Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

A follow up to that. If DC did in fact have or can produce a direct employment agreement between himself and the defendant, does that not take him outside of the loop of Attorney/Client privilege extended to the lawyers direct employees? I thought that defendants direct employees are never covered by privilege unless they are themselves lawyers? (or Priests?) And that a lawyer could not in turn hire those connected directly to the defendant for the purpose of shielding them by privilege? (ie JB could not hire GA as an investigator to limit his ability to testify)

I believe he did have a direct agreement with Casey at some point. But that wouldn't automatically mean he wasn't covered by privilege--the question would be whether or not he was "really" part of JB's investigative team or not. I believe, however, that DC has said that once his contract ended with JB (in October?) that he was NOT being directed by JB any more.

Hiring someone who is not "really" part of the defense team would not bring them within the privilege circle.

During questioning the K9 officer yesterday, people stated that they saw Cindy Anthony trying to get Baez's attention and tried to pass a note to him. If this were during the actual trial, would that be allowed/tolerated?

There's no rule that she's not allowed to communicate with him that I know of. But she would have to figure out some way to do it without disrupting the courtroom, or IMO HHJP will lose it.

Does anyone else think that in a lot of ways, Casey resembles Laura Hall?

http://www.kvue.com/news/Laura-Hall-taken-into-custody--83832142.html

Please look up this case...she even got a tattoo after she was in jail...on her ankle. This was one of the most disturbing cases I have ever seen period. And it reminds me a lot of KC. When Laura was in front on LE, and they were all like, "You went on the lamb/run with a guy you knew had killed another girl and dismembered her...etc" and she literally answered, "this is how I roll."

If Cindy wasn't such a helicopter parent and KC didn't somehow feel beholden to her in some way...IMHO...this girl is KC. JMO. Only caveat is that IMO KC killed Caylee. Laura either helped or came in after the fact. IMO no way was there an accomplice in the death of Caylee.

*cough* legal questions thread *cough* But I get lost in these threads too.

Just as I thought, Dr. Weitz is an expert in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Although I don't know how any Dr. could render an opinion on that without a psych exam. Would you agree AZ that this is the way they are going?

Very possibly. And he might have done a psych exam in the jail, or he might be interpreting one that someone else on the team did.

 

[pip]

The DT wants to add Asst State Prosecutor Kenneth Lewis as a witness for information he may have that has impeded ICA's due process under Brady v.Maryland, does this mean under subpoena? Lewis is not a voluntary witness I assume, correct? (prob a dumb question :blushing:.. but at first I thought wha??, why would a prosecutor for the state want to be a witness?) And what exculpatory information could he possibly have?? Smokescreens by the defense here again?

 

[Jolynna]

Wouldn't a PTSD defense (to explain KC's "happy face") require an accidental death (and finality)? The kidnapping scenario is open-ended. Which would leave jurors wondering why the mother headed for Blockbusters instead of doing something/anything to try to get her kidnapped child back.

Would an accidental death scenario have any chance of success without KC taking the stand?

Thank you so much for being here AZ. No matter what else is going on in my life, this thread is one I make a point to read almost every day.

 

[Numbers]

I found Baez's questioning of both the dog handler and Dr. Vass to be insulting and demeaning in tone and (often) in words. In a regular conversation I would have told Baez to go..... <fill in your choice>..... but I understand that doing so on the stand might result in being declared a hostile witness, or mess up the proceedings in some way.

Is there any recourse for a witness who is being treated thusly? Can a witness ask the judge to instruct the attorney to be respectful? How could this be handled? What might happen if the witness snarks back at the lawyer?

Or - [ick] - does the witness just have to suck it up?

 

[lauriej]

..when ms.finnel is talking about the NOT mental health defense , she references:


AF- "I don&#8217;t know of any vehicle that I&#8217;m aware of that would authorize the State of Florida to examine under these circumstances, but this obviously , this may invoke some kind of litigation. Like I say, it&#8217;s not a Mental health defense.
So it doesn&#8217;t trigger any of the requirements under 3.316."


----what is 3.316?


( ann finnel DID say, "the requirements of, 363 1, uh, 3.316.."

..(--if the 363 1 means anything..)
..i took the 363 1 to be a mistake on her part-- she changed immediatley to the 3.316..)

