Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[BChand]

Apparently the defense is yet again using the media.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/48_hou...cdnytMNMN9mxktQNSw5ct1Q&vs=homepage&play=true

The last part shows the jury consultant asking the mock jurors to stand up if they would acquit Casey Anthony. They all seem to stand up.

How do our lawyers here feel about mock jurys? Do you think they are reliable?

 

[AZlawyer]

Apparently the defense is yet again using the media.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/48_hou...cdnytMNMN9mxktQNSw5ct1Q&vs=homepage&play=true

The last part shows the jury consultant asking the mock jurors to stand up if they would acquit Casey Anthony. They all seem to stand up.

How do our lawyers here feel about mock jurys? Do you think they are reliable?

I don't think much of them, as long as the lawyers working on the case have a little common sense, objectivity and "normal people" friends to talk to.

 

[rhornsby]

Apparently the defense is yet again using the media.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/48_hou...cdnytMNMN9mxktQNSw5ct1Q&vs=homepage&play=true

The last part shows the jury consultant asking the mock jurors to stand up if they would acquit Casey Anthony. They all seem to stand up.

How do our lawyers here feel about mock jurys? Do you think they are reliable?

The key to that segment was the question, it specifically asked if they would acquit if only for "first degree murder." he did not ask if they would acquit of all charged offenses or any lesser offenses.

Also, mock juries can be extremely beneficial. As they can help you hone in on weaknesses in our case, your presentation, and identify strengths. If you can afford them and have the time to do a test run of our case; they are extremely helpful.

 

[redfish]

The key to that segment was the question, it specifically asked if they would acquit if only for "first degree murder." he did not ask if they would acquit of all charged offenses or any lesser offenses.

Also, mock juries can be extremely beneficial. As they can help you hone in on weaknesses in our case, your presentation, and identify strengths. If you can afford them and have the time to do a test run of our case; they are extremely helpful.

Mr. Hornesby, as an attorney, what do you think about this show airing so close to jury selection?

 

[RR0004]

The key to that segment was the question, it specifically asked if they would acquit if only for "first degree murder." he did not ask if they would acquit of all charged offenses or any lesser offenses.

Also, mock juries can be extremely beneficial. As they can help you hone in on weaknesses in our case, your presentation, and identify strengths. If you can afford them and have the time to do a test run of our case; they are extremely helpful.

Yup, I caught that question as well...the moderator enunciated it quite clearly.

 

[Baznme]

Question: Of all the evidence the State has against ICA, is there any of it that will be able to show pre-meditation?

 

[Solace]

Question: What do you think the defense is going to say on opening statement the reason for waiting the 31 days was?

If it is going to be to save the family and the kidnapper had the child? Then my question is how are they going to get around all the lies she told Tony, Amy, Jesse, Ricarodo, etc. about the father not being home and having affairs etc. What is the reason for all the lies about things that do not pertain to the child missing? Just read TL interview again and he points that out re lies about mother and father, etc. And how the lies are interwoven with some truth but the names changed e.g. Amy's car was totalled/Zannie had an accident.

2. If they are going to use the sexual abuse and her having post traumatic stress, then they are going to admit from the get that she killed the child?

Forgive me if you have answered, the threads are so long. Thanks.

 

[Solace]

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.

As I recall, His Honor does not want her at the entire proceeding because she is ALSO testifying and her testimony could be influenced by something she heard or did not hear? I never got the impression it was because of her facial expressions, etc. ??

 

[MissJames]

Can Judge Perry still issue a gag order (although the barn door is wide open) .Does one of the parties have to request it?

 

[beach]

I moved the posts discussing the date of the diary to this thread. I'll bump another one for reference too.

This is a no discussion thread and is limited for asking strictly legal questions directed to our attorneys.

 

[AZlawyer]

Question: Of all the evidence the State has against ICA, is there any of it that will be able to show pre-meditation?

The three strips of duct tape. She had time to reconsider what she was going to do each time she cut/tore a strip. But she didn't.

