Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[BigFatMommyDog]

Two questions:

1.) A bit petty, but given this new state-of-mind "discovery" - In that Danziger and Weitz were contracted and paid by JAC under mitigation, is there any unethical or contractual issue with them presenting this information during guilt phase proceedings (couldn't everyone who couldn't afford a private pysch eval pull one in under mitigation and then say BUT WAIT!...)

2.) Bad form, but I am copying my post from the psych thread here as it seems to be growing legs elsewhere:

as I re-watched that clip (below - at about 13-14 min) I was struck by AF saying something to the effect that this new state of mind evidence may involve some litigation...huh? Who would be the subject of litigation? What possible scenario would result in some "state of mind" issue that would result in litigation (which I would assume to be civil as opposed to criminal prosecution)?



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdDIwRK94Wo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdDIwRK94Wo[/ame]

many thanks - hope this makes sense

 

[rhornsby]

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?

In Florida, and most other states that I am aware, only the Prosecutor/State Attorney can appeal pretrial rulings.

 

[rhornsby]

Two questions:

1.) A bit petty, but given this new state-of-mind "discovery" - In that Danziger and Weitz were contracted and paid by JAC under mitigation, is there any unethical or contractual issue with them presenting this information during guilt phase proceedings (couldn't everyone who couldn't afford a private pysch eval pull one in under mitigation and then say BUT WAIT!...)

2.) Bad form, but I am copying my post from the psych thread here as it seems to be growing legs elsewhere:

as I re-watched that clip (below - at about 13-14 min) I was struck by AF saying something to the effect that this new state of mind evidence may involve some litigation...huh? Who would be the subject of litigation? What possible scenario would result in some "state of mind" issue that would result in litigation (which I would assume to be civil as opposed to criminal prosecution)?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdDIwRK94Wo

many thanks - hope this makes sense

It's admissibility for one. Generally speaking, the state of mind of a person is for a jury to determine. It is very rare that they would need an expert witnesses help to determine how events affected a person (i.e. Battered Woman Syndrome).

There are some cases that have allowed an expert to testify about specific psychological conditions and then let the jury apply the facts to the testimony to decide whether the person had the syndrome, but I am unaware of any modern cases that have held an expert can testify that X person suffered from a psychological condition.

I am willing to bet that since Ann Finnell listed them, they will be for the penalty phase. In that case, psychological mitigation is always relevant to the proper sentence.

 

[Bittiness39]

It's admissibility for one. Generally speaking, the state of mind of a person is for a jury to determine. It is very rare that they would need an expert witnesses help to determine how events affected a person (i.e. Battered Woman Syndrome).

There are some cases that have allowed an expert to testify about specific psychological conditions and then let the jury apply the facts to the testimony to decide whether the person had the syndrome, but I am unaware of any modern cases that have held an expert can testify that X person suffered from a psychological condition.

I am willing to bet that since Ann Finnell listed them, they will be for the penalty phase. In that case, psychological mitigation is always relevant to the proper sentence.

BBM, respect rhornsby. Yesterday at the end of the hearing Ann Finnell said she wanted to use them during the guilt phase of the trial. Not the mitigation phase. She said it was not to change her plea...but to show some diminished capacity of ICA. It had me stumped.
I do think it is a good idea for the Defense to introduce any evidence of a diminished capacity in the guilt phase because the jury might be more receptive to it in the mitigation phase.She mentioned it would explain ICA's actions and consciousness of guilt.

Are they just trying to have another bite at having her statements to LE thrown out? Or is there some other reason?

TY in advance.

 

[strawberry]

Do you think the Motion for Rehearing was done because they really thought it would fly, or to put their objection on the record for appellate issues? TIA

 

[karengo]

Do you think the hearings in any way influenced HHJP's decision to deny the motion today?

And do you think he should have had another hearing on the motion to supress?

I dont but it doesnt really matter what i think lol.

 

[ClockWatcher]

HHJP has spoken! He has denied the defense motion to rehear the the motion to suppress...

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27325185/de...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=caseyupdates

Why is there a second signature on the motion by Robin A. B-undecipherable, General Counsel?

Is that a common practice to have an attorney for the court (I guess?) sign off on these types of motions?

I love HHJP, No Motion's For You!

