Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[RR0004]

Maybe the State listed the jail call home as an exhibit to show that LA was focused on trying to get info from Casey before he was allegedly became an "Agent of the State" lol.



Well, kind of, yes. For purposes of this motion only. This is pretty common, really, that lawyers end up making somewhat contradictory arguments in different phases of the case.



Yes, in the sense that HHJP is likely to put a stop to it and point out that she is not entitled to "testify" in this manner while also asserting her 5th Amendment rights. But he isn't going to let the SA put her on the stand and cross-examine her just because she's making facial expressions.

JB and CM ought to be taking action when she behaves this way. When my clients "act out," I get embarrassed in the same way a mother gets embarrassed when her toddler has a tantrum at the grocery store. And I react pretty much the same way I reacted when I had a toddler: "You cut it out RIGHT NOW; we are in PUBLIC and this is NOT OK."

My father used to send the family of his clients out of the court room if they couldn't be quiet. One of my first recollections of seeing him in action as a child.

ETA: Oh...I forgot to say, I also stopped by to see how you thought today went...and see that it's all been asked and answered. Thanks, AZ!!

 

[AZlawyer]

I am probably wrong in writing this but I am angry.
Unless someone was guilty of statuatory rape,
KC. is NOT a child.Talk about grasping at straws.
.......:maddening:.:banghead::maddening:

Is that a legal question? If so, I agree. IMO the defense team will be using this tactic at trial--why, little miss CMA is no more than a tiny girl herself; how could anyone think she would kill another little tiny girl? I don't think the jury will be impressed.

I think LDB did a fine job of explaining to us all why she included the call Casey made from the jail to the Anthony home in the list of exhibits, no? :floorlaugh: To prove that Casey, herself, even thought she had been arrested on a (LDB said it better than I ever could) whim. :floorlaugh:

Do you think LDB got her point across? How shocked do you think Judge Perry was when that came out of her mouth? Do Judge's usually get shocked when this type of language is used... without any (and I mean I didn't see it coming) warning? It was like BOOM! How effective was this statement, do you think?

Oh, yes, I think she made her point. Language like this is not unheard-of in a courtroom because, unfortunately, witnesses talk this way in depositions, etc., and have to be quoted at times. But it does catch people's attention.

I think it was a brilliant argument (that Casey's "arrested on an f-ing whim" means she did not feel "in custody" until that time). Same thing for the "vistor's badge" argument. IMO it is not enough to allow the Universal statements in, but Linda did an amazing job with a difficult set of facts.

Awesome answers as always, AZlawyer!

I was able to read the thread today...and enjoyed everyone's commentary, since I can't watch the hearings at work. TY to all of the WS'ers who were able to explain what both CM and LDB were saying.

I know this is out of left field...I KNOW (lol) but could the Defense be trying as a last ditch effort to get ICA to see the seriousness of her situation...not only the seriousness...but the likelihood (very likely imo) that she will be convicted?

Watching her sitting at the Defense table, it appears that while CM and JB seem to be at least acknowledging her writings and rabid and very obvious underlinings...that ICA DOES NOT in anyway appear to be close to (nor do I believe has been for a long time since her initial incarceration) accepting a plea, should one be engineered.

I know a lot of us had hoped that ICA would "see" the light and accept some modicrum of responsibility...but watching her parents on the stand in and in the gallery it appears that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Part of me still wonders, if the chief reason (apart from JB's skirmishes with the prosecution and rather supercilious tone with police early on in "offering" to "assist" in the search for Caylee with his client, ICA) that there has not been a plea even close to being in the works, is that the "child" (CM's words, not mine) ICA, is still sticking by her ZFG story...and refuses to budge.

When I watch the hearings online it jumps out at me, that while the Defense is brilliantly keeping her occupied with legal pads and pens because that is all they can do (apart from asking for her to be handcuffed to the table and blindfolded), ICA seems to be stuck in the past, continuing to assert her original version of events. The rude and disrespectful way she addresses her own counsel...as though she wants them to make these points she is writing as though she clearly doesn't understand this is a hearing and not trial, and no, the Defense cannot bring up the "other" story about how ZFG and Sam shoved her in JBPark and stole Caylee from her and gave her a script to follow...

It seems like the Defense is trying to drive home to her, the foolishness of following the ZFG Defense...and that every time she writes and underlines vigorously, the DT, is just looking at her notes, going, "OK whatever" and moving right along...I just also have to wonder if perhaps when she appeals...she will blame JB and CM for not listening to her...for not asking the stuff she is so brilliantly writing down and for not using the "brilliant" ZFG stole Caylee story that she thought up...

Sorry...that was a lot of garbage...it is just my sense of it is...ICA is adamant about her version of events and appears from her behavior to be nowhere near accepting any sort of plea. JMO.

