC would testify to because they have interviewed him, but what happens if the State doesn't order a transcript? Doesn't depose DC? Is he allowed to testify without any kind of prior statement to back up his testimony at trial? Does the State have to disclose to the defense what DC is going to testify to (like with expert witnesses) or... I am so LOST!

Let me try this... For example...

Let's say the State never orders this transcript and the defense does not depose him, can the State still call DC to testify? Let's say that DC was offered immunity for the truth and he spilled EVERYTHING in his interview with the State... is it the State's job (much like with the expert witnesses) to disclose what DC told the State so that the defense knows what DC is going to testify to, or is it their job to depose DC in order to get this information themselves?

Another ? Do all witnesses have to be deposed if the State/Defense plans on using them as witnesses at trial... or could the State simply take the information they got from DC in this investigative interview and question them as they go? Without anything (interview/deposition) to fall back on?

I am really sorry if this is confusing?!

He is definitely allowed to testify without any prior transcript. Years ago that was the norm lol. Nobody is required to depose anyone. But in this case the SA has disclosed DC's name as a witness as well as his other interview transcript and dozens of emails, and in addition JB himself was in close communication with DC during the relevant time period and ought to know what his subject areas of knowledge are. Maybe JB hasn't deposed DC because he already knows what DC will say.

In AZ we have to disclose a little more substance bout what the witness will actually say, but apparently in FL that is not required. It looks like the rule is, if you think you don't know what the witness is going to say, depose them and find out.

 

[5stars]

When is O.J. applied,before trial or after a conviction?

 

[AZlawyer]

When is O.J. applied,before trial or after a conviction?

OJ?? :waitasec:

 

[5stars]

obstruction of justice.There was a trial that a girlfriend was charged after the conviction.

 

[texas77878]

I haven't seen this asked but if so sorry...

best guess how often does a judge apply sanctions? Was the sanction that HHJP set normal? Is this reported to the state bar? what does this really mean for Baez?

 

[AZlawyer]

obstruction of justice.There was a trial that a girlfriend was charged after the conviction.

I think in this case the correct charge for the people I think you're thinking of might be accessory after the fact in aid of a person who committed a capital felony. That would be a lot easier to charge and prove after the other person has already been convicted of the capital felony. The statute of limitations on that charge would be 4 years.

 

[Numbers]

When is O.J. applied,before trial or after a conviction?

I usually apply the OJ directly to the ice cubes, then apply the vodka.

Before the trial, or after - doesn't really matter. Whenever it becomes "medicinally necessary."

Oh....

Oops.

Nevermind.

 

[AZlawyer]

I haven't seen this asked but if so sorry...

best guess how often does a judge apply sanctions? Was the sanction that HHJP set normal? Is this reported to the state bar? what does this really mean for Baez?

Not too often--I've seen it a handful of times in 16 years. There is no "normal" sanction, but this sanction was nothing exciting in the world of sanctions. It was calculated by HHJP to serve his purpose of getting JB to just do the work already so Casey can have competent representation.

Sanctions are not reported to the Bar automatically, and in any event the AZ Bar, at least, tends not to care much about ethical violations if the judge has already addressed them.

It doesn't mean much for Baez long-term, in other words. Unfortunately, I suspect it won't even serve the purpose for which it was intended. :banghead:

 

[LambChop]

I usually apply the OJ directly to the ice cubes, then apply the vodka.

Before the trial, or after - doesn't really matter. Whenever it becomes "medicinally necessary."

Oh....

Oops.

Nevermind.

Goooo, now that sounds really good.

 

[Katprint]

Some legal authorities say that A/C privilege ends when a client dies; others disagree. I don't know what the Florida case law says, though.

Supreme Court Confirms Attorney-Client Privilege, Even After Death
http://www.nacdl.org/MEDIA/pr000122.htm

Actual opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1192.ZS.html
Relevant excerpts: "Petitioner, an attorney, made notes of an initial interview with a client shortly before the client’s death. The Government, represented by the Office of Independent Counsel, now seeks his notes for use in a criminal investigation. We hold that the notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
...
The attorney client privilege is one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981); Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470 (1888). The privilege is intended to encourage “full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice.” Upjohn, supra, at 389. The issue presented here is the scope of that privilege; more particularly, the extent to which the privilege survives the death of the client. Our interpretation of the privilege’s scope is guided by “the principles of the common law … as interpreted by the courts … in the light of reason and experience.” Fed. Rule Evid. 501; Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371 (1933)."

I'm thinking the US Supreme Court decision would probably supersede conflicting state court policies.

Katprint
Always only my opinions

 

[ZsaZsa]

Not too often--I've seen it a handful of times in 16 years. There is no "normal" sanction, but this sanction was nothing exciting in the world of sanctions. It was calculated by HHJP to serve his purpose of getting JB to just do the work already so Casey can have competent representation.

Sanctions are not reported to the Bar automatically, and in any event the AZ Bar, at least, tends not to care much about ethical violations if the judge has already addressed them.

It doesn't mean much for Baez long-term, in other words. Unfortunately, I suspect it won't even serve the purpose for which it was intended. :banghead:

Aw, what a shame, I was hoping you would say each sanction carries 'points' and once you accrue so many points you automatically lose your license, like the Driving License regulation...:innocent:

 

[Aedrys]

Could Casey really wait until the last minute, fire her lawyers, get new ones, repeat, rinse, repeat, indefinitely? There was a case brought up where apparently someone did this so much it was thirteen years before that person went to trial. Please tell me this is not something Casey can pull. I would be just devastated!

 

[AZlawyer]

Supreme Court Confirms Attorney-Client Privilege, Even After Death
http://www.nacdl.org/MEDIA/pr000122.htm

Actual opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1192.ZS.html
Relevant excerpts: "Petitioner, an attorney, made notes of an initial interview with a client shortly before the client’s death. The Government, represented by the Office of Independent Counsel, now seeks his notes for use in a criminal investigation. We hold that the notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
...
The attorney client privilege is one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981); Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470 (1888). The privilege is intended to encourage “full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice.” Upjohn, supra, at 389. The issue presented here is the scope of that privilege; more particularly, the extent to which the privilege survives the death of the client. Our interpretation of the privilege’s scope is guided by “the principles of the common law … as interpreted by the courts … in the light of reason and experience.” Fed. Rule Evid. 501; Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371 (1933)."

I'm thinking the US Supreme Court decision would probably supersede conflicting state court policies.

Katprint
Always only my opinions

Thank you!! I had completely forgotten about that opinion!

Could Casey really wait until the last minute, fire her lawyers, get new ones, repeat, rinse, repeat, indefinitely? There was a case brought up where apparently someone did this so much it was thirteen years before that person went to trial. Please tell me this is not something Casey can pull. I would be just devastated!

It's not that easy to use lawyer-filing as a delay tactic, if you have a strong judge. The judge will inquire as to the reasons for the firing to make sure the lawyer and client aren't "playing" the system. Also, if she fires the whole team, where's she going to get another team to represent her for free? IMO she'd end up with a PD--and they're even harder to fire.