 

[Bittiness39]

Let me go about this in a different way, what innocent person (depraved indifference or just out right murder) would call home from jail and scream at her parent (CA), laugh at her friend for expressing concern over the defendent's own daughter, and only want her boyfriend's phone number? Would not an innocent person be screaming from moment one, about how to locate said (ZFG) abductor, that she doesn't have a whole lot of time to talk but this is how to find said(Zenaida Fernandez-(HYPHEN)-Gonzalez)..that time was of the essence...that it must somehow be of the upmost importance to divulge everything about one's self to help...find her daughter? I guess I am in the fool in all of this because I thought that the victim was a helpless not yet 3 year old toddler...not a an adult who had obviously (track history) grifted her way through adulthood?

The jail phone call home clued a lot of us in as to how lacking in empathy Casey is...HUGE waste...let's talk about me and my current bf of the week...

So basically, what I am getting from following this case is, as long as no one catches you on video committing a crime, there is no crime? Far cry, from, the whole lame excuse attorneys use (imo) to say that everyone is entitled to a defense...no matter how manufactured it may be?

Is this case a dutch stone to show how low it gets to defend that?

 

[AZlawyer]

But then it would appear that the State's expert would also be able to examine her and the DT stated they didn't think the State would be entitled to that (am paraphrasing)--that is what has me a tad confused...but definitely has my interest picqued!

I don't think the State would be able to examine her if it was just "state of mind" evidence being presented.

The DT wants to add Asst State Prosecutor Kenneth Lewis as a witness for information he may have that has impeded ICA's due process under Brady v.Maryland, does this mean under subpoena? Lewis is not a voluntary witness I assume, correct? (prob a dumb question :blushing:.. but at first I thought wha??, why would a prosecutor for the state want to be a witness?) And what exculpatory information could he possibly have?? Smokescreens by the defense here again?

Brady information means that they think he has information that helps Casey's defense. I am QUITE sure that he would only appear under subpoena, but that has nothing to do with Brady.

No clue what information he would have. I would think he might know something that would cast doubt on Maya D's story, but since the SA does not plan to use Maya as a witness in any event, who cares?

Wouldn't PTSD defense require an accidental death (and finality). The kidnapping scenario is open-ended. Which would leave jurors wondering why the mother headed for Blockbusters instead of doing something/anything to try to get her kidnapped child back.

Could an accidental death scenario be successfully presented without putting KC on the stand?

Thank you so much for being here AZ. No matter what else is going on in my life, this thread is one I make a point to read almost every day.

Depends if the PTSD was from what happened to Caylee or from something (sexual abuse?) that happened years before and screwed up her mental coping skills for everything thereafter. Not that I believe this. But I don't think they will go for classic PTSD--it doesn't fit the behavior well enough. They don't need an actual diagnosis, though, to present this "state of mind" evidence.

An accidental death scenario could be presented without KC. Successfully? I doubt it. That's why I only gave a 15% chance of success to the best defense theory I could think of.

I found Baez's questioning of both the dog handler and Dr. Vass to be insulting and demeaning in tone and (often) in words. In a regular conversation I would have told Baez to go..... <fill in your choice>..... but I understand that doing so on the stand might result in being declared a hostile witness, or mess up the proceedings in some way.

Is there any recourse for a witness who is being treated thusly? Can a witness ask the judge to instruct the attorney to be respectful? How could this be handled? What might happen if the witness snarks back at the lawyer?

Or - [ick] - does the witness just have to suck it up?

The judge can put a stop to it, but they usually give such instructions in chambers, where the jury can't hear, unless things are getting really out of hand. Judges usually respond badly to witnesses who do anything other than answering questions.

What JB must not realize is that jurors HATE that behavior. :loser:

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

AZ, how do you think ICA's note taking will go over with jurors? Her total lack of caring?

 

[AZlawyer]

..when ms.finnel is talking about the NOT mental health defense , she references:


AF- "I don’t know of any vehicle that I’m aware of that would authorize the State of Florida to examine under these circumstances, but this obviously , this may invoke some kind of litigation. Like I say, it’s not a Mental health defense.
So it doesn’t trigger any of the requirements under 3.316."


----what is 3.316?


( ann finnel DID say, "the requirements of, 363 1, uh, 3.316.."

..(--if the 363 1 means anything..)
..i took the 363 1 to be a mistake on her part-- she changed immediatley to the 3.316..)

Could it have been 3.216? That's the rule allowing the State to do a mental health exam of any defendant claiming insanity.

