Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[ziggy]

Since domestic argument situations are quite dangerous for LE to repsond to; isn't the temporary hand cuffing of one party for officer safety?

 

[BD1]

Probably the dumbest question ever, but here goes. The jury decides guilty or not, right? And then the judge decides punishment (lwop or death) if guilty?

 

[AZlawyer]

Since domestic argument situations are quite dangerous for LE to repsond to; isn't the temporary hand cuffing of one party for officer safety?

Yes. But the person would still be "in custody" and need to be Mirandized before being questioned, regardless of whether the handcuffing was justified or not.

Probably the dumbest question ever, but here goes. The jury decides guilty or not, right? And then the judge decides punishment (lwop or death) if guilty?

That is NOT a dumb question at all and I'm glad you asked it! The jury decides guilty or not guilty. The jury then finds whether the specified aggravating circumstances exist and recommends a penalty (LWOP or death, for a death-eligible 1st degree murder), then the judge decides whether or not to accept the jury's recommendation. In Florida, it is my understanding that the judge can even reject a jury's recommendation of life and sentence the defendant to death instead.

 

[beach]

That is NOT a dumb question at all and I'm glad you asked it! The jury decides guilty or not guilty. The jury then finds whether the specified aggravating circumstances exist and recommends a penalty (LWOP or death, for a death-eligible 1st degree murder), then the judge decides whether or not to accept the jury's recommendation. In Florida, it is my understanding that the judge can even reject a jury's recommendation of life and sentence the defendant to death instead.

BBM

It is the same in Alabama. In fact, it just happened in Auburn last week!

<snip>
Walker [the judge] said that while the jury’s unanimous recommendation of life without parole was a mitigating factor, the charges and indictments against Lockhart for crimes surrounding Burk’s murder were compelling aggravating circumstances the jury did not hear during the trial phase.

The evidence regarding the series of robberies that began on Feb. 25, 2008, and lasted until March 7, 2008, when Lockhart was arrested in Phenix City, was presented during suppression hearings in early 2010, Walker said.
Walker said the evidence would have likely had a bearing on the jury’s decision.

“It is, therefore, my decision to override the jury’s decision in this case and recommend his death by lethal injection,” Walker said.

http://www2.oanow.com/news/2011/mar/02/lockhart-sentenced-death-ar-1527886/

 

[LolaMoon08]

If a Private Investigator, specifically Jeremey Lyons, knocks on a witnesses door, does the witness have to talk to him? Are they obligated, under any law, to talk to him? Or can they simply slam the door in his face?

 

[BD1]

That is NOT a dumb question at all and I'm glad you asked it! The jury decides guilty or not guilty. The jury then finds whether the specified aggravating circumstances exist and recommends a penalty (LWOP or death, for a death-eligible 1st degree murder), then the judge decides whether or not to accept the jury's recommendation. In Florida, it is my understanding that the judge can even reject a jury's recommendation of life and sentence the defendant to death instead.

Wow. So her attitude/appearance of guilt or sorrow is important for the whole case, not just when the jury can see her. I would guess she is not earning any points with HHJP, so far.

 

[Snaz]

That is NOT a dumb question at all and I'm glad you asked it! The jury decides guilty or not guilty. The jury then finds whether the specified aggravating circumstances exist and recommends a penalty (LWOP or death, for a death-eligible 1st degree murder), then the judge decides whether or not to accept the jury's recommendation. In Florida, it is my understanding that the judge can even reject a jury's recommendation of life and sentence the defendant to death instead.

Respectfully Snipped and BBM

Does that generally hold up on appeal? (Assuming the Judge in the case had compelling reasons for doing so.)

 

[AZlawyer]

If a Private Investigator, specifically Jeremey Lyons, knocks on a witnesses door, does the witness have to talk to him? Are they obligated, under any law, to talk to him? Or can they simply slam the door in his face?

Slamming the door is always an option.

