Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

ohhh i have a good question!

can P&G lay the smack down on the DT for making false claims against their product (febreze)?
even thought they never out right said that febreze will produce chloroform.. they're pretty much trying to blame that for what was found in the air sample test. that's a little wreckless imo...

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you think the "air sample" evidence passed the Frye test?

Personally, I would not let it in if I were the judge. Luckily for the SA I am not the judge. I think HHJP seemed inclined to let it in.

I have a question!

So I hear a lot of talk about 'mistrials' and this case isn't the only time I've heard it mentioned. Can one of you lawyers please explain WHY a defendant/DT would ever wish for a mistrial?
I can only imagine that it would be if they thought things weren't going well in the original trial and would like a re-do. But why talk of it now, before it even begins?
A mistrial would only mean more time sitting in jail for the defendant who 'swears by their innocence'.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this issue.

TIA

I don't think you're misunderstanding at all. IMO the only reason for the defense to seek a mistrial in a death penalty case is to delay the imposition of the death penalty for a guilty client. I suppose the defense team could be hoping for a mistrial to be granted over their objection for some reason that was reasonably avoidable, in which case a retrial would not be permitted. But I don't know how you really aim for that result. :waitasec:

ohhh i have a good question!

can P&G lay the smack down on the DT for making false claims against their product (febreze)?
even thought they never out right said that febreze will produce chloroform.. they're pretty much trying to blame that for what was found in the air sample test. that's a little wreckless imo...

No, there would be immunity for the DT because this statement was made in court.

 

[SunnyinMO]

IMO the judge is very likely to exclude them despite their claimed "victim" status, as they are unable to maintain composure in the courtroom and their credibility is very much at issue. (Lee, I think, has not even attempted to claim "victim" status, so he should certainly be excluded from the courtroom.)



Katprint, I'm so glad you're here. You always give the serious answer after I give the flippant answer. :blowkiss:

AZ, would you please explain 'victim' status? I am sure in this case it must be different than normal as they are parents of the defendant and grandparents to the victim. What is victim status and how are they able to claim it....thanks

 

[gamom]

Do you think the SA really needs the air samples to come in? Dr. Vass is an expert in decomposition...that seems to not be in question. The only thing that is being questioned is the methods of this air sample. Don't you think he would be just as powerful stepping on the stand and confirming the smell of death in the trunk?

 

[Curious Me]

I would like to know if the Defense would have any success saying Casey was in a Dissociative Fugue state of mind for those 31 days?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, would you please explain 'victim' status? I am sure in this case it must be different than normal as they are parents of the defendant and grandparents to the victim. What is victim status and how are they able to claim it....thanks

The only category the As might fit into would be "next of kin of a homicide victim"--and that's assuming that the category is broadly interpreted to mean next of kin not including the accused or the "MIA presumed dead" daddy. I think HHJP will give them the benefit of the doubt on this one but still won't let them sit in the courtroom for the whole trial.

Do you think the SA really needs the air samples to come in? Dr. Vass is an expert in decomposition...that seems to not be in question. The only thing that is being questioned is the methods of this air sample. Don't you think he would be just as powerful stepping on the stand and confirming the smell of death in the trunk?

Yes, I do. And I don't think the air sample info is critical to the case. The reason the air samples were done at the time was to help the SA decide whether to charge Casey with murder despite the fact that no body had been found. Now, of course, a body has been found, so there is no question that Caylee is dead.

I would like to know if the Defense would have any success saying Casey was in a Dissociative Fugue state of mind for those 31 days?

Hey, this is questions for lawyers, not questions for psychiatrists. I have no clue quite honestly what exactly constitutes a "dissociative fugue." I doubt it is consistent with triple-bagging, duct taping, and making up cover stories, though, so IMO the defense team ought to go with something a little less "crazy" and a little more "unbalanced."

 

[sumbunny]

If Dr Vass's expert testimony is not permitted, is he still allowed to take the stand, and offer his expertise on the smell of death? What really hit home for me, was when he testified about the funeral home where the owners were too cheap to bury or cremate his clients. He had over 300 bodies under his own personal sniffing machine (his nose).