 

[Aedrys]

And now, if it's allowed, I bet the defense will ask HHJP to recuse himself and if he says no then they can ask an appeal court to step in. And when they do then the whole case stops until the appeal court decides if they want to intervene or just let the case resume. But the case stops nonetheless which as many of us have seen and thought is what the defense really wants. They really just want to drag this case on as long as they can.

The defense can't appeal HHJP's decisions before trial but they can appeal if a Judge decides to not step down if a party decides to ask for the judge to recuse himself.

Could this actually happen? Please tell me they are not going to be able to do this and drag this case out even further!!!! CM does have the chutzpah to ask the judge to recuse himself and that really worries me...

 

[What'sThatClue]

BBM, respect rhornsby. Yesterday at the end of the hearing Ann Finnell said she wanted to use them during the guilt phase of the trial. Not the mitigation phase. She said it was not to change her plea...but to show some diminished capacity of ICA. It had me stumped.
I do think it is a good idea for the Defense to introduce any evidence of a diminished capacity in the guilt phase because the jury might be more receptive to it in the mitigation phase.She mentioned it would explain ICA's actions and consciousness of guilt.

Are they just trying to have another bite at having her statements to LE thrown out? Or is there some other reason?

TY in advance.

With respect to LittleBitty's comment, would acting under the influence of drugs be considered diminished capacity, especially with regard to making statements to LE? Or, hallucinations that she worked at Universal?

Adding....dissociative disorder (and/or multiple personality syndrome)

 

[CuriousG]

Could the defense claim that the rehearing was denied based on financial reasons?

If i remember correctly, Judge Perry mentioned at the beginning of the month that he was going to be in Tallahassee "begging for money." We know there was mention of this trial being delayed/cancelled because of budget woes.

In light of that, can I just say that it really chaps my a$$ that the recent hearings have gone on as long as they have. Is JB intentionally dragging this out to deplete the funds available for this case? Is that possible?

 

[AZlawyer]

Two questions:

1.) A bit petty, but given this new state-of-mind "discovery" - In that Danziger and Weitz were contracted and paid by JAC under mitigation, is there any unethical or contractual issue with them presenting this information during guilt phase proceedings (couldn't everyone who couldn't afford a private pysch eval pull one in under mitigation and then say BUT WAIT!...)

2.) Bad form, but I am copying my post from the psych thread here as it seems to be growing legs elsewhere:

as I re-watched that clip (below - at about 13-14 min) I was struck by AF saying something to the effect that this new state of mind evidence may involve some litigation...huh? Who would be the subject of litigation? What possible scenario would result in some "state of mind" issue that would result in litigation (which I would assume to be civil as opposed to criminal prosecution)?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdDIwRK94Wo

many thanks - hope this makes sense

1) The JAC would have had to pay for them no matter which phase of the trial they were testifying in, so I can't imagine that will be an issue.

2) I can't watch the video right now, but I'm sure she must have said mitigation??

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM, respect rhornsby. Yesterday at the end of the hearing Ann Finnell said she wanted to use them during the guilt phase of the trial. Not the mitigation phase. She said it was not to change her plea...but to show some diminished capacity of ICA. It had me stumped.
I do think it is a good idea for the Defense to introduce any evidence of a diminished capacity in the guilt phase because the jury might be more receptive to it in the mitigation phase.She mentioned it would explain ICA's actions and consciousness of guilt.

Are they just trying to have another bite at having her statements to LE thrown out? Or is there some other reason?

TY in advance.

I keep trying to get this confirmed...didn't AF say she was NOT planning to use these experts to show diminished capacity??

IMO if she said this was NOT about a mental health defense and NOT about diminished capacity, and would be used in the GUILT phase, then what we're talking about is some mental health explanation for Casey's "happy"/cold behavior after the accident/kidnapping/whatever they're going with.

Do you think the Motion for Rehearing was done because they really thought it would fly, or to put their objection on the record for appellate issues? TIA

I can't imagine they thought it would really be granted. :waitasec:

Do you think the hearings in any way influenced HHJP's decision to deny the motion today?

And do you think he should have had another hearing on the motion to supress?

I dont but it doesnt really matter what i think lol.

Which hearings? Obviously the hearings on the statements influenced his decision, but I don't see why the other hearings would have influenced his decision.

I don't think he should have had another hearing, and in fact the motion didn't suggest what different evidence would be presented at a "rehearing," so IMO what CM was asking for was really reconsideration without a second hearing.