Respectfully Snipped and BBM

Does that generally hold up on appeal? (Assuming the Judge in the case had compelling reasons for doing so.)

As a lawyer who does a lot of appellate work, I have to say that almost everything generally holds up on appeal. I have no direct experience with Florida's death penalty procedure, but I can only assume that the judges there would not lightly overturn a jury recommendation of LWOP and impose a death sentence instead. Maybe if they were elected they would , but it is my understanding that judges are appointed, not elected, in Florida.

ETA: I should say, without having researched the issue, it is my impression from the opinions that I see that death penalty cases are overturned on appeal more often than other cases. "Death is different," I guess.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Slamming the door is always an option.



As a lawyer who does a lot of appellate work, I have to say that almost everything generally holds up on appeal. I have no direct experience with Florida's death penalty procedure, but I can only assume that the judges there would not lightly overturn a jury recommendation of LWOP and impose a death sentence instead. Maybe if they were elected they would , but it is my understanding that judges are appointed, not elected, in Florida.

ETA: I should say, without having researched the issue, it is my impression from the opinions that I see that death penalty cases are overturned on appeal more often than other cases. "Death is different," I guess.

Other than at the federal level (ie, district, circuit level) our judges are elected here in Okaloosa County, FL. Once elected they are retained (or not) by public vote. Federal level is made by appointment.

 

[AZlawyer]

Other than at the federal level (ie, district, circuit level) our judges are elected here in Okaloosa County, FL. Once elected they are retained (or not) by public vote. Federal level is made by appointment.

Thank you! In that case I suppose I would be a bit worried about judges overriding juries to impose death sentences to look "tough." I'm not too worried about it in the specific case of HHJP, however, as he appears to be a very careful judge.

 

[Joanner]

When they held a grand jury in this case, who was in the courtroom? Judge, jury, state attorneys office, but is the defense in there, too?

 

[cuppy199]

When they held a grand jury in this case, who was in the courtroom? Judge, jury, state attorneys office, but is the defense in there, too?

Where I live Grand jury isnt held in a court room its held in a private room and its the only people there is the grand jury and the SA .The proceedings are secret; it is standard practice to call witnesses to testify against the suspect without the suspect or the suspect's lawyer present. Have to remember Grand jury's arent to give verdicts on guilt or innocent they listen to evidence and decide whether charges should be brought against an individual that is, they decide whether to indict someone.

 

[AZlawyer]

When they held a grand jury in this case, who was in the courtroom? Judge, jury, state attorneys office, but is the defense in there, too?

Where I live Grand jury isnt held in a court room its held in a private room and its the only people there is the grand jury and the SA .The proceedings are secret; it is standard practice to call witnesses to testify against the suspect without the suspect or the suspect's lawyer present. Have to remember Grand jury's arent to give verdicts on guilt or innocent they listen to evidence and decide whether charges should be brought against an individual that is, they decide whether to indict someone.

Thanks, cuppy! No, the defense is not present.

 

[cuppy199]

Thanks, cuppy! No, the defense is not present.

You do so much for us I figured sinse I have served on a Grand Jury a few times before I could help you out alittle with this one :blowkiss:

 

[darnudes]

Hi AZ Not sure if you will remember this or not but I'm one of those who believe all of ICA statements will come in. Just wanted your opinion on what you will think will happen now after the 3 day hearing. In or out, some or all? Thanks for any feedback or opinion.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

My question is - can anything be done about the absurdity of Mason calling Casey a "child" when she is a 24 year old felon? Or about implying the police were big scary meanies when there is not proof of it?

Also - what about his other errors - I mean Mason went in front of the judge during his hour long speech - and got major facts and key points wrong...was rebutted, then repeated them...can anything be done about this? I'm concerned the jury will be bamboozled by this nonsense of repeating false info.

 

[janine]

Hi- I asked this question in another thread and it was suggested I try here for an answer.