 

[jandkmom]

If ICA doesn't testify at the first hearing, is found guilty and granted an appeal hearing, can she then testify at the appeal hearing?

 

[AZlawyer]

If Dr Vass's expert testimony is not permitted, is he still allowed to take the stand, and offer his expertise on the smell of death? What really hit home for me, was when he testified about the funeral home where the owners were too cheap to bury or cremate his clients. He had over 300 bodies under his own personal sniffing machine (his nose).

I doubt it, actually, because he wasn't listed as an expert on that issue.

If ICA doesn't testify at the first hearing, is found guilty and granted an appeal hearing, can she then testify at the appeal hearing?

There are no hearings on appeal. If you mean a new trial, then yes, she could testify if she is granted a new trial.

 

[Katprint]

Personally, I would not let it in if I were the judge. Luckily for the SA I am not the judge. I think HHJP seemed inclined to let it in.

I would let in the bare results of the generally accepted gas-liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry i.e. the presence/absence of chloroform and other substances.

I would not let in the decomp database match analysis. I realize that wikipedia is not a controlling authority but I note that the entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography–mass_spectrometry#Applications detailing appropriate "Applications" describes analyzing fire debris, detecting illegal narcotics, toxicology to find drugs or poisons in suspects or victims, and to detect explosives. It does not mention detecting human decomposition.

In addition to the lack of general acceptance under Frye (since it is secret, it CANNOT be generally accepted), I particularly dislike the secret proprietary database preventing the defense from being able to effectively "confront" this witness. This is like the government prosecutions using secret witnesses (undercover police officers, paid informants, etc.) whose identities are not disclosed to the defense. There may be good reasons why their identity must be kept secret from the public, but the constitution - and basic fairness - require disclosure to the defense team.

If HHJP lets the air sample evidence in, and particularly any secret proprietary database analysis/comparison, then he should order the database to be disclosed to the defense - or at a bare minimum, the defense's expert - even if it is sealed from public disclosure. Same as Caylee's sealed autopsy photos.

If the expert testifies that air sample components matching his secret proprietary database prove that there was a decomposing human body in the back of Casey's car, then the defense is entitled to have access to that secret proprietary database. If the expert is may be unwilling to disclose his secret proprietary database under seal to the defense's expert, then he shouldn't be allowed to testify. Baez and Sims argued the issue poorly but it is true that unless the defense can independently test and analyze the evidence including this special database that forms the cornerstone of his expert opinion, then Casey's rights under the Confrontation Clause are being violated.

Both AZLawyer and I would have suppressed Casey's statements at Universal Studios after she was taken by the police officers into the conference room and the door was closed, but HHJP let those statements in. I agree with AZLawyer that HHJP will probably let in all of the air sample evidence too.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Capri]

As lead attorney, does that mean JB has to argue most of the case? Just wondering, b/c he seems to be even less effective in court than I expected. Certainly the rest of the DT must be aware of that too, and in the trial, would have CM or AF, present more?

 

[ThinkTank]

In the Hearing today...
Regarding the psychologists ... Ashton said he will file a Motion in Limine to ask the Court to prohibit mention of evidence until proffered during trial ...

What does that mean exactly? What does "proffer" mean?
And, why wait until trial to do the proffer?

Does it mean Ashton wants to wait until the Defense tries to bring up any "evidence" of whatever state-of-mind theory the Defense psychologists will say the Inmate suffers from, at trial, and make the Defense "proffer" a foundation for a mental health expert to claim that the Inmate suffers from such mental health condition???

 

[AZlawyer]

As lead attorney, does that mean JB has to argue most of the case? Just wondering, b/c he seems to be even less effective in court than I expected. Certainly the rest of the DT must be aware of that too, and in the trial, would have CM or AF, present more?

No, "lead attorney" is a meaningless designation.

"Quite frankly," I don't think any of them will come off well in front of a jury.

In the Hearing today...
Regarding the psychologists ... Ashton said he will file a Motion in Limine to ask the Court to prohibit mention of evidence until proffered during trial ...

What does that mean exactly? What does "proffer" mean?
And, why wait until trial to do the proffer?

