Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[ynotdivein]

Slightly OT but I hope the mods will forgive me this PSA:

Don't forget to update your tags!

Not to worry, I have forgotten too--but as trial approaches we will need easy reference to this thread (and what I suspect will be a couple of future ones). Our being able to easily search for previous posts will help all of us, not least our VLs, to maintain what semblance of sanity we have left.

To add a word or phrase to a thread's tags, scroll down to the bottom of the screen. Look for the link that says "edit tags" (it's on the right), click it, and add key words to the list.

Anyone can add a tag. In the future, folks who are searching for specific topics via the "Search Tags" mechanism will be expedited and directed here based on the tags we add.

This PSA has been brought to you by the Association to Keep Our Verified Lawyers Sane and Happy (AKOVLSH--which happens to also be a toast in Welsh. OK, not really. But really, do update the tags.)

 

[Skully]

Once again I don't know if this has been discussed, but if so, just clue me in to where.

If the Jury decides that ICA is guilty of killing her daughter but not with premeditated, malice, (not sure if that is correct) and think it was some sort of accident but she was enraged and killed Caylee what happens then? I am just thinking that some jury members may think this is what happened and then she covered it up because she was scared of CA or GA and what they would think. In any case, they may see her as a young woman and not want to convict her with the death penalty on the table. I know many here can make that decision on a forum, but sitting on that bench, when faced with that, some people don't want do it. It is hard for me, after all this time and everything I have read, and I have read most of it living here in FL, to envision ICA just killing Caylee in cold blood and planning it. I know in my heart that woman do it, and that is probably the case here, I am not saying I don't believe it, I am just thinking about a jury and how they will react to giving the death penalty to a 24 year old woman. So with all that said, can they convict her of murder but ask for LWOP? Or does the judge do that? Or can they convict at all if they are charging her with 1st degree murder? Is that what JB is banking on?

thank you for taking the time to answer....

 

[beach]

Back to the legal questions thread lol--

<snip>

Hey guys, I don't mean to be all :nono: or :whip:, and I am by no means a :cop: mod, but we need to keep this on topic for :waitasec: Qs from us and nline: As from our verified lawyers, or else all anic: will break loose... and Kimster will have to come down and :ufo: us all...

:truce:

Questions followed by answers from verified attornies only please. Thanks

OK, we're straying from legal questions and answers here.

<snip>

:sigh: :banghead:

FINAL WARNING

Ask a question. Wait for an attorney response. Steer clear of hypothetical questions as they serve no purpose except to promote discussion. Our attorneys generously donate their time and knowledge. Please treat this thread with the respect that it deserves by complying with these rules.

*where this post falls is random*

 

[AZlawyer]

Surely you jest! "Make sense"?!?

When murdering mothers who toss their murdered babies into the woods to rot away with the help of an animal feast, only to get a 15 yr. punishment, then we just released a pass of approval for all disgruntled mothers to do the same as Casey Anthony.

Where did you get the leniency of 15 yrs. from?

Well, yeah, obviously if you're sure you can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, there's no point in a plea agreement. If you think there's a significant chance that one juror will disagree, then you should try for a plea agreement.

Once again I don't know if this has been discussed, but if so, just clue me in to where.

If the Jury decides that ICA is guilty of killing her daughter but not with premeditated, malice, (not sure if that is correct) and think it was some sort of accident but she was enraged and killed Caylee what happens then? I am just thinking that some jury members may think this is what happened and then she covered it up because she was scared of CA or GA and what they would think. In any case, they may see her as a young woman and not want to convict her with the death penalty on the table. I know many here can make that decision on a forum, but sitting on that bench, when faced with that, some people don't want do it. It is hard for me, after all this time and everything I have read, and I have read most of it living here in FL, to envision ICA just killing Caylee in cold blood and planning it. I know in my heart that woman do it, and that is probably the case here, I am not saying I don't believe it, I am just thinking about a jury and how they will react to giving the death penalty to a 24 year old woman. So with all that said, can they convict her of murder but ask for LWOP? Or does the judge do that? Or can they convict at all if they are charging her with 1st degree murder? Is that what JB is banking on?

thank you for taking the time to answer....

