Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AlwaysShocked]

Hypothetical case: You are a defense attorney. Your client is in jail awaiting trial. The court orders a mental health exam of your client. You will not be allowed to be in the room at the time of said exam.

What type of advice do you give to your client in preparation for such an exam?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hypothetical case: You are a defense attorney. Your client is in jail awaiting trial. The court orders a mental health exam of your client. You will not be allowed to be in the room at the time of said exam.

What type of advice do you give to your client in preparation for such an exam?

I suppose to do/say everything exactly the same as she did for "our" side's expert witness. I would be biting my nails the whole time, though!

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Thanks AZ. I wonder just how much of those exams that took place almost three years ago she would actually remember. Has Jose read them by now and would he be be able to provide her with a transcript of those interviews so that she can "refresh her memory"?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZ. I wonder just how much of those exams that took place almost three years ago she would actually remember. Has Jose read them by now and would he be be able to provide her with a transcript of those interviews so that she can "refresh her memory"?

I don't know if they are relying on exams that took place 3 years ago. But in any event, I doubt the exams were transcribed.

 

[gamom]

In regards to Frebreeze. Now that CA has made that statement, can they SA contact Frebreeze or experts to debunk this theory?? Or is it to late and any/all discovery has to have already been submitted into evidence?

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by 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"?

AZLawyer:
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?

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.

If it is not too much trouble.... AZLawyer ... could you give us a brief summary of what the cases which the State cited say?

- Dilbeck v State 643 So.2d 1027 (Fla.,1994)
- State v Hickson 630 So. 2d 172 (Fla., 1993)

And what do the FL Statutes say, that you found, which say the State does NOT have the right to have the Defendant examined by a State expert? What is the basis of denying the State this access?

In the March 24, 2011 Hearing when Ashton told the Judge about the Defense Motion on these new witnesses - why do you think Judge Perry immediately asked if the State would want their Expert to examine the Defendant (if the Judge already knew it would not be allowed according to Florida law)?

 

[Joanner]

I had asked before if George, Cindy, and Lee would be allowed in the courtroom as a spectator during the trial and AZ said no.

I am wondering if they will be allowed in the courtroom when the verdict is announced? I can imagine that there will be an outburst from them if found guilty.

 

[AZlawyer]

In regards to Frebreeze. Now that CA has made that statement, can they SA contact Frebreeze or experts to debunk this theory?? Or is it to late and any/all discovery has to have already been submitted into evidence?

It is really up to HHJP's discretion, but in this case I think he will let the State disclose "late" evidence in this regard, because it is a pretty straightforward issue for the existing experts to address.

Originally Posted by 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"?

AZLawyer:
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?

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.

If it is not too much trouble.... AZLawyer ... could you give us a brief summary of what the cases which the State cited say?

- Dilbeck v State 643 So.2d 1027 (Fla.,1994)
- State v Hickson 630 So. 2d 172 (Fla., 1993)

And what do the FL Statutes say, that you found, which say the State does NOT have the right to have the Defendant examined by a State expert? What is the basis of denying the State this access?

In the March 24, 2011 Hearing when Ashton told the Judge about the Defense Motion on these new witnesses - why do you think Judge Perry immediately asked if the State would want their Expert to examine the Defendant (if the Judge already knew it would not be allowed according to Florida law)?

The case law basically says that it is impossible for the State to effectively rebut mental health testimony based on an examination of the defendant without being allowed to have the State's expert also conduct such an examination.

The rules provide for the State to conduct an examination where an insanity defense is being offered, or where mental mitigation evidence is being offered during the penalty phase, but say nothing about what happens if mental health evidence is offered during the guilt phase to explain how post-incident behavior is consistent with innocence rather than guilt.

So the examination requested by the State is supported by case law, and not addressed by the rules. IMO HHJP will either: (1) not allow the mental state evidence at all, or (2) more likely, will allow the State to conduct its own mental exam of Casey.

I had asked before if George, Cindy, and Lee would be allowed in the courtroom as a spectator during the trial and AZ said no.

I am wondering if they will be allowed in the courtroom when the verdict is announced? I can imagine that there will be an outburst from them if found guilty.

