Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[wenwe4]

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.

You are brilliant AZlawyer! Methinks you have a stalker who is one of JB's groupies and they are hanging on this because it is the only thing they have.

 

[Kimster]

Is it very commonplace to have an attorney ask that a witness be deemed hostile and the request is not granted by the judge?

 

[jennyb]

Why do you think the Judge let Baez continually go out of bounds of a Frye hearing? I don't believe he couldn't control that if he wanted to. There is no prejudice to KC if the hearing was conducted as it should have been.

I refuse to believe the Judge is afraid if he doesn't let the DT ramble, insult and ignore the purpose of Frye this would be an appellate issue.

Also, if he continues to allow more and more witnesses so close to trial, will the SA just throw up their hands and in the spirit of "moving things along" NOT get what they need to present their case the way they should? I'm concerned this could happen.

It seems that ultimately, Baez is controlling the courtroom.

Thank you.

 

[OpenMind4U]

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.

Dear AZ, so, if I understood you correctly, this 'state of mind' condition happens when 'something terrible happens' to a person. Kind of mental SHOCK, right? If yes then this mental shock 'condition could be reversible, right?... and if yes then State better be ready for Frye hearing to expose 'shock reversal' methodology...or better, let's do experiment on KC and see if she can be re-shocked....haha...(electric chair will do

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it very commonplace to have an attorney ask that a witness be deemed hostile and the request is not granted by the judge?

It isn't common to even ask. You look like a whiny bi...baby who can't take on a challenge. But if someone does ask, it's usually a pretty obvious situation and is granted.

Why do you think the Judge let Baez continually go out of bounds of a Frye hearing? I don't believe he couldn't control that if he wanted to. There is no prejudice to KC if the hearing was conducted as it should have been.

I refuse to believe the Judge is afraid if he doesn't let the DT ramble, insult and ignore the purpose of Frye this would be an appellate issue.

Also, if he continues to allow more and more witnesses so close to trial, will the SA just throw up their hands and in the spirit of "moving things along" NOT get what they need to present their case the way they should? I'm concerned this could happen.

It seems that ultimately, Baez is controlling the courtroom.

Thank you.

I really do think HHJP should take control, or this trial will NEVER EVER get done in 2 months.

Dear AZ, so, if I understood you correctly, this 'state of mind' condition happens when 'something terrible happens' to a person. Kind of mental SHOCK, right? If yes then this mental shock 'condition could be reversible, right?... and if yes then State better be ready for Frye hearing to expose 'shock reversal' methodology...or better, let's do experiment on KC and see if she can be re-shocked....haha...(electric chair will do

I volunteer to conduct the experiment.

 

[Just Jayla]

In regards to KC passing notes to JB during hearings-This gives the appearance that KC is operating her defense, which would actually be ideal for a defendant who knew the law...
Do your clients ever offer you anything, via a note or a whisper, that you did not already think of? Do they ever fundamentally effect what you are going to ask a witness through impromptu courtroom communication?
Or, are their whispers more often in response to a witness's testimony and more about retort/commentary than informative guidance?

ETA-I assume if your client is a lawyer, it is a bit different. My question is about non-lawyer clients.

 

[AZlawyer]

In regards to KC passing notes to JB during hearings-This gives the appearance that KC is operating her defense, which would actually be ideal for a defendant who knew the law...
Do your clients ever offer you anything, via a note or a whisper, that you did not already think of? Do they ever fundamentally effect what you are going to ask a witness through impromptu courtroom communication?
Or, are their whispers more often in response to a witness's testimony and more about retort/commentary than informative guidance?

ETA-I assume if your client is a lawyer, it is a bit different. My question is about non-lawyer clients.

I tell my clients not to whisper and give me notes in court or depositions, because they are NEVER helpful and extremely distracting. Usually clients' notes say things like, "He's lying!" Ya, thanks, I saw that. Or "Ask him [fill in the blank with some question that will draw an immediate 'objection; sustained']."

Sometimes lawyer clients are the worst. Not as bad as doctors, though!

 

[cottoncandy]

Can prospective jurors be asked if they’ve smelled human decomposition?

Thanks~

 

[strawberry]

At these Frye hearings, is the burden on the State to show their expert should be allowed, or on the defense to show the science should NOT be allowed? TIA

 

[BD1]

During trial, will the public be made privy to all the mental health assessments, Psych Doc testimony/depos etc, that we are not allowed to see now?

 

[GracieLu]

Quick question.....

Will her trial be on TV and what determines if a trial is on TV?

(Im sure that is the dumbest question ever, sorry!)

 

[mac66]

What is the advantage to having a witness declared "hostile"? Thank you.

 

[joypath]

I tell my clients not to whisper and give me notes in court or depositions, because they are NEVER helpful and extremely distracting. Usually clients' notes say things like, "He's lying!" Ya, thanks, I saw that. Or "Ask him [fill in the blank with some question that will draw an immediate 'objection; sustained']."

Sometimes lawyer clients are the worst. Not as bad as doctors, though![/quote]



HEY! I resemble THAT! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: okay, sometimes only!


but geeeeeeeeeee, you "guys/gals" ASK (lay people: read DEMAND!!!! expert (scientific :innocent interpretation!:truce::truce::truce:


:great: BUT STILL LUV YA! (more specifically....R E S P E C T YA, AZLAWYER:rocker:

 

[strawberry]

I understand someone with a low IQ having diminished capacity, but what mental illnesses can be used to cry diminished capacity?? I can see paranoid schizophrenia, but that could go for an all out insane defense.