Let me go about this in a different way, what innocent person (depraved indifference or just out right murder) would call home from jail and scream at her parent (CA), laugh at her friend for expressing concern over the defendent's own daughter, and only want her boyfriend's phone number? Would not an innocent person be screaming from moment one, about how to locate said (ZFG) abductor, that she doesn't have a whole lot of time to talk but this is how to find said(Zenaida Fernandez-(HYPHEN)-Gonzalez)..that time was of the essence...that it must somehow be of the upmost importance to divulge everything about one's self to help...find her daughter? I guess I am in the fool in all of this because I thought that the victim was a helpless not yet 3 year old toddler...not a an adult who had obviously (track history) grifted her way through adulthood?

The jail phone call home clued a lot of us in as to how lacking in empathy Casey is...HUGE waste...let's talk about me and my current bf of the week...

So basically, what I am getting from following this case is, as long as no one catches you on video committing a crime, there is no crime? Far cry, from, the whole lame excuse attorneys use (imo) to say that everyone is entitled to a defense...no matter how manufactured it may be?

Is this case a dutch stone to show how low it gets to defend that?

LB, when JB presents his expert witness who will explain everything about why Casey acted the way she did, you will be free of all this stress. You will sit back, smile, sigh and say, "Oh, well then, that's all right. I understand now." :floorlaugh:

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, how do you think ICA's note taking will go over with jurors? Her total lack of caring?

I don't think her note taking will be as much of a problem as her failure to react normally. When she does react, it seems...odd. :waitasec:

 

[lauriej]

Could it have been 3.216? That's the rule allowing the State to do a mental health exam of any defendant claiming insanity.

..thank you AZ.

------yes, she quite possibly meant that---3.216--- ( she was quite flustered when coming up with the 'statute #'.)

( ann finnel: "the requirements of, 363 1, uh, 3.316..")

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

my apologies if this has already been asked and i missed it..

what does baez mean by calling the dog handler an "adverse witness"?
Here http://www.wftv.com/video/27313799/index.html

I found this:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/AdverseWitness.aspx

The right of a party calling a witness to show that the witness made a prior inconsistent statement.

A rule of evidence in regards to trial protocol. A party in litigation cannot, generally, call a witness and during examination in chief, attempt to discredit their own witness.

There are three general exceptions to that: the unfavourable witness, the adverse witness and the hostile witness. Where a party&#8217;s witness makes a statement at trial, under oath, which is inconsistent with a prior statement, the party may direct the witness&#8217; attention to the prior statement.

The rules of court of most jurisdictions typically set out the circumstances which would allow this extraordinary initiative of on-the-record disagreement with one&#8217;s own witness.

Canada&#8217;s Evidence Act, v. 2007, at ¶24, reads as follows:

&#8220;A party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach his credit by general evidence of bad character, but if the witness, in the opinion of the court, proves adverse, the party may contradict him by other evidence, or, by leave of the court, may prove that the witness made at other times a statement inconsistent with his present testimony, but before the last mentioned proof can be given the circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, shall be mentioned to the witness, and he shall be asked whether or not he did make the statement.&#8221;

so i guess my question is.. what made jb call him an adverse witness? what did the handler testify to or what was he supposedly inconsistent about?
thanks

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I don't think her note taking will be as much of a problem as her failure to react normally. When she does react, it seems...odd. :waitasec:

Don't you think it's obvious that that's the exact reason why the DT has Casey "looking busy", because she hasn't the capability to react normally and they know it?

I believe the Jury will view this pen/paper routine of Casey's as something that only makes it look even more apparent that the DT is trying to cover for Casey's lack of maternal concern, rather than helping it, or hiding it as they're trying to do.

Bottom line, they're actually emphasizing the very thing they're trying to hide.

 

[AZlawyer]

my apologies if this has already been asked and i missed it..

what does baez mean by calling the dog handler an "adverse witness"?
Here http://www.wftv.com/video/27313799/index.html

I found this:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/AdverseWitness.aspx


so i guess my question is.. what made jb call him an adverse witness? what did the handler testify to or what was he supposedly inconsistent about?
thanks

It wasn't about being inconsistent. It was about being "on the side" of the SA. Just being on the SA's witness list doesn't make you an adverse/hostile witness, but being really antagonistic about answering questions from Casey's lawyer would. In this case, however, what I think HHJP was saying is, "he's not antagonistic toward you; your questions are just carp."

Don't you think it's obvious that that's the exact reason why the DT has Casey "looking busy", because she hasn't the capability to react normally and they know it?

I believe the Jury will view this pen/paper routine of Casey's as something that only makes it look even more apparent that the DT is trying to cover for Casey's lack of maternal concern, rather than helping it, or hiding it as they're trying to do.

Bottom line, they're actually emphasizing the very thing they're trying to hide.