HHJP has spoken! He has denied the defense motion to rehear the the motion to suppress...

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27325185/de...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=caseyupdates

Why is there a second signature on the motion by Robin A. B-undecipherable, General Counsel?

Is that a common practice to have an attorney for the court (I guess?) sign off on these types of motions?

I love HHJP, No Motion's For You!

This is not a motion; it is an order. The only thing this Robin person is signing off on is that she mailed copies of the order to everyone. Yes, this is normal procedure.

Could this actually happen? Please tell me they are not going to be able to do this and drag this case out even further!!!! CM does have the chutzpah to ask the judge to recuse himself and that really worries me...

They are not going to get HHJP thrown off the case based on anything that has happened so far. It is just silliness from CM to suggest "bias" at this point.

With respect to LittleBitty's comment, would acting under the influence of drugs be considered diminished capacity, especially with regard to making statements to LE? Or, hallucinations that she worked at Universal?

My understanding is that they are NOT arguing diminished capacity.

Could the defense claim that the rehearing was denied based on financial reasons?

If i remember correctly, Judge Perry mentioned at the beginning of the month that he was going to be in Tallahassee "begging for money." We know there was mention of this trial being delayed/cancelled because of budget woes.

In light of that, can I just say that it really chaps my a$$ that the recent hearings have gone on as long as they have. Is JB intentionally dragging this out to deplete the funds available for this case? Is that possible?

They can claim it, but they will get nowhere. Remember when the court admin lady said "maybe we can't afford this trial," HHJP's office responded, "It's happening in May."

There is no way JB is dragging this on to deplete the funds. What would be the ultimate goal of that?

 

[CuriousG]

Respectfully snipped quote...


They can claim it, but they will get nowhere. Remember when the court admin lady said "maybe we can't afford this trial," HHJP's office responded, "It's happening in May."

There is no way JB is dragging this on to deplete the funds. What would be the ultimate goal of that?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your answer, AZLawyer. I didn't really think it was possible for JB to deplete the funds, I was just wondering if in his small mind, he thought that might be some kind of strategy. Along the lines of, "Well, if the trial is delayed/cancelled because I'm wasting all the tax-payer's money, that's way better than getting my A$$ handed to me on verdict day!" LOL.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks for your answer, AZLawyer. I didn't really think it was possible for JB to deplete the funds, I was just wondering if in his small mind, he thought that might be some kind of strategy. Along the lines of, "Well, if the trial is delayed/cancelled because I'm wasting all the tax-payer's money, that's way better than getting my A$$ handed to me on verdict day!" LOL.

Well, OK, I guess I'm not going to try to speculate as to what goes on in JB's mind. It clearly works differently from mine.

 

[CuriousG]

Well, OK, I guess I'm not going to try to speculate as to what goes on in JB's mind. It clearly works differently from mine.

I guess I shouldn't either!

 

[ClockWatcher]

/facepalm :blushing: Thanks AZ

 

[logicalgirl]

1) The JAC would have had to pay for them no matter which phase of the trial they were testifying in, so I can't imagine that will be an issue.

2) I can't watch the video right now, but I'm sure she must have said mitigation??

No, she clearly said the guilt phase ALSO. Sorry wasn't shouting but based on that - what are your comments?

 

[AZlawyer]

No, she clearly said the guilt phase ALSO. Sorry wasn't shouting but based on that - what are your comments?

I know--I was saying I'm sure she said "mitigation" rather than "litigation"--unless by "litigation" she just meant that there would be motions and argument. I was answering someone's question about why she said "litigation."

To answer what I think your question is, my understanding is that this is mental health evidence that would NOT establish a "defense" and also would NOT establish "diminished capacity" but WOULD be relevant to the guilt phase as well as the penalty phase--so I think it relates to some mental health explanation for Casey's behavior after Caylee was supposedly kidnapped/died in an accident.

ETA: I didn't think your caps were shouting, and BTW since I use caps all the time I hope you guys know I'm not shouting at you either.

 

[magnolia]

They are not going to get HHJP thrown off the case based on anything that has happened so far. It is just silliness from CM to suggest "bias" at this point.

If the defense asks HHJP to recuse himself, do you think he would step down to prevent a possible delay in the trail date?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the defense asks HHJP to recuse himself, do you think he would step down to prevent a possible delay in the trail date?

No. I think he would say "DENIED."