Does it mean Ashton wants to wait until the Defense tries to bring up any "evidence" of whatever state-of-mind theory the Defense psychologists will say the Inmate suffers from, at trial, and make the Defense "proffer" a foundation for a mental health expert to claim that the Inmate suffers from such mental health condition???

"Proffer" means to show/tell the judge (not in front of the jury) the evidence you want to later show/tell the jury. Even if the judge has already ruled that evidence CAN'T come in, you might make a "proffer" so that the appeal court can see what the evidence would have been if it HAD been allowed in.

I didn't get to see the hearing, so I'd like to see this comment in context, but it sounds like JA doesn't want the defense talking in front of the jury about what the mental health experts will say until and unless the judge decides that the mental health testimony is actually coming in. That way, there will not be a mistrial if the jury hears something that never comes into evidence.

 

[ThinkTank]

"Proffer" means to show/tell the judge (not in front of the jury) the evidence you want to later show/tell the jury. Even if the judge has already ruled that evidence CAN'T come in, you might make a "proffer" so that the appeal court can see what the evidence would have been if it HAD been allowed in.

I didn't get to see the hearing, so I'd like to see this comment in context, but it sounds like JA doesn't want the defense talking in front of the jury about what the mental health experts will say until and unless the judge decides that the mental health testimony is actually coming in. That way, there will not be a mistrial if the jury hears something that never comes into evidence.

Thank you, when you have time would you please watch this portion of the Hearing video? So, this would mean the Defense cannot mention this mental health theory to the jury during voir dire for jury selection?

http://www.wftv.com/video/27480954/index.html
Part 7
(1:27 thru 4:02)
Judge - anything to update me concerning depositions taken yesterday
Ashton - started depositions of both of the most recently listed experts - spent 3 - 4 hrs with each - did not complete them - have rescheduled both of them for Wed next week -
we have provided Clerk with Motion for exam by mental health expert on behalf of the State - provided that to counsel today - we not be actually having an examination done before we finish depositions, so if defense wants a couple of days to look at the Motion and do a written response, we certainly aren't going to be delayed by doing that
we are in process of finding someone that we would like to talk to
it is our present intention based on what we know so far to file a motion in limine asking the court prohibit mention of this evidence until it is proffered during trial - so we will be able to file that probably Monday or Tuesday - even before we finish the depositions - so, you had expressed an interest in having something heard on Friday - we should be able to give counsel and the Court something hopefully on Monday, with a few days to think about it, and then we can argue it on Friday - that's our present plan-
I know if we do have examination, I doubt that will be done by the end of next week, because we have some logistics to deal with - but that is our plan at this point

(clip)

Judge Mr. Baez ... you gonna file a written response for motion of examination by mental health expert?
Baez - yes we will
Judge I will hear argument Friday at 1:30
Baez approach on one brief issue
sidebar

 

[Capri]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capri
As lead attorney, does that mean JB has to argue most of the case? Just wondering, b/c he seems to be even less effective in court than I expected. Certainly the rest of the DT must be aware of that too, and in the trial, would have CM or AF, present more?

No, "lead attorney" is a meaningless designation.

"Quite frankly," I don't think any of them will come off well in front of a jury.

Not even CM or AF? At least they've got the years in, doing this. Obviously, going by what we've seen of DCS, she's not their best choice, but I would thing CM has to come across better than JB in an actual cross-examination. No?

 

[ZsaZsa]

If the SA has ICA evaluated by their own Psychiatrist/Psychologist does her defense attend during those examinations?

 

[Trapshooter]

Does ICA have to speak with a psychiatrist/psychologist hired by the State? In other words, would she "have the right to remain silent"?

 

[ThinkTank]

If the SA has ICA evaluated by their own Psychiatrist/Psychologist does her defense attend during those examinations?

http://www.wftv.com/news/27475522/detail.html
excerpt:
"The defense cannot be present if and when a state mental health expert examines Casey. She could say anything that could help prosecutors and Sheaffer believes the judge will allow the state to examine Casey."

 

[janine]

I have a question!

