Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

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?

Sounds like the defense team wants a "do-over" on some or all of HHJP's orders regarding the statements made by Casey. IMO they'd better have a dang good reason or risk incurring HHJP's wrath for constantly wasting his time asking for everything twice.

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

I didn't get to watch the hearing, just read the thread, but did JB seem to actually KNOW what the GJ testimony was, or was he trying to get Forgey to TELL him what it was?:waitasec: Normally, I don't think the defense would see the GJ transcripts.

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!

I'm sure the defense team would prefer that Casey act the part of Innocent Mother at trial. But apparently she's incapable of it, so they have decided that Paralegal Barbie is better than Cold-Blooded Murderess.

The prosecutor cannot refer to the defendant's courtroom demeanor during closing arguments, but believe me, the jury doesn't need to be told to look at how the defendant is reacting.

 

[beach]

When Judge Perry is considering the docs, testimony, etc...when making his decision on whether to allow Dr. Vass' findings in (decomp odor), can he consider the corroborating testimony he has already heard? (e.g., CA's 911 "It smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!" and GA's statements to LE).

 

[magnolia]

AZ, did you see any factual inaccuracies in the Court's order which were relied upon in reaching it's conclusion? ~Thanks~

 

[AZlawyer]

When Judge Perry is considering the docs, testimony, etc...when making his decision on whether to allow Dr. Vass' findings in (decomp odor), can he consider the corroborating testimony he has already heard? (e.g., CA's 911 "It smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!" and GA's statements to LE).

No, because that stuff isn't relevant to the Frye issue.

AZ, did you see any factual inaccuracies in the Court's order which were relied upon in reaching it's conclusion? ~Thanks~

Most of what CM is calling "factual errors" are just facts that the judge decided against his witnesses and in favor of the other witnesses. Others are facts the judge didn't mention, but there's no requirement that the judge has to mention every fact in his order!

As for the "bias" accusation, you guys already know that I personally would have reached a different decision on the Universal statements than HHJP did, but that doesn't prove "bias".

 

[Cabin girl]

AZ, I have a couple of questions regarding the motion the defense filed today. Does HHJP make the decision on this motion? If so, is that considered a conflict since he made the original decisions and they go so far as to call him bias? How does this work?
Also, if the hearings need to be held again, would this delay the trial?
Could the defense ultimate goal be two-fold in delaying the trial as well as prep for appeal? I am not legally knowledgeable so I apologize in advance if these questions have no value.

 

[faefrost]

What if any are the possible consequences of calling the judge "biased" ("baez'd"?) in a court filing and demanding absolutely demanding a do over? Is there some real potential strategic benefit here that we as normal people can't see? Is there a real risk that they in some way do in fact prejudice their clients case through these antics, and if so what happens?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, I have a couple of questions regarding the motion the defense filed today. Does HHJP make the decision on this motion? If so, is that considered a conflict since he made the original decisions and they go so far as to call him bias? How does this work?
Also, if the hearings need to be held again, would this delay the trial?
Could the defense ultimate goal be two-fold in delaying the trial as well as prep for appeal? I am not legally knowledgeable so I apologize in advance if these questions have no value.

HHJP will make the decisions. They have not filed a motion for him to be disqualified, they are just IMO threatening him in what they must believe is a subtle manner that they might do that in the future.

The motion for "rehearing" does not contain any information about why the hearings would actually need to be redone. There was a court reporter there the whole time FGS--HHJP can review the transcripts to see if he messed up on the facts.

What if any are the possible consequences of calling the judge "biased" ("baez'd"?) in a court filing and demanding absolutely demanding a do over? Is there some real potential strategic benefit here that we as normal people can't see? Is there a real risk that they in some way do in fact prejudice their clients case through these antics, and if so what happens?

There are no consequences except irritating the judge--but they are protected from this consequence because IMO HHJP really ISN'T biased but will rule according to his interpretation of the law and the facts and not according to whether or not he is irritated with the defense team.

I think the reason for filing the motion is that they really, really, really do not want the jury to hear Casey's ice-cold voice on those tapes.

 

[LambChop]

So is there a good chance that the new witnesses, the doctor's, are going to testify as to her state of mind while she was being questioned by LE? I'm guessing but AF did say to the judge today that it has to do with her state of mind but will not require the state to provide a separate opinion from the state's side.

 

[AZlawyer]

So is there a good chance that the new witnesses, the doctor's, are going to testify as to her state of mind while she was being questioned by LE? I'm guessing but AF did say to the judge today that it has to do with her state of mind but will not require the state to provide a separate opinion from the state's side.

If, as the defense team said, it is NOT about a mental health defense (i.e., not saying that Casey was not responsible for her actions) and also NOT about diminished capacity (i.e., not saying that Casey is intellectually impaired), then my guess is that it will be about how and why her state of mind caused her to act guilty if she was really not guilty. From the dancing to the IMs to the statements to LE...the whole enchilada.