This is a good point. I think over the course of 2 months Casey's "busy paralegal" routine will start to seem very strange to the jury. They will start watching her more closely, and she will slip into the cold staring Casey look more often.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

This is a good point. I think over the course of 2 months Casey's "busy paralegal" routine will start to seem very strange to the jury. They will start watching her more closely, and she will slip into the cold staring Casey look more often.

I appreciate your emphasis (and really wish there was more of it all-around), on "jury perception" of the defendant. My intent is not to insult anyone else, but I'm not sure that everyone understands the magnitude of importance that defendant-image is to the seated jury. I hate to apply percentages to anything that is so subjective, but I'm willing to go out on the limb far enough to say that very roughly speaking from my experience, the defendant-image to the jury is per ratio, at least 1/3 as equally powerful as is the actual witness testimony.

I hope that made sense, but I think you get my meaning, but if not, put it this way: if there is any juror who has the least bit of doubt as to a certain 'issue' of testimony, i.e., "Could Casey really have so little feeling as her statements imply?" - her court room behavior which is reflective of ice-water running through her veins would certainly solidify that juror's doubt.

This is CL101 education, AZ, so aren't you absolutely floored that her DT isn't putting more emphasis on this? I know that I am.

ETA: I probably just answered my own question, as I re-read my post. I predict that your answer is going to be something similar to, "You can't put lipstick on a pig" - translation, they can't make Casey react normally as maternal love isn't something you can instill, therefore, they have to do the best they can with what they have to work with.

How close am I? lol

 

[chakti]

Thank You AZ, you do so much for us.

What I really wonder about is if the jury will be able to or even need to hear and ponder all the little things that we all have for the last couple years.

Case in point: your signture line: It would make KC sick to think of her baby alive with someone else??

Who with a missing loved one would ever say such a thing ??

Will the jury pick up such things ??

 

[AZlawyer]

I appreciate your emphasis (and really wish there was more of it all-around), on "jury perception" of the defendant. My intent is not to insult anyone else, but I'm not sure that everyone understands the magnitude of importance that defendant-image is to the seated jury. I hate to apply percentages to anything that is so subjective, but I'm willing to go out on the limb far enough to say that very roughly speaking from my experience, the defendant-image to the jury is per ratio, at least 1/3 as equally powerful as is the actual witness testimony.

I hope that made sense, but I think you get my meaning, but if not, put it this way: if there is any juror who has the least bit of doubt as to a certain 'issue' of testimony, i.e., "Could Casey really have so little feeling as her statements imply?" - her court room behavior which is reflective of ice-water running through her veins would certainly solidify that juror's doubt.

This is CL101 education, AZ, so aren't you absolutely floored that her DT isn't putting more emphasis on this? I know that I am.

ETA: I probably just answered my own question, as I re-read my post. I predict that your answer is going to be something similar to, "You can't put lipstick on a pig" - translation, they can't make Casey react normally as maternal love isn't something you can instill, therefore, they have to do the best they can with what they have to work with.

How close am I? lol

That's exactly what I was going to say--they can't make her act innocent, so they have to make do with what they've got.

Thank You AZ, you do so much for us.

What I really wonder about is if the jury will be able to or even need to hear and ponder all the little things that we all have for the last couple years.

Case in point: your signture line: It would make KC sick to think of her baby alive with someone else??

Who with a missing loved one would ever say such a thing ??

Will the jury pick up such things ??

The SA will not really have time to point out all those tiny little things. Think about how long these itty bitty hearings took--2 months of trial is going to fill up fast.

 

[dallasnc]

..thank you AZ.

------yes, she quite possibly meant that---3.216--- ( she was quite flustered when coming up with the 'statute #'.)

( ann finnel: "the requirements of, 363 1, uh, 3.316..")

Starts around 9:20 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdDIwRK94Wo&feature=player_embedded#at=832

AZ.....She does state 3.316 and litigation.

My understanding of this is she gets fustrated and starts talking about submitting case law to the court when Mr. A states if it involves an interview with Casey the the state would want to have someone see her to even if it involved finding some way besides why they will state they can't. He pushes for the report because he has no idea what it will involve.

Sorry for spelling and grammer etc. The reason I don't post much. I thought the link my be helpful. Thanks for making this process understandable!

 

[pip]

AZ, not sure if it's has been asked already, but will George's Grand Jury testimony be revealed at trial for the jurors to hear? TIA
pip

 

[Blaise]

I have been involved in cases just as contentious.

Do the contentious feelings / actions carry over? Could you sit down today and have a beer with these opposing counsel?

Blaise