ETA- Oops sorry, forgot what thread I was on.

For me, that doesn't do it. Do they have her DNA, fingerprints on anything they found with Caylee? We don't know.

The one thing I can think of is her letter in her journal where she says "I have no regrets" dated five days after Caylee's alleged date of going missing. But that's all I can come up with.

If the jury believes that Casey placed the duct tape on Caylee's face before Caylee was dead, that would show premeditation.

If the jury believes that Casey used chloroform on Caylee, that would show premeditation because of the Google searches for chloroform a couple of months earlier.

The fact that Casey was NOT SAD AT ALL after Caylee was dead suggests premeditation.

As for the journal, AFAIK there is no good evidence that the entry was written in 2008.

DNA and fingerprints would not help show premeditation at all.

Question: What do you think the defense is going to say on opening statement the reason for waiting the 31 days was?

1. If it is going to be to save the family and the kidnapper had the child? Then my question is how are they going to get around all the lies she told Tony, Amy, Jesse, Ricarodo, etc. about the father not being home and having affairs etc. What is the reason for all the lies about things that do not pertain to the child missing? Just read TL interview again and he points that out re lies about mother and father, etc. And how the lies are interwoven with some truth but the names changed e.g. Amy's car was totalled/Zannie had an accident.

2. If they are going to use the sexual abuse and her having post traumatic stress, then they are going to admit from the get go that she killed the child?

Forgive me if you have answered, the threads are so long. Thanks.

1. I doubt it. This option is too unbelievable.

2. No. I think they will say she acted strangely during the 31 days because of a mental problem (perhaps PTSD, perhaps something else), but that the strange behavior followed the ACCIDENTAL death of Caylee from some cause that cannot be blamed on Casey.

As I recall, His Honor does not want her at the entire proceeding because she is ALSO testifying and her testimony could be influenced by something she heard or did not hear? I never got the impression it was because of her facial expressions, etc. ??

Correct. But normally there is an exception for the victim's "next of kin." Assuming Cindy would qualify as "next of kin" (a big assumption IMO), she would normally be allowed to stay for the entire trial even if she were also a witness. But in this case, IMO HHJP has some concerns about treating the As as "next of kin," in part due to the fact that their credibility is important to the case and they seem unable to keep their stories straight, and in part due to the fact that they cannot keep their emotions to themselves within the courtroom.

Can Judge Perry still issue a gag order (although the barn door is wide open) .Does one of the parties have to request it?

Yes, he can still issue one; no, he does not have to wait for anyone to ask.

 

[Solace]

If the jury believes that Casey placed the duct tape on Caylee's face before Caylee was dead, that would show premeditation.

If the jury believes that Casey used chloroform on Caylee, that would show premeditation because of the Google searches for chloroform a couple of months earlier.

The fact that Casey was NOT SAD AT ALL after Caylee was dead suggests premeditation.

As for the journal, AFAIK there is no good evidence that the entry was written in 2008.

DNA and fingerprints would not help show premeditation at all.



1. I doubt it. This option is too unbelievable.

2. No. I think they will say she acted strangely during the 31 days because of a mental problem (perhaps PTSD, perhaps something else), but that the strange behavior followed the ACCIDENTAL death of Caylee from some cause that cannot be blamed on Casey.



Correct. But normally there is an exception for the victim's "next of kin." Assuming Cindy would qualify as "next of kin" (a big assumption IMO), she would normally be allowed to stay for the entire trial even if she were also a witness. But in this case, IMO HHJP has some concerns about treating the As as "next of kin," in part due to the fact that their credibility is important to the case and they seem unable to keep their stories straight, and in part due to the fact that they cannot keep their emotions to themselves within the courtroom.



Yes, he can still issue one; no, he does not have to wait for anyone to ask.

One more question and thanks again. What kind of accident - say pool? And she was too afraid to say what happened? Too afraid of Cindy? or too afraid of police?