I agree that she is nowhere near accepting that her story (whatever it is now) won't fly. I haven't seen any outward indication that the defense team is trying to convince her that there are problems with the case. But a good lawyer would not give any outward indication of this; all discussions of "you are in serious trouble and we need to negotiate a plea" would be kept Top Secret.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Is that a legal question? If so, I agree. IMO the defense team will be using this tactic at trial--why, little miss CMA is no more than a tiny girl herself; how could anyone think she would kill another little tiny girl? I don't think the jury will be impressed.

snipped by me

AZ I don't know if you had a chance to read Hal Boedeker's blog at the Orlando Sentinel yet. Here's a taste:

"Day 4 in the Casey Anthony hearings, and the attorneys supplied the drama.

They have styles that echo pop culture. Defense attorney Cheney Mason is the showboating good old boy; it’s as if Big Daddy from “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” had decided to practice law. Don’t you expect him to say mendacity?...."

I have long thought that the only writer who could do this case justice (ahem, er sorry) is Tennessee Williams...

Thank you so much for your insights. Link to the full article below

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/tag/casey-anthony

 

[ZsaZsa]

AZ Lawyer- have you seen R Hornsby's blog today? He might have let the Defense cat out of the bag...
http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/03/the-theory-of-the-defense/

 

[TakeNote]

AZ Lawyer- have you seen R Hornsby's blog today? He might have let the Defense cat out of the bag...
http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/03/the-theory-of-the-defense/

I ask this question in another thread....i dont understand what H is saying....is he saying that the defense is going to ask the judge to instruct the jury that there is a liar in the court room like GA or someone else?...and then perhaps throw him under the bus?

or is it KC her self that they are going to say is the liar?.....and then say why.....i just dont get it

 

[Itsy]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7310723...e-of-Victim-To-be-Excluded-from-Sequestration (posted by Muzikman in the motions thread :blowkiss: - TY for this, MM !)

How likely is this to be granted? Given G & C's antics during these hearings, I would like to think it would be denied. Maybe HHJP will "give them a chance" and then sequester them if they don't behave? And since when are grandparents next of kin??:waitasec:

 

[pip]

Since ICA told the 911 operator that her nanny Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales took Caylee 31 days before.....will she still have to take the stand herself to change the story even if all her statements to LE before her arrest are thrown out? She said that before LE even arrived to the house.

 

[gitana1]

I ask this question in another thread....i dont understand what H is saying....is he saying that the defense is going to ask the judge to instruct the jury that there is a liar in the court room like GA or someone else?...and then perhaps throw him under the bus?

or is it KC her self that they are going to say is the liar?.....and then say why.....i just dont get it

I guess they will try to argue that any witness for the state, including possibly GA or Tony or Roy Kronk, etc, lied to cover up their own criminal activity in connection with the murder of Caylee.

 

[kwmred]

Not sure if this qualifies as a legal question, but here goes... CM has threatened to file an appeal if HHJP doesn't rule in his favor on these motions. Do the taxpayers of Florida have to foot this bill too?

Also, one of the cases cited I believe by CM was Ross v. State. I looked up the decision by the Florida Supreme Court and it seems like it helps the State more than the Defense.

Here it is http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc07-2368.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

I ask this question in another thread....i dont understand what H is saying....is he saying that the defense is going to ask the judge to instruct the jury that there is a liar in the court room like GA or someone else?...and then perhaps throw him under the bus?

or is it KC her self that they are going to say is the liar?.....and then say why.....i just dont get it

I guess they will try to argue that any witness for the state, including possibly GA or Tony or Roy Kronk, etc, lied to cover up their own criminal activity in connection with the murder of Caylee.

Exactly. I think they will say EVERYONE except perhaps, um, the few people who have openly announced their willingness to lie :waitasec: is lying, either to cover up their own wrongdoing or to gain some other benefit. I wouldn't think this would be the ONLY thing mentioned in the defense's "theory of the case," though.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7310723...e-of-Victim-To-be-Excluded-from-Sequestration (posted by Muzikman in the motions thread :blowkiss: - TY for this, MM !)

How likely is this to be granted? Given G & C's antics during these hearings, I would like to think it would be denied. Maybe HHJP will "give them a chance" and then sequester them if they don't behave? And since when are grandparents next of kin??:waitasec:

I think the As have now given HHJP an excellent taste of how they will behave at trial. Therefore, I believe he will sequester them.

Grandparents are next of kin when the mother is the murderer. Sorry, did I say murderer? I meant alleged murderer. 'Beach? Does this count as name-calling? :innocent:

Since ICA told the 911 operator that her nanny Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales took Caylee 31 days before.....will she still have to take the stand herself to change the story even if all her statements to LE before her arrest are thrown out? She said that before LE even arrived to the house.

No, the defense can offer another theory without KC taking the stand (incorporating within their theory some bogus reason why KC would have been lying). Of course, the jury isn't required to BELIEVE their trumped-up theory.