The answer to your questions are very, very different if the jury thinks there was an "accident" than if the jury thinks Casey killed Caylee in a rage. Killing someone in a rage is not an accident. Also, premeditation can happen in a rage, as long as the rage doesn't prevent you from thinking. A rage that prevents you from thinking wouldn't allow you to tear off 3 pieces of heavy-duty duct tape and place them on your baby's face. Heck, it takes me several minutes to tear off ONE piece of heavy-duty duct tape that size. Furthermore, there are all kinds of accidents, with or without negligence, or with different degrees of negligence, that would change the result. Casey is being charged with several things, and there are also "lesser included offenses" of those charges, which will allow the jury to convict Casey of something less than 1st-degree murder if they think that's what is warranted by the evidence.

The jury can recommend LWOP instead of death, but as long as they find an aggravating factor it will be up to the judge whether to accept their recommendation. I agree that it will be tough for the jury to sentence her to death.

 

[strach304]

With there being so many witnesses and evidence in this case I am curious about how jurors can keep it all straight. Is there a system in place that catalogs and indexes the evidence and testimony so that during the jury deliberation they can easily review what was presented again ?

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Well, yeah, obviously if you're sure you can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, there's no point in a plea agreement. If you think there's a significant chance that one juror will disagree, then you should try for a plea agreement.

It shocks me that anyone would consider that Caylee's stolen life was worth nothing more than 15yrs., is why I ask. That isn't true justice, for anyone.

The State is obviously confident enough in its case to have added the DP once Caylee's body was found, so is there some "formula" you used for arriving at a mere 15yr. sentence for Casey that you feel "makes sense", - all the way down from a DP case?

 

[Capri]

Sorry for the many questions these days, you legal eagles are definitely getting your work-out here!

Mason is trying to add a witness (Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis) who was prosecuting Maya Derkovic's case. He's citing Brady v. Maryland.( a 1963 case, BTW) (indicating some exculpatory evidence in the MD case?????) I'm guessing here. What do you make of it, or is Mason just throwing things at the wall again to see what sticks?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...nthony-trial-motions-20110322,0,3468691.story

 

[LambChop]

Dr. Jeffrey Danziger has listed on his website "downward departure and sentencing mitigation". Since defense is saying they want to include the doctor as a witness since all of her statements are now coming in, does this appear to be "let's make a deal?"

 

[GracieLu]

Dumb, dumb, dumb question... please don't yell (lol)... Can you explain what will happen at the trial. I get what the state will do (attempt to prove that ICA killed her daughter which I have no doubt they will do) but what does the defense do? I mean, will her lawyers just try to disprove the states evidence and/or will they offer another explanation of what could have happened?

here's what Im really wondering about too... I assume the state in opening arguments (I hope that's what it is called or Im watching too much tv, lol) will say something like "we will prove that Ms. Anthony drugged her daughter, placed duct tape on her mouth, etc" (god it made me sick just typing that) but what will the defense say - something like "Not only will we prove that Ms. Anthony did not do this, we will show you that (THEIR EXPLANATION - NANNY?) or basically "We will prove that there is no evidence that shows Ms. Anthony did this." (WITHOUT EXPLANATION?)...

Everyone on this site is so smart and asking really great questions (most go over my head)... WB ROCKS!!!! (dumb question over, lol)

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi, guys. I've been up all night writing an appellate brief--just about to try to sleep for a couple of hours while my co-counsel look it over--so please excuse the short answers. Just trying to catch up.

With there being so many witnesses and evidence in this case I am curious about how jurors can keep it all straight. Is there a system in place that catalogs and indexes the evidence and testimony so that during the jury deliberation they can easily review what was presented again ?

No. In AZ they can take notes now, but I'm not sure if they can do that in Florida.

Sorry for the many questions these days, you legal eagles are definitely getting your work-out here!

Mason is trying to add a witness (Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis) who was prosecuting Maya Derkovic's case. He's citing Brady v. Maryland.( a 1963 case, BTW) (indicating some exculpatory evidence in the MD case?????) I'm guessing here. What do you make of it, or is Mason just throwing things at the wall again to see what sticks?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...nthony-trial-motions-20110322,0,3468691.story

Who knows. IMO the most likely thing this guy knows is something that would suggest Maya is lying. But if the SA is not going to use her as a witness anyway, who cares? :waitasec:

It shocks me that anyone would consider that Caylee's stolen life was worth nothing more than 15yrs., is why I ask. That isn't true justice, for anyone.

The State is obviously confident enough in its case to have added the DP once Caylee's body was found, so is there some "formula" you used for arriving at a mere 15yr. sentence for Casey that you feel "makes sense", - all the way down from a DP case?