Since we are now a month away from jury selections, will/or can potential jurors be subjected to disclosing any involvement in the case?
When I was a juror here in CA, I was asked if I knew the defendant, heard about the crime or had any involvement with the players. It was not a DP case but an important one none the less.
I'm wondering for those who live locally who may become part of the selection and who may be members HERE at Websleuthes, is there any way the courts can learn of that juror's involvement in discussions prior to trial and if so, can that jeopardize the case?
If it is not discovered now, how about later? Can that discovery affect the appeals process?

I know we post under fictitious names and all, but is there a way to find out a certain person is posting here?
Just curious.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you, when you have time would you please watch this portion of the Hearing video? So, this would mean the Defense cannot mention this mental health theory to the jury during voir dire for jury selection?

http://www.wftv.com/video/27480954/index.html
Part 7
(1:27 thru 4:02)
Judge - anything to update me concerning depositions taken yesterday
Ashton - started depositions of both of the most recently listed experts - spent 3 - 4 hrs with each - did not complete them - have rescheduled both of them for Wed next week -
we have provided Clerk with Motion for exam by mental health expert on behalf of the State - provided that to counsel today - we not be actually having an examination done before we finish depositions, so if defense wants a couple of days to look at the Motion and do a written response, we certainly aren't going to be delayed by doing that
we are in process of finding someone that we would like to talk to
it is our present intention based on what we know so far to file a motion in limine asking the court prohibit mention of this evidence until it is proffered during trial - so we will be able to file that probably Monday or Tuesday - even before we finish the depositions - so, you had expressed an interest in having something heard on Friday - we should be able to give counsel and the Court something hopefully on Monday, with a few days to think about it, and then we can argue it on Friday - that's our present plan-
I know if we do have examination, I doubt that will be done by the end of next week, because we have some logistics to deal with - but that is our plan at this point

(clip)

Judge Mr. Baez ... you gonna file a written response for motion of examination by mental health expert?
Baez - yes we will
Judge I will hear argument Friday at 1:30
Baez approach on one brief issue
sidebar

BBM: Yes, it looks like that's what JA is asking for...no mention of the mental health evidence until the judge has actually approved it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capri
As lead attorney, does that mean JB has to argue most of the case? Just wondering, b/c he seems to be even less effective in court than I expected. Certainly the rest of the DT must be aware of that too, and in the trial, would have CM or AF, present more?



Not even CM or AF? At least they've got the years in, doing this. Obviously, going by what we've seen of DCS, she's not their best choice, but I would thing CM has to come across better than JB in an actual cross-examination. No?

I didn't say they wouldn't come across better than JB...I said they wouldn't come across WELL.

If the SA has ICA evaluated by their own Psychiatrist/Psychologist does her defense attend during those examinations?

I doubt it. (ETA: ThinkTank posted a link saying that Shaeffer says no.)

Does ICA have to speak with a psychiatrist/psychologist hired by the State? In other words, would she "have the right to remain silent"?

I'm not sure. I've checked the rules I'm aware of in Florida and don't think the State would have a right to do an examination under those rules. But maybe there are other applicable rules I haven't seen? :waitasec:

ETA: Just saw the motion--it looks like the State is not relying on the discovery rule but on interpretation of the case law that inspired the rule. Might work.

I have a question!

Since we are now a month away from jury selections, will/or can potential jurors be subjected to disclosing any involvement in the case?
When I was a juror here in CA, I was asked if I knew the defendant, heard about the crime or had any involvement with the players. It was not a DP case but an important one none the less.
I'm wondering for those who live locally who may become part of the selection and who may be members HERE at Websleuthes, is there any way the courts can learn of that juror's involvement in discussions prior to trial and if so, can that jeopardize the case?
If it is not discovered now, how about later? Can that discovery affect the appeals process?

I know we post under fictitious names and all, but is there a way to find out a certain person is posting here?
Just curious.

The jurors will be asked about how much they've followed the case, etc. I would not suggest committing perjury. I suppose if it was later discovered that a WS'er was in the jury room saying, "Well, here's what JWG had to say about the computer searches..." there could be a problem on appeal--but let's just assume that any of our Florida members would be truthful if called.