 

[nursebeeme]

If, as the defense team said, it is NOT about a mental health defense (i.e., not saying that Casey was not responsible for her actions) and also NOT about diminished capacity (i.e., not saying that Casey is intellectually impaired), then my guess is that it will be about how and why her state of mind caused her to act guilty if she was really not guilty. From the dancing to the IMs to the statements to LE...the whole enchilada.

can the sexual abuse allegations come into play here????

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

If, as the defense team said, it is NOT about a mental health defense (i.e., not saying that Casey was not responsible for her actions) and also NOT about diminished capacity (i.e., not saying that Casey is intellectually impaired), then my guess is that it will be about how and why her state of mind caused her to act guilty if she was really not guilty. From the dancing to the IMs to the statements to LE...the whole enchilada.

So, in a nutshell, it's the Law and Order (dunn dunn) defense, but with no measles? (I'm being a bit flip here, but I'm not being facetious).

 

[ynotdivein]

If, as the defense team said, it is NOT about a mental health defense (i.e., not saying that Casey was not responsible for her actions) and also NOT about diminished capacity (i.e., not saying that Casey is intellectually impaired), then my guess is that it will be about how and why her state of mind caused her to act guilty if she was really not guilty. From the dancing to the IMs to the statements to LE...the whole enchilada.

Up to and including her unusual behavior at the defense table in the courtroom, too, yes?

:banghead:

(I promise that was really a question. Let me rephrase a la Baez. This theory of yours would also "explain" her strangely obsessive behavior in the courtroom, would it not?)

 

[Tiki]

HHBP indicated that the DT must have a very good reason for adding these new witnesses so late.

Any idea what they could say, as they are to testify as to ICA's "state of mind"?
Her "state of mind" was way back in 2008.

 

[JSR]

HHJP will make the decisions. They have not filed a motion for him to be disqualified, they are just IMO threatening him in what they must believe is a subtle manner that they might do that in the future.

The motion for "rehearing" does not contain any information about why the hearings would actually need to be redone. There was a court reporter there the whole time FGS--HHJP can review the transcripts to see if he messed up on the facts.



There are no consequences except irritating the judge--but they are protected from this consequence because IMO HHJP really ISN'T biased but will rule according to his interpretation of the law and the facts and not according to whether or not he is irritated with the defense team.

I think the reason for filing the motion is that they really, really, really do not want the jury to hear Casey's ice-cold voice on those tapes.

Do you think they will try to get the jury to only learn of the interview via transcript instead of the actual audio? I'm pretty sure the actual audio is gonna sink them.

 

[AZlawyer]

can the sexual abuse allegations come into play here????

Yes.

So, in a nutshell, it's the Law and Order (dunn dunn) defense, but with no measles? (I'm being a bit flip here, but I'm not being facetious).

I've never seen that show.

Up to and including her unusual behavior at the defense table in the courtroom, too, yes?

:banghead:

(I promise that was really a question. Let me rephrase a la Baez. This theory of yours would also "explain" her strangely obsessive behavior in the courtroom, would it not?)

Yes.

HHBP indicated that the DT must have a very good reason for adding these new witnesses so late.

Any idea what they could say, as they are to testify as to ICA's "state of mind"?
Her "state of mind" was way back in 2008.

"Um, your honor, the thing is, we didn't see AZLawyer's post on this theory until last week."

Do you think they will try to get the jury to only learn of the interview via transcript instead of the actual audio? I'm pretty sure the actual audio is gonna sink them.

They can try, but I don't see how they will succeed.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Why do they need us to consider the state of mind of an innocent woman?
Isn't this like admitting she did it ?
From here it sounds like some odd oxymoron- she is not guilty, but just in case you find that she is, then here are the reasons that made her (a) commit the crime and (b)lie about it after....

 

[AZlawyer]

Why do they need us to consider the state of mind of an innocent woman?
Isn't this like admitting she did it ?
From here it sounds like some odd oxymoron- she is not guilty, but just in case you find that she is, then here are the reasons that made her (a) commit the crime and (b)lie about it after....

No, no, what I'm saying is that I think they are going to use this state of mind expert to try to support a theory of innocence. Not that she killed Caylee and lied about it because of her state of mind, but that SOMETHING ELSE TERRIBLE happened to Caylee which was NOT Casey's fault, and Casey was able to suppress any emotional reaction to it because of her state of mind.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

AZ for background/informational purposes re: measles episode of Law and Order (aired 4/29/2009)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1248631/
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/04/case-anthony-case-did-you-like-the-spins-that-law-order-special-victims-unit-put-on-a-familiar-story.html

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ for background/informational purposes re: measles episode of Law and Order (aired 4/29/2009)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1248631/
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/04/case-anthony-case-did-you-like-the-spins-that-law-order-special-victims-unit-put-on-a-familiar-story.html

Thanks!

I usually hate to watch shows with lawyers or trials, because they are wrong all the time lol.

 

[angeldust]

Um, your honor, the thing is, we didn't see AZLawyer's post on this theory until last week.

:floorlaugh: I warned ya didnt I