 

[logicalgirl]

Here's a question that just popped into my brain while discussing defense strategies.

If you were ICA's defense lawyer, how would you explain away how ICA came to the conclusion Caylee was actually dead? I mean how did she make this decision without consulting anyone? And how would you overcome ICA not putting the welfare of her child - ie getting a doctor/hospital or calling 911 in a life/death situation over being afraid of repercussions? Do we know if ICA knows CPR? Is it is important to you as it is to me to know what the story would be as to how/when ICA made the "she's dead" decision?

And thanks for all you do especially now the tension has been considerably ramped up. :tyou:

 

[JWG]

I really do think HHJP should take control, or this trial will NEVER EVER get done in 2 months.

It has appeared to me that actually HHJP is slowly tightening the noose of control around the defense's neck as these hearings progress, and giving them less and less leeway as trial approaches. For example, yesterday the judge was pretty clear that he was not going to allow JB the slightest amount of wiggle room out of the stipulation he signed with JA. :slap:

I would anticipate that by trial the defense will have been sufficiently trained that HHJP's control measures will seem far less Draconian to a jury than they would have last summer - had the full measure of control been imposed back then.

 

[faefrost]

OK a question going back to yesterdays (3/24) great hearing meltdown moment. Given the somewhat solid impression that JB may have acted in bad faith in his dealings with the SA and JA, and his dealings before the court, Are there any clear ethical or Bar considerations that you see in that little courtroom blowup? I know in legal circles the term "bad faith" is not one that is tossed lightly? Would any of the parties have a legitimate ethical or Bar complaint over yesterdays events? is there something there for HHJP or JA to submit a complaint on? or is there something there that JB could attempt to submit a counter claim on? What would the Bar's take on the whole scene in court be should it be brought to thei attention?

I mainly ask after reading Magpie's report from the courtroom of the reaction to the incident amongst the various courtroom journalists.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can prospective jurors be asked if they’ve smelled human decomposition?

Thanks~

Yes, and if they have, the defense will probably strike them.

At these Frye hearings, is the burden on the State to show their expert should be allowed, or on the defense to show the science should NOT be allowed? TIA

The burden is on the State.

During trial, will the public be made privy to all the mental health assessments, Psych Doc testimony/depos etc, that we are not allowed to see now?

Not the mental health assessment to determine competency to stand trial. But we will hear from mental health experts during the trial about their assessments of Casey.

Quick question.....

Will her trial be on TV and what determines if a trial is on TV?

(Im sure that is the dumbest question ever, sorry!)

I believe it has already been determined that it will be televised.

What is the advantage to having a witness declared "hostile"? Thank you.

Nothing except that you get to ask leading questions. E.g.:

Non-leading question: "And what did you do with the pants?"

Leading question: "You washed the pants, didn't you?"

I understand someone with a low IQ having diminished capacity, but what mental illnesses can be used to cry diminished capacity?? I can see paranoid schizophrenia, but that could go for an all out insane defense.

Diminished capacity is not about mental illness. I believe the defense team stated yesterday that their expert will NOT be talking about diminished capacity.

Here's a question that just popped into my brain while discussing defense strategies.

If you were ICA's defense lawyer, how would you explain away how ICA came to the conclusion Caylee was actually dead? I mean how did she make this decision without consulting anyone? And how would you overcome ICA not putting the welfare of her child - ie getting a doctor/hospital or calling 911 in a life/death situation over being afraid of repercussions? Do we know if ICA knows CPR? Is it is important to you as it is to me to know what the story would be as to how/when ICA made the "she's dead" decision?

And thanks for all you do especially now the tension has been considerably ramped up. :tyou:

That's a really good point. If the defense does decide to go with an accident/cover-up/mentally disturbed "happy acting" theory, they'd better cover that base too. I mean, without getting graphic, I'm quite sure all of us can think of accidents that would result in a clear and certain layperson diagnosis of death. Drowning would NOT be one of those types of accidents IMO.

OK a question going back to yesterdays (3/24) great hearing meltdown moment. Given the somewhat solid impression that JB may have acted in bad faith in his dealings with the SA and JA, and his dealings before the court, Are there any clear ethical or Bar considerations that you see in that little courtroom blowup? I know in legal circles the term "bad faith" is not one that is tossed lightly? Would any of the parties have a legitimate ethical or Bar complaint over yesterdays events? is there something there for HHJP or JA to submit a complaint on? or is there something there that JB could attempt to submit a counter claim on? What would the Bar's take on the whole scene in court be should it be brought to thei attention?

I mainly ask after reading Magpie's report from the courtroom of the reaction to the incident amongst the various courtroom journalists.

I don't think there were any clear ethics violations there (which is all the Bar concerns itself with). But JB was getting close to admitting ethics violations--perhaps entering into a stipulation with no intent of complying, or perhaps waiving his client's substantive interests to protect himself from sanctions. IMO that's why AF jumped up and grabbed him.

 

[ohiogirl]

Hi everyone. Lawyers, what do you think the chances are of the defense appealing to a higher court if his honor denies their request about allowing Casey's statements in?
This would substantially delay the trial, no?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi everyone. Lawyers, what do you think the chances are of the defense appealing to a higher court if his honor denies their request about allowing Casey's statements in?
This would substantially delay the trial, no?

The chances are 100%. But the appeal won't happen until after the trial.