I think anyone who killed Caylee should get more than 15 years. But obviously you've got to prove it. This case just IS. NOT. A. SLAM. DUNK. CASE. So, "makes sense" means "makes sense as a compromise." I'm starting with LWOP as the top end and total acquittal as the bottom end, because I doubt she will get the death penalty. Although I will not be sad if she does.

Dr. Jeffrey Danziger has listed on his website "downward departure and sentencing mitigation". Since defense is saying they want to include the doctor as a witness since all of her statements are now coming in, does this appear to be "let's make a deal?"

No, I think it means he will be a witness for the penalty phase.

Dumb, dumb, dumb question... please don't yell (lol)... Can you explain what will happen at the trial. I get what the state will do (attempt to prove that ICA killed her daughter which I have no doubt they will do) but what does the defense do? I mean, will her lawyers just try to disprove the states evidence and/or will they offer another explanation of what could have happened?

here's what Im really wondering about too... I assume the state in opening arguments (I hope that's what it is called or Im watching too much tv, lol) will say something like "we will prove that Ms. Anthony drugged her daughter, placed duct tape on her mouth, etc" (god it made me sick just typing that) but what will the defense say - something like "Not only will we prove that Ms. Anthony did not do this, we will show you that (THEIR EXPLANATION - NANNY?) or basically "We will prove that there is no evidence that shows Ms. Anthony did this." (WITHOUT EXPLANATION?)...

Everyone on this site is so smart and asking really great questions (most go over my head)... WB ROCKS!!!! (dumb question over, lol)

Probably both, if they can think of an explanation that fits the evidence! We know JB can't search posts, so I guess my free advice is now lost to him.

 

[affinity]

Certainly Casey Anthony isn't the first defendant who started with a private attorney and then had to ask the state for money to finish the proceedings...but how about others in that situation----

....is it conceivable that FL prisoners who have been put away could bring a class action suit against the state of FL pertaining to the "inequity" of money spent on the Casey Anthony case versus other "indigent" defendants? It's an "out there" question....but STILL. I'm really curious how FL can justify so much $$$ going toward one case and whether or not it is legal to grant "investigative" $$ to one indigent defendant and not another.

 

[Themis]

Sorry for the many questions these days, you legal eagles are definitely getting your work-out here!

Mason is trying to add a witness (Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis) who was prosecuting Maya Derkovic's case. He's citing Brady v. Maryland.( a 1963 case, BTW) (indicating some exculpatory evidence in the MD case?????) I'm guessing here. What do you make of it, or is Mason just throwing things at the wall again to see what sticks?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...nthony-trial-motions-20110322,0,3468691.story

You stated "a 1963 case, BTW" and I presumed you thought it might be just a very old case that wasn't worth citing as authority. Brady v. Maryland is a landmark case from the United States Supreme Court on exculpatory evidence. It is not just an old, outdated case. In the law, a case may be very old and still be prevailing law on the issue. I'm glad we don't have to invent the law every few years! It would make it hard to have consistency in business, criminal laws and personal relationships.

 

[Themis]

Certainly Casey Anthony isn't the first defendant who started with a private attorney and then had to ask the state for money to finish the proceedings...but how about others in that situation----

....is it conceivable that FL prisoners who have been put away could bring a class action suit against the state of FL pertaining to the "inequity" of money spent on the Casey Anthony case versus other "indigent" defendants? It's an "out there" question....but STILL. I'm really curious how FL can justify so much $$$ going toward one case and whether or not it is legal to grant "investigative" $$ to one indigent defendant and not another.

The "fairness" is in the fact that they have a system and procedures for defendants to request the same funding and the system to review and approve and deny each request. One case or issue may be complex and another may not be.

 

[Themis]

Dumb, dumb, dumb question... please don't yell (lol)... Can you explain what will happen at the trial. I get what the state will do (attempt to prove that ICA killed her daughter which I have no doubt they will do) but what does the defense do? I mean, will her lawyers just try to disprove the states evidence and/or will they offer another explanation of what could have happened?

here's what Im really wondering about too... I assume the state in opening arguments (I hope that's what it is called or Im watching too much tv, lol) will say something like "we will prove that Ms. Anthony drugged her daughter, placed duct tape on her mouth, etc" (god it made me sick just typing that) but what will the defense say - something like "Not only will we prove that Ms. Anthony did not do this, we will show you that (THEIR EXPLANATION - NANNY?) or basically "We will prove that there is no evidence that shows Ms. Anthony did this." (WITHOUT EXPLANATION?)...