Yes, they would be allowed to be there for the verdict, assuming they can find a seat. :innocent:

 

[Capri]

Just a thanks- no question to all the lawyers who post and answer our never-ending questions here, esp. AZ. You all have no idea how helpful it is! Thanks!
:blowkiss:

 

[rhornsby]

I suggest you all look up Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(e). I suspect that is where Baez and Co. want to go, but are too dense to realize there is a rule that covers the issue and the state's corresponding right (See Rule 3.216(f)) to examine their client.

 

[logicalgirl]

AZLawyer - I noticed in the last hearing CA was remarkably poker faced and kept her head down most of the time - will it be enough if she keeps it up for the next four weeks to allow her to be there for the full trial? Clearly somebody has given her a talking to.

 

[Capri]

Mental health defense other than insanity?

 

[Joanner]

3.216(f) says that attorneys for the state and defendent may be present at the [mental health] examination.

Does that mean that Baez, et al, could object to Casey answering some of the examiner's questions?

 

[Snaz]

I suggest you all look up Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(e). I suspect that is where Baez and Co. want to go, but are too dense to realize there is a rule that covers the issue and the state's corresponding right (See Rule 3.216(f)) to examine their client.

Respectfully BBM.

Page 81:

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/programs-services/court-resource-center/downloads/CrimRulesUpdate.pdf

 

[Joanner]

If Casey is found guilty, there will most likely be an appeal. Since she has been declared indigent, would she get an appointed lawyer, or, might some other local attorney(s) step up to represent her? Baez wouldn't try it again, or would he??? :floorlaugh:

 

[CA Lady]

I suggest you all look up Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(e). I suspect that is where Baez and Co. want to go, but are too dense to realize there is a rule that covers the issue and the state's corresponding right (See Rule 3.216(f)) to examine their client.

At the 3/24 hearing when Ann Finnell first brought this up, this is what she said (may not be exact):

"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 uhhh it's not a mental health defense. So it doesn’t trigger any of the requirements under (-stammer, stammer-) 3six, 3.1, ummm 3.316, or under the ummm.."

Even though she stammered, it appears she was referring to 3.216 and not a mental health defense.

If this is what she said, what other rule could she possibly be alluding to??

 

[AZlawyer]

I suggest you all look up Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(e). I suspect that is where Baez and Co. want to go, but are too dense to realize there is a rule that covers the issue and the state's corresponding right (See Rule 3.216(f)) to examine their client.

See, I don't think so, because that rule is about a mental health DEFENSE and AF made it pretty clear she was not talking about a defense. Instead, I think she's talking about a mental health explanation for Casey's behavior during the 31 days that is consistent with ACTUAL INNOCENCE--not a defense at all.

AZLawyer - I noticed in the last hearing CA was remarkably poker faced and kept her head down most of the time - will it be enough if she keeps it up for the next four weeks to allow her to be there for the full trial? Clearly somebody has given her a talking to.

I can see she's trying, but IMO HHJP will not want to take a chance on her. There will be no appeal issue if he kicks her out, but she could screw up the trial if he lets her stay.

If Casey is found guilty, there will most likely be an appeal. Since she has been declared indigent, would she get an appointed lawyer, or, might some other local attorney(s) step up to represent her? Baez wouldn't try it again, or would he??? :floorlaugh:

There will definitely be an appeal--it's automatic--and she will get appointed counsel.

 

[rhornsby]

At the 3/24 hearing when Ann Finnell first brought this up, this is what she said (may not be exact):

"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 uhhh it's not a mental health defense. So it doesn’t trigger any of the requirements under (-stammer, stammer-) 3six, 3.1, ummm 3.316, or under the ummm.."

Even though she stammered, it appears she was referring to 3.216 and not a mental health defense.

If this is what she said, what other rule could she possibly be alluding to??

Yes, and if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. Which is why she knew it would likely need litigation.

 

[Capri]

Ok, lawyers, dumb this down for me. By what AF has stated, and the rest, you're guessing that DT will still maintain ICA's innocence, but use the mental health issues, (not defense)to explain her inappropriate behavior after Caylee was missing (i.e. the clubbing and carefree lifestyle)?

 

[rhornsby]

Ok, lawyers, dumb this down for me. By what AF has stated, and the rest, you're guessing that DT will still maintain ICA's innocence, but use the mental health issues, (not defense)to explain her inappropriate behavior after Caylee was missing (i.e. the clubbing and carefree lifestyle)?

You are correct.