Not sure if this qualifies as a legal question, but here goes... CM has threatened to file an appeal if HHJP doesn't rule in his favor on these motions. Do the taxpayers of Florida have to foot this bill too?

Also, one of the cases cited I believe by CM was Ross v. State. I looked up the decision by the Florida Supreme Court and it seems like it helps the State more than the Defense.

Here it is http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc07-2368.pdf

I believe the taxpayers would have to continue to pay KC's costs on appeal.

Ross is actually a good case for the defense, at least for the Universal statements. Here's the summary I posted on WS a few weeks ago:

Ross v. State--Son of murder victims came to sheriff's office voluntarily to meet with victim's advocate. He then agreed to speak with detectives, who were "conversational," assured him he was not being arrested, and answered his questions about the investigation, but also confronted him with inconsistencies in his story. The court found that the defendant was not "in custody" at first, but was "in custody" as soon as the lead detective told Ross that he knew he was lying and was only trying to figure out why.

 

[gamom]

Is it All or nothing with universal? I feel that when she first arrived she was free to leave but once got to the end of the hallway might have felt different. Can that part stay in? I get the impression that jp wants to allow universal and is taking so long to rule to see if he can find enough case law to support it. Otherwise why not just grant the motion right away? The longer the decision the better for the state. IMO

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it All or nothing with universal? I feel that when she first arrived she was free to leave but once got to the end of the hallway might have felt different. Can that part stay in? I get the impression that jp wants to allow universal and is taking so long to rule to see if he can find enough case law to support it. Otherwise why not just grant the motion right away? The longer the decision the better for the state. IMO

IMO the most likely ruling on the Universal statements is that the period of "custody" began when the door closed and the officers accused Casey of telling them nothing but lies.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Okay, so the defense can appeal Judge Perry's ruling on these motions? Why? I don't understand? Would we then have to have a whole new set of hearings for the same issue? How long does that take? Would it delay the trial?

So everytime the defense doesn't get their way, they are going to appeal? :banghead:

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay, so the defense can appeal Judge Perry's ruling on these motions? Why? I don't understand? Would we then have to have a whole new set of hearings for the same issue? How long does that take? Would it delay the trial?

So everytime the defense doesn't get their way, they are going to appeal? :banghead:

They can't appeal before the trial, no.

 

[BChand]

AZLawyer, will Judge Perry actually read the transcript of the questioning at Universal? In my mind, the way it ends supports the fact that Casey did NOT think she was under arrest at the end of it. For example:

Q-Well, I know you’ve been in here a long time. Appreciate your talking to us and whatnot, I mean…
A-I’m sorry I’ve given you guys the runaround.
Q-We’re not, we’re not trying to be scary guys, we’re just trying to…
A-Oh, I know and…
Q-We’re just trying to make sure we get accurate information, so we have something to work off of.
A-Oh, I understand that.

It goes on and she is just bubbling with ways she can NOW help them. She offers up her computer, emails, text msgs, etc.

Do you think that could hold any weight in Judge Perry's decision?

 

[LolaMoon08]

They can't appeal before the trial, no.

:cheer: Thank you!!

 

[strach304]

They can't appeal before the trial, no.

Actually CM did say this today. Appeal may not be the term but he said if the judge didn't rule in their favor that wouldn't be the end of it. There's something on the media thread from today stating it would hold up the trial. I took it to mean he would go to a higher court.

 

[mitzi]

They can't appeal before the trial, no.

Oh, thank you AZ...I thought the appeal would take place like the appeal that Drew Peterson has, that is delaying his trial for 3-6 months. Whew! Bless you for all you do here for us. :blowkiss:

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer, will Judge Perry actually read the transcript of the questioning at Universal? In my mind, the way it ends supports the fact that Casey did NOT think she was under arrest at the end of it. For example:

Q-Well, I know you’ve been in here a long time. Appreciate your talking to us and whatnot, I mean…
A-I’m sorry I’ve given you guys the runaround.
Q-We’re not, we’re not trying to be scary guys, we’re just trying to…
A-Oh, I know and…
Q-We’re just trying to make sure we get accurate information, so we have something to work off of.
A-Oh, I understand that.

It goes on and she is just bubbling with ways she can NOW help them. She offers up her computer, emails, text msgs, etc.

Do you think that could hold any weight in Judge Perry's decision?

He should read the whole transcript. However, the test is not whether Casey (an unreasonable person IMO) thought she was in custody, but whether a reasonable person would have thought she was in custody (not "under arrest," which is different from being "in custody").

 

[AZlawyer]

Actually CM did say this today. Appeal may not be the term but he said if the judge didn't rule in their favor that wouldn't be the end of it. There's something on the media thread from today stating it would hold up the trial. I took it to mean he would go to a higher court.

People keep telling me this. I would love to hear exactly what he said. I can't listen to the tape as my husband is watching anime next to me.