Everyone on this site is so smart and asking really great questions (most go over my head)... WB ROCKS!!!! (dumb question over, lol)

Defense will try to attack the state's case by attacking the credibility of the state's witnesses, attacking the reliability of the evidence through faulty chain of custody, attacking the reliability of the scientific methods and experts, by arguing that the elements of each offense were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, by offering alternatives to the state's theory of the case and by offering any affirmative defense or other chink in the armor of the state's case. All they have to do is get one juror to believe that reasonable doubt exists.

 

[Capri]

You stated "a 1963 case, BTW" and I presumed you thought it might be just a very old case that wasn't worth citing as authority. Brady v. Maryland is a landmark case from the United States Supreme Court on exculpatory evidence. It is not just an old, outdated case. In the law, a case may be very old and still be prevailing law on the issue. I'm glad we don't have to invent the law every few years! It would make it hard to have consistency in business, criminal laws and personal relationships.

Hi Themis, good to "see" you. As always, your input is appreciated

 

[Bittiness39]

Is it unusual or rarely tolerated strategy for one side (in this case the Defense Team) to give the Prosecution a disc with over 5,000 documents on it regarding a certain witness for the Prosecution (Dr. Vass) the night before he testifies in a hearing?

JB told HHJP that he did this in the spirit of fairness and professionalism...and while HHJP cautiously questioned him on this material and how he intends to use it during tomorrow's/Friday's hearing in questioning Dr. Vass (apparently this was "investigative material" on Vass according to JB)...JB says (1) he thought that JA went to the Eleanor Wood School of Speed Reading and (2) that he may only ask a few things out of those 5,000 plus pages that he just offered to the State...(meaning like in the movie Class Action, he buried them...only in the movie one side asks for one file, they get a blizzard of files--truckloads---and the other side never provided the asked for document---I am not saying that is what JB is doing here) but is this accepted practice...???

If it is...it makes me sad for the law profession...and likely WHY most of us despise Defense lawyers in spite of the good work that they do...it is trickery like this that makes me sick...

Imagine if the State used the same trickery?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it unusual or rarely tolerated strategy for one side (in this case the Defense Team) to give the Prosecution a disc with over 5,000 documents on it regarding a certain witness for the Prosecution (Dr. Vass) the night before he testifies in a hearing?

JB told HHJP that he did this in the spirit of fairness and professionalism...and while HHJP cautiously questioned him on this material and how he intends to use it during tomorrow's/Friday's hearing in questioning Dr. Vass (apparently this was "investigative material" on Vass according to JB)...JB says (1) he thought that JA went to the Eleanor Wood School of Speed Reading and (2) that he may only ask a few things out of those 5,000 plus pages that he just offered to the State...(meaning like in the movie Class Action, he buried them...only in the movie one side asks for one file, they get a blizzard of files--truckloads---and the other side never provided the asked for document---I am not saying that is what JB is doing here) but is this accepted practice...???

If it is...it makes me sad for the law profession...and likely WHY most of us despise Defense lawyers in spite of the good work that they do...it is trickery like this that makes me sick...

Imagine if the State used the same trickery?

No, it is not generally acceptable practice, unless there is a true emergency hearing and it can't be helped.

 

[salvarenga]

Don't have the actual motion yet but look what was just added to the clerk's site:

03/24/2011 Motion for Rehearing on Orders Denying Motions to Suppress

Thoughts?

 

[ClockWatcher]

Would the defense ever be provided transcripts of witness testimony from the grand jury?
This morning, Baez was questioning K9 handler Forgey about his statements made during his grand jury appearance. I thought that grand jury proceedings were secret and that the defense was not included at the proceedings nor were the transcripts available to them unless a transcript was first ordered by the prosecution, as we saw LDB ask for George's testimony.
I don't recall if the prosecution asked the court for any other grand jury transcripts, if I did, oops!

Otherwise, I'd like to know how Baez knew what K9 handler Forgey said during the grand jury proceedings.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27308085/index.html
Baez and grand jury question, first 3 minutes

 

[ynotdivein]

Hi lawyers! :seeya:

What do you think of the defense team's decision to occupy KC with "busy work" during these hearings? Do you think they will do the same at trial--and how might that play with the jury? (Hm, accidentally typed "fury" first--it's certainly having that effect on me, at least...)

And on a related note--can the prosecution refer to the defendant's courtroom demeanor during closing arguments, or not? I Googled, but came up with a lot of seemingly-contradictory articles and cases.

:tyou: for all you do for us!