If she says Cindy - the prosecution will bring out how she talked to Cindy on the phone from jail on the 16th? How Annie Downing heard her call her mother a f%$#ing idiot when she was on bail, how the neiighbors heard her do the same on a regular basis in the front of her house - would that not negate her being afraid of her mother?

 

[AZlawyer]

One more question and thanks again. What kind of accident - say pool? And she was too afraid to say what happened? Too afraid of Cindy? or too afraid of police?

If she says Cindy - the prosecution will bring out how she talked to Cindy on the phone from jail on the 16th? How Annie Downing heard her call her mother a f%$#ing idiot when she was on bail, how the neiighbors heard her do the same on a regular basis in the front of her house - would that not negate her being afraid of her mother?

I cannot even begin to guess the specifics of the defense argument. Even my guess that they will say there was an accident is just a guess.

But yes, if they say that Casey was scared of Cindy, there will be a lot of evidence on the other side. She acts more like she hates her mother than like she's scared of her mother. But that doesn't mean the defense can't make the argument.

 

[Solace]

I cannot even begin to guess the specifics of the defense argument. Even my guess that they will say there was an accident is just a guess.

But yes, if they say that Casey was scared of Cindy, there will be a lot of evidence on the other side. She acts more like she hates her mother than like she's scared of her mother. But that doesn't mean the defense can't make the argument.

Thanks AZ, Really helpful.

 

[Pattymarie]

Regarding the stain in the trunk. I could never see it until someone posted the drawing of the outline of all the pressure points of the body. Then, when I saw this, to me, it was the most shocking (and sad) thing I saw to date.

Will the this enhanced version be allowed to be shown to the jury? Will it be up to the jury to decide if they are seeing the same thing I saw?

 

[AZlawyer]

Regarding the stain in the trunk. I could never see it until someone posted the drawing of the outline of all the pressure points of the body. Then, when I saw this, to me, it was the most shocking (and sad) thing I saw to date.

Will the this enhanced version be allowed to be shown to the jury? Will it be up to the jury to decide if they are seeing the same thing I saw?

Enhanced photos will probably be allowed. But drawing an outline will probably not be allowed, because it is too likely to suggest a shape that jurors didn't previously see.

As soon as the jurors get back in that jury room, though, whoever sees the shape will be outlining it for the other jurors.

 

[chefmom]

Enhanced photos will probably be allowed. But drawing an outline will probably not be allowed, because it is too likely to suggest a shape that jurors didn't previously see.

As soon as the jurors get back in that jury room, though, whoever sees the shape will be outlining it for the other jurors.

Do you think the enhanced photos will show the outline? Will the SA be allowed to point to the parts they believe are the head, legs, etc., and give the jurors a frame of reference? TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you think the enhanced photos will show the outline? Will the SA be allowed to point to the parts they believe are the head, legs, etc., and give the jurors a frame of reference? TIA!

We've seen the enhanced photos, and they're not that great--not as good as JWG's. But we can only hope they will show up better in the original resolution.

The SA should be allowed to point out certain aspects of the stain. If I were the SA, I would point out how different parts of the stain match the bone measurements of the body found on Suburban, and how the total height of the stain matches Caylee's height from the neck down. This should be admissible evidence, and the jurors can then figure out the outline for themselves.

 

[LolaMoon08]

AZlawyer,

I just want you to know how amazing you are and how much I appreciate everything you do here! I hope that you are prepared to work a lot of overtime come trial time? :great: Because you will be needed more than ever!

I do not know you personally... but if I am ever in your neck of the desert again... I will be sending my favorite shot (Floridian style) your way!

Now... to my question...

I don't really have one... except... do you know how valuable you are? I hope you do...

Thank you!

 

[chckmate22]

Ok I will try and be brief as possible. As far as the Frye issue and the state wanting certain evidence entered and the defense arguing not to have said evidence entered...Does the judge decided based on the arguments of the attys only in this case or does he base it on other things? So if the SA presented their case better or the DT was able to successfully defend why it should not be allowed, is that how it will be decided? Does this make any sense?