Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[LolaMoon08]

AZlawyer -

I am linking the DC video of searching out in the woods because I have a few questions about what was being discussed in the deposition of Mrs. Bock.

Mrs. Bock is really interested in the "log." Jose Baez also makes some comments about the "famous" pavers being right there. On the video Jim Hoover took while DC was searching the woods if you look at the timeframe of 5:25-5:45... I think we are looking at the area they are talking about in the video.

5:25 - we see some pavers

5:32 - JH pans to the right and we see what I believe could be considered a "log."

5:43 - we are back near the pavers (that appear, imo, to have been slightly moved), and what I believe is the laundry bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=T04rfgU5E8A

After looking at the video does it appear to you that we may be looking at the same area being discussed in the photographs?

Do you think this beige-like fabric could be the laundry bag?

IF this is in fact the laundry bag, could the State use this video to prove that Caylee was in fact out there in November 2008 and looking at the plant growth surrounding the laundry bag (which imo is a significant amount of growth) could prove that Caylee had been out there for quite some time before November 2008?

 

[LambChop]

Amil stated in a post on the Motions thread she had heard that JLyons was part of the defense team and this is why he is always in court. If this is true shouldn't he be paid through JB and not directly from JAC? This seems to be true as he has billed JAC for administrative duties for JB's law firm in the past.

 

[AZlawyer]

Mrs. Bock viewed the crime scene ( the third crime scene, imo, after the Anthony home and Casey's trunk) and the remains of Caylee Anthony without having signed any agreement with the defense, whatsoever.

Is the common?

Also, it seems to me that JB is still crying about not having access to the third crime scene... do you think the defense is going to have to explain to a jury just how crime scene investigation works? That the defense had no right to be there doing their own investigative work in that the remains were unidentifiable? No one knew it was Caylee? Which, imo, it makes Casey look even more guilty and makes her defense seem that they knew this was Caylee because they wanted to be out there so bad.

It isn't too common for an expert who expects to be paid to do much without getting an agreement signed, but if she thought this was pro bono work it is pretty common to be more laid-back about getting an agreement signed.

If JB wants to point out that his experts were at a disadvantage, he can, but IMO it would be a poor strategy, because the jury will then discount his experts' testimony on the ground that they were not as well-informed about the evidence as the State's experts.

The SA could also point out, as you mention, that the purpose for excluding the defense experts was to comply with investigation protocol, not to be mean.

AZlawyer -

I am linking the DC video of searching out in the woods because I have a few questions about what was being discussed in the deposition of Mrs. Bock.

Mrs. Bock is really interested in the "log." Jose Baez also makes some comments about the "famous" pavers being right there. On the video Jim Hoover took while DC was searching the woods if you look at the timeframe of 5:25-5:45... I think we are looking at the area they are talking about in the video.

5:25 - we see some pavers

5:32 - JH pans to the right and we see what I believe could be considered a "log."

5:43 - we are back near the pavers (that appear, imo, to have been slightly moved), and what I believe is the laundry bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=T04rfgU5E8A

After looking at the video does it appear to you that we may be looking at the same area being discussed in the photographs?

Do you think this beige-like fabric could be the laundry bag?

IF this is in fact the laundry bag, could the State use this video to prove that Caylee was in fact out there in November 2008 and looking at the plant growth surrounding the laundry bag (which imo is a significant amount of growth) could prove that Caylee had been out there for quite some time before November 2008?

No, because I think we've seen high-def. photos of the log (and maybe even the skull but let's not start that whole discussion up again) and it was on a little "trail" that started at the Kindercare sign. I think the area in the video looks more open, although the lighting settings on the video camera are so bad that it's hard to tell. Also, I think some sleuthers had pretty well pinned down the fabric as being the "other" (non-Winnie the Pooh) blanket found near the scene but not right with the body.

Amil stated in a post on the Motions thread she had heard that JLyons was part of the defense team and this is why he is always in court. If this is true shouldn't he be paid through JB and not directly from JAC? This seems to be true as he has billed JAC for administrative duties for JB's law firm in the past.

Yes, he is part of the defense team. And the JAC should not pay for his time except when he is actually doing investigative work. But there is no rule against someone on the "defense team" being paid by the JAC. The mitigation specialist would be part of the "defense team" also.

 

[ynotdivein]

Are any of our verified lawyers getting any sense of the defense's trial strategy yet from these hearings?

Doubtless each team desires to keep its strategy veiled for as long as possible before trial--that makes sense. But some of JB's lines of questioning these past few days were just :waitasec: to the lay viewer. Are we watching a train wreck in real time, or is this crafty last-minute maneuvering at a level invisible to the untrained eye?

Thank you once again!

 

[nums24]

What will happen to the Lying charges if the Universal statements are suppressed? Would this motion being granted have the same effect as the charges being dismissed? Or would ICA's written statement at home be sufficient to prove those charges?

Thank you!

 

[AZlawyer]

Are any of our verified lawyers getting any sense of the defense's trial strategy yet from these hearings?

Doubtless each team desires to keep its strategy veiled for as long as possible before trial--that makes sense. But some of JB's lines of questioning these past few days were just :waitasec: to the lay viewer. Are we watching a train wreck in real time, or is this crafty last-minute maneuvering at a level invisible to the untrained eye?

Thank you once again!

The strategy for the pretrial hearings is much different than the strategy for trial. IMO the strategy right now is to bend the facts as necessary to get as much evidence excluded as possible. The strategy at trial will have to involve a "story" that fits the evidence. CM's questions at one of the depos sounded like maybe he was going for an "accidental drowning" story, but, if so, we don't know the details of the story yet.

What will happen to the Lying charges if the Universal statements are suppressed? Would this motion being granted have the same effect as the charges being dismissed? Or would ICA's written statement at home be sufficient to prove those charges?

Thank you!

She still lied to the 911 operator and in her written statement, and I don't think she even told any new lies at Universal.

 

[Cabin girl]

It isn't too common for an expert who expects to be paid to do much without getting an agreement signed, but if she thought this was pro bono work it is pretty common to be more laid-back about getting an agreement signed.

If JB wants to point out that his experts were at a disadvantage, he can, but IMO it would be a poor strategy, because the jury will then discount his experts' testimony on the ground that they were not as well-informed about the evidence as the State's experts.

The SA could also point out, as you mention, that the purpose for excluding the defense experts was to comply with investigation protocol, not to be mean.

AZ thank you for all you do here. I religiously read your response and respect your opinions.

 

[Noddy]

Can the defense dispute the Grand Jury decision for First Degree Murder if they can prove that George is not credible? I don't know if his testimony at the GJ was a big deciding factor. JB sure is trying to discredit him.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can the defense dispute the Grand Jury decision for First Degree Murder if they can prove that George is not credible? I don't know if his testimony at the GJ was a big deciding factor. JB sure is trying to discredit him.

Too late for that now. A grand jury decision has to be challenged well before trial, and the alleged general lack of credibility of a witness would not be good enough grounds to challenge a grand jury decision anyway.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I am just curious if you think that GA/CA are kept in the loop at all about what defense they plan to use?

 

[AZlawyer]

I am just curious if you think that GA/CA are kept in the loop at all about what defense they plan to use?

They are probably kept in the loop about things that are harmless for them to know, like "maybe it was the bologna that caused the decomp chemicals." I don't know if the main defense "story" would be shared with the As--the As could hardly be trusted to keep quiet about it. Unless the "Zanny and her sister pushed me down and gave me a script" story IS the defense story for trial!!

The penalty phase strategy ("Casey was raised by horrible parents and sexually abused by her dad and brother and therefore a little nuts") is probably not discussed with the As.

 

[sua_sponte]

Where did my post go? Yesterday I asked about the possibility of claiming the exigency exception to Miranda warnings in order to get the statements in, and *poof* my post disappeared. What gives?

 

[spqr]

Where did my post go? Yesterday I asked about the possibility of claiming the exigency exception to Miranda warnings in order to get the statements in, and *poof* my post disappeared. What gives?

I did read your post earlier today. So it was here, I don't know where it is now. But you made a good point. (I had earlier referenced the mere suspicion/reasonable suspicion/probable cause - thought process)

 

[AZlawyer]

Where did my post go? Yesterday I asked about the possibility of claiming the exigency exception to Miranda warnings in order to get the statements in, and *poof* my post disappeared. What gives?

I did read your post earlier today. So it was here, I don't know where it is now. But you made a good point. (I had earlier referenced the mere suspicion/reasonable suspicion/probable cause - thought process)

Sua Sponte, I know I saw that post at some point and was considering it. I think probably this situation would not count for the public safety exception, but it is an interesting thought. One the SA has not mentioned AFAIK.

Maybe your post was removed because there was no question mark at the end lol.

 

[Turnadot]

At trial, if, say, CA testifies to something that contradicts her previous sworn testimony, can the State impeach her as a witness?

 

[jennyb]

At trial, if, say, CA testifies to something that contradicts her previous sworn testimony, can the State impeach her as a witness?

On that theme, can CA or GA be impeached during trial using their sworn testimony at the recent motions hearing? Especially GA's "I would do anything, lie, cheat, steal, etc."

Thanks AZLawyer.

 

[jennyb]

Baez seemed pretty cocky about eliciting testimony that would be detrimental to Casey's case if heard by a jury. He appeared pretty confident it would go no further than that motion hearing.

I'm sorta apprehensive about this.

 

[LambChop]

If MH were apprehensive about meeting with JB and KC in October of 2008 and worried that KC would somehow implicate him as having taken Caylee would he be within his rights to ask to wear a wire for his own protection. And who would he mostly likely go to to get permission to record his conversation, local LE, FBI or the military? Obviously if he wore the wire he had some fears.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

First of all..thank you AZ (and all other attorneys as well) for all you do here.

Since KC did not testify at the Miranda hearing, it is virtually the LEOs word against JB/Cms allegations, right? In the previous case law, did the defendants give direct testimony about their rights being violated? I'm just curious how much weight is given in that situation, vs. one like we have here. We have testimony from CA/GA, proven liars in their testimony, and testimony from LEOs, virtually unchallenged except for the responding officer who says "yes she was handcuffed, but then let go." But no one heard directly from the defendant if she did, or did not, feel free to leave that night.

 

[affinity]

Baez seemed pretty cocky about eliciting testimony that would be detrimental to Casey's case if heard by a jury. He appeared pretty confident it would go no further than that motion hearing.

I'm sorta apprehensive about this.

jennyb! agreed!

In particular I was absolutely shocked that JB ended his examination of Yuri Melich with the words (I'm paraphrasing): "the smell of death was in the car, but you did not examine the car". whoa! ...WHY did JB bring that up?? Baez' mission during these hearings was to raise questions about the whole agents of the state thing and improper mirandizing. So, what did the smell in the car (and the fact that Melich didn't examine the car that night) have to do with these things? What am I missing? Please tell me, he had to have a reason to bring it up. (And I HAVE always wondered why they didn't examine that car that night!)...so it is an excellent question, just not one I would expect from the defense!) Help me understand!