"I have another question but have no idea where to ask it, so I'll try it in this thread.
I was watching all the videos again for the hearing last week. My question is: Why does someone always sit with Casey when her attorneys are called for a sidebar? I've never seen that before. It's either the investigator or the legal assistant that gets up and sits with her- why? Can she not be left at the table by herself?

Anyone? Thanks.
Please move if I'm in the wrong area to ask this question. New here. "

If any of the lawyers can answer if there is a 'legal' requirement or need for Casey to have a sitter with her at all times or is it an arrangement made by her attorneys so she doesn't feel so exposed sitting by herself????
Strange sentence composer but hopefully know you what I mean. :crazy:

I was fascinated watching this last night. Someone jumps in a seat next to her and she clings to them as if she is grateful to have a body to smile at. It's a moment of relief for her, I think.

Anyway-TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZ Not sure if you will remember this or not but I'm one of those who believe all of ICA statements will come in. Just wanted your opinion on what you will think will happen now after the 3 day hearing. In or out, some or all? Thanks for any feedback or opinion.

I still think the Universal statement is likely to be kept out, but I think the statement to Yuri at the house will probably come in and the written statement at the house will almost certainly come in.

My question is - can anything be done about the absurdity of Mason calling Casey a "child" when she is a 24 year old felon? Or about implying the police were big scary meanies when there is not proof of it?

Also - what about his other errors - I mean Mason went in front of the judge during his hour long speech - and got major facts and key points wrong...was rebutted, then repeated them...can anything be done about this? I'm concerned the jury will be bamboozled by this nonsense of repeating false info.

I don't think he was using "child" in a strictly legalistic sense of the word. There is nothing wrong with him trying to convince HHJP, or the jury, that Casey is/was a "child" in the looser sense of the word. IMO it will not work, but that's a different issue.

Whether the police were big scary meanies is a matter of opinion and "spin." They were bigger than her, and they were angry that they were being lied to. IMO they were not "big scary meanies," but there is nothing "false" about saying this because it is a statement of opinion, not fact.

What the SA can do about Mason getting the facts wrong is to correct him. HHJP is smart enough to figure out who is wrong. In my experience most juries will catch it as well if an attorney gives them a "fact" that is then not supported by the evidence. You only need one juror to say to the group, "Well, I know the lawyer said that, but my notes say this..."

I don't think Mason is getting the actual undisputed facts wrong on purpose, because he must know that the SA would correct him.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi- I asked this question in another thread and it was suggested I try here for an answer.

"I have another question but have no idea where to ask it, so I'll try it in this thread.
I was watching all the videos again for the hearing last week. My question is: Why does someone always sit with Casey when her attorneys are called for a sidebar? I've never seen that before. It's either the investigator or the legal assistant that gets up and sits with her- why? Can she not be left at the table by herself?

Anyone? Thanks.
Please move if I'm in the wrong area to ask this question. New here. "

If any of the lawyers can answer if there is a 'legal' requirement or need for Casey to have a sitter with her at all times or is it an arrangement made by her attorneys so she doesn't feel so exposed sitting by herself????
Strange sentence composer but hopefully know you what I mean. :crazy:

I was fascinated watching this last night. Someone jumps in a seat next to her and she clings to them as if she is grateful to have a body to smile at. It's a moment of relief for her, I think.

Anyway-TIA

This might be a requirement if the defendant is not restrained--if anyone sees Mr. Hornsby, call him over here to let us know.

 

[joypath]

This might be a requirement if the defendant is not restrained--if anyone sees Mr. Hornsby, call him over here to let us know.

BBM: (of course, not the Mr. Hornsby!) BUT :seeya: :twocents: Jumping in to add anecdotal info: :floorlaugh:


I've :innocent: noticed that in ALL of the jurisdictions where I've testified: defendants described as above are "babysat":crazy: and seated in chairs WITHOUT WHEELS! :great: