Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

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?

The judge will decide based on the evidence presented to him and the law. The evidence consists of the documents the parties provided to him as well as the witness testimony. The arguments of attorneys are not evidence, but might sway the judge to consider the evidence and/or the law in a different light. In the case of HHJP, IMO he depends quite a bit on his own analysis of the evidence and the law, and not so much on what the attorneys say about it.

 

[ZsaZsa]

When JB was arguing 'junk science' it seemed to me it was mostly just his opinion he was stating- apart from producing a couple of odd 'experts' that were not convincing,I didn't hear him provide any factual documentation that the testing or the interpretation of the results were obtained by methods outside of the realm of accepted Scientific standards. Isn't that what he's required to do?

 

[AZlawyer]

When JB was arguing 'junk science' it seemed to me it was mostly just his opinion he was stating- apart from producing a couple of odd 'experts' that were not convincing,I didn't hear him provide any factual documentation that the testing or the interpretation of the results were obtained by methods outside of the realm of accepted Scientific standards. Isn't that what he's required to do?

Well, it was not his burden of proof, but yes, the State was required to prove that the scientific evidence was generally accepted in the relevant field. JB had expert witnesses who testified that the science was not generally accepted, although they didn't do too well under cross-examination.

 

[logicalgirl]

I've lost a paddle halfway up that creek again AZ! May have asked this before - but is evident accepted as Frye automatically subjected to be an appellate issue on conviction? Thanks!
Oh and on that same subject once evidence has passed the Frye "test" it is still then just evidence that can be argued against by the Defense at trial?

 

[magnolia]

Is there anything Judge Perry can do to delay the "48 hours" broadcast until after trial?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Well, it was not his burden of proof, but yes, the State was required to prove that the scientific evidence was generally accepted in the relevant field. JB had expert witnesses who testified that the science was not generally accepted, although they didn't do too well under cross-examination.

OK thanks, I misunderstood, I thought the burden of proof was on whomever was objecting to the validity of the tests/results.

 

[AZlawyer]

I've lost a paddle halfway up that creek again AZ! May have asked this before - but is evident accepted as Frye automatically subjected to be an appellate issue on conviction? Thanks!
Oh and on that same subject once evidence has passed the Frye "test" it is still then just evidence that can be argued against by the Defense at trial?

The Frye issues will be raised on appeal--not "automatically" but just because they are obvious appeal issues.

Yes, the defense can certainly challenge the evidence at trial even after it is accepted under Frye.

Is there anything Judge Perry can do to delay the "48 hours" broadcast until after trial?

If someone files a motion and the broadcasting co. is given notice and an opportunity to object, HHJP could take a look at the issue. He seems to like free speech, though.

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

what happens if the jury doesn't want to convict casey on 1st degree murder... but a lesser charge?
how much time would she be looking at with the negligence charge.. or whatever it was?

also, could the jury suggest something else like manslaughter? if they wanted to give her a life sentence, but not on 1st degree murder?

 

[AZlawyer]

what happens if the jury doesn't want to convict casey on 1st degree murder... but a lesser charge?
how much time would she be looking at with the negligence charge.. or whatever it was?

also, could the jury suggest something else like manslaughter? if they wanted to give her a life sentence, but not on 1st degree murder?

The jury will be instructed on lesser-included offenses of 1st degree murder, including voluntary manslaughter, which I believe qualifies for a life sentence in Florida.

Casey is charged with other things besides 1st degree murder, including aggravated manslaughter of a child (presumptive sentence 30 years), and would be instructed on any lesser-included offenses of those charges as well.

 

[logicalgirl]

Okay - once more if you can stand it please! So Frye issues can be raised as appellate issues, but that does not necessarily mean the appellate panel will strike the Frye decision(s) down just because they are "obvious objections" but the court would look to see if they met the "four pillars"?

 

[Solace]

The jury will be instructed on lesser-included offenses of 1st degree murder, including voluntary manslaughter, which I believe qualifies for a life sentence in Florida.

Casey is charged with other things besides 1st degree murder, including aggravated manslaughter of a child (presumptive sentence 30 years), and would be instructed on any lesser-included offenses of those charges as well.

30 years without parole before?

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay - once more if you can stand it please! So Frye issues can be raised as appellate issues, but that does not necessarily mean the appellate panel will strike the Frye decision(s) down just because they are "obvious objections" but the court would look to see if they met the "four pillars"?

Oh, sure, the appellate court would review the Frye decisions under the same 4-part standard referenced by HHJP.

30 years without parole before?

No, I'm sure she would be eligible for parole.

 

[Joanner]

Present company excluded, do you know of any lawyers out there that are shaking their heads in disbelief at the knowledge base of Baez, et at. and their demeanor inside and outside the courtroom?

 

[ZsaZsa]

According to RH, JB is involved in some 'chicanery' with this 48hrs program, and is obviously taking her case directly to a National audience. How can this be permitted, since he asked for a change of venue based on the pre trial publicity in the Orlando area. If HHJP knew of his involvement with this Jury Selection person could he order it be tried in Orlando thus saving the Fla taxpayer a lot of money, and the Jurors a lot of sacrifice and inconvenience.

Richard Hornsby - "What Are the Odds?"

 

[Joanner]

In light of this new 48 hours show in which Baez et al are going to be in, could Judge Perry change his mind and not get jurors brought in from outside Orange County? Any jury is going to be expensive, I believe, since they would still have to be sequestered, but there would be savings in transportation costs for the attorneys and hauling the jurors back over to Orlando and finally hauling them back home in the end. Certainly this 48 hours show can be seen all over Florida.

 

[Teresa]

AZlawyer,

It just doesn't seem right, the 48 hrs thing. Is it? It's almost like the defense is getting a stab at the jury with their story. What can the judge do if anything? Has this sort of thing been done before?

Thank you,

Teresa

 

[A_News_Junkie]

AZLawyer and others --- I posted this on RH site and he said, good questions but he didn't have any answers -- anyone want to take a gander?
Mr. Hornsby,
1. Could the state add Mr. Gabriel and the ‘mock jurors’ as well as cameramen and anyone whom was witness to this “Mock” trial to their witness list and depose them?
2. Is a benefit in kind, not the same as cash—> value received and couldn’t JAC file a bar complaint against jb for circumventing proper channels?
3. Could the state subpoena all footage, aired or not from this mockery of justice for Caylee?

Thanks, in advance.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Any opinion as to what HHJP will have to say, if anything about the defense going on the 48 hours show to be interviewed, after complaining about the publicity, etc. and claiming because of publicity they cannot get a fair trial? I'm so beside myself I don't even know what to think, I'm really stunned at this.

 

[AZlawyer]

Present company excluded, do you know of any lawyers out there that are shaking their heads in disbelief at the knowledge base of Baez, et at. and their demeanor inside and outside the courtroom?

Me
R Hornsby
Mr. Schaeffer
All the other WS lawyers

That's actually all the lawyers I know who are even aware of this case lol. Certainly it is not a topic of conversation in Arizona.

According to RH, JB is involved in some 'chicanery' with this 48hrs program, and is obviously taking her case directly to a National audience. How can this be permitted, since he asked for a change of venue based on the pre trial publicity in the Orlando area. If HHJP knew of his involvement with this Jury Selection person could he order it be tried in Orlando thus saving the Fla taxpayer a lot of money, and the Jurors a lot of sacrifice and inconvenience.

Richard Hornsby - "What Are the Odds?"

In light of this new 48 hours show in which Baez et al are going to be in, could Judge Perry change his mind and not get jurors brought in from outside Orange County? Any jury is going to be expensive, I believe, since they would still have to be sequestered, but there would be savings in transportation costs for the attorneys and hauling the jurors back over to Orlando and finally hauling them back home in the end. Certainly this 48 hours show can be seen all over Florida.

AZlawyer,

It just doesn't seem right, the 48 hrs thing. Is it? It's almost like the defense is getting a stab at the jury with their story. What can the judge do if anything? Has this sort of thing been done before?

Thank you,

Teresa

Any opinion as to what HHJP will have to say, if anything about the defense going on the 48 hours show to be interviewed, after complaining about the publicity, etc. and claiming because of publicity they cannot get a fair trial? I'm so beside myself I don't even know what to think, I'm really stunned at this.

It's obviously an underhanded move by the defense team. It's not really inconsistent with the defense claim that KC can't get a fair trial in Orlando because of the "media coverage," though, because what the defense means by "media coverage" is BAD media coverage. They have always been perfectly fine with media coverage that helps KC (like a mock jury voting to "acquit").

I doubt HHJP will say or do anything unless he is asked to do so by the SA. Officially, he is not supposed to know anything that isn't put on the record by someone. And I don't think he would reverse his ruling on changing venue. I also don't think the SA would ask him to do that. I think the SA is happy to have that potential appellate issue off the table--or as off the table as possible, anyway.

AZLawyer and others --- I posted this on RH site and he said, good questions but he didn't have any answers -- anyone want to take a gander?
Mr. Hornsby,
1. Could the state add Mr. Gabriel and the ‘mock jurors’ as well as cameramen and anyone whom was witness to this “Mock” trial to their witness list and depose them?
2. Is a benefit in kind, not the same as cash—> value received and couldn’t JAC file a bar complaint against jb for circumventing proper channels?
3. Could the state subpoena all footage, aired or not from this mockery of justice for Caylee?

Thanks, in advance.

1. No, I don't think so. They haven't witnessed anything that would constitute evidence.

2. Maybe. I don't know enough about the JAC. But this was an "in kind" benefit for a service that was REJECTED by the judge, so it's not like JB got some service for free that he also BILLED the JAC for. I suspect that it will not be a problem.

3. I don't think so. I suspect that they waived any work product privilege, but what would be the state's reason for needing to see this information? "We want to know the defense trial strategy?" What right does the state have to know the defense trial strategy?

 

[ZsaZsa]

I think I know but I'l ask it anyway.... what would happen if the SA participated in a Mock Jury program?