Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[Cher352]

This mock jury thing coming up on 48HRS has me thinking. In the previews they all seem to be saying no to 1st Degree.

I know the SA are going for 1st Degree but if the jury doesn't agree on 1st Degree can they convict her of 2nd Degree?

 

[Hell's Belle]

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.

Add me to the list on the West Coast. I can only follow this case intermittently because watching the blunders makes my brain hurt. :banghead:

--Hell's Belle

 

[AZlawyer]

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

Well, if their mock jury acquitted KC, and the SA let that be aired on 48 Hours, the SA would probably get a thank-you card from the defense team.

If the SA allowed 48 Hours (a national program) to air a mock jury convicting KC, the defense team would ask for a dismissal and might even get it.

But keep in mind the SA is not entitled to the same protections as KC. Only one of them has constitutional rights at stake here.

This mock jury thing coming up on 48HRS has me thinking. In the previews they all seem to be saying no to 1st Degree.

I know the SA are going for 1st Degree but if the jury doesn't agree on 1st Degree can they convict her of 2nd Degree?

They could convict her on quite a number of lesser-included offenses, other charged offenses, and lesser-included offenses of those other charges. I posted something on this a page or so back.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Well, if their mock jury acquitted KC, and the SA let that be aired on 48 Hours, the SA would probably get a thank-you card from the defense team.

If the SA allowed 48 Hours (a national program) to air a mock jury convicting KC, the defense team would ask for a dismissal and might even get it.

But keep in mind the SA is not entitled to the same protections as KC. Only one of them has constitutional rights at stake here.



They could convict her on quite a number of lesser-included offenses, other charged offenses, and lesser-included offenses of those other charges. I posted something on this a page or so back.

Why no protections for Caylee? The SA is representing her interests aren't they?

 

[AZlawyer]

Why no protections for Caylee? The SA is representing her interests aren't they?

Caylee, unfortunately, can't be protected at this point. The SA is not, as a legal matter, representing her interests, although as a practical matter I suspect that "justice for Caylee" is a big motivator for the SA team.

Casey's constitutional rights trump all other rights anyone else might have in this proceeding, including victim's rights, which may or may not apply to anyone at all in this case (Caylee is clearly dead despite Cindy's protests, mom is the accused, dad is unknown and/or dead). Personally, I want her constitutional rights to be protected at every turn, to ensure that any conviction "sticks."

 

[Kimster]

I have a question about jury selection.

Is there a law that states KC is to face the jurors as they are being selected?

(This question came up in the Coleman case, but it fits here too, right? :giggle

 

[Joanner]

I have a question about jury selection.

Is there a law that states KC is to face the jurors as they are being selected?

(This question came up in the Coleman case, but it fits here too, right? :giggle

I'm in Florida. I was among prospective jurors for a capital sexual battery case last fall. When questioning the prospective jurors, the following people were in the room (no spectators): judge, prosecutors, defense, and the defendant. When sensitive questions came up and a p. juror didn't want to answer in open court, that juror was brought up to the judge along with all the attorneys and the defendent, sorta like a side bar but with the defendent right up there, too.

 

[Themis]

Why no protections for Caylee? The SA is representing her interests aren't they?

The case name is The People of the State of Florida vs Casey Marie Anthony, not Caylee Marie Anthony vs Casey Marie Anthony. The SA represents the The People of the State of Florida.

In a civil suit, if it was a wrongful death action it could be Estate of Caylee Marie Anthony vs. Casey Marie Anthony.

Dead people do not have constitutional rights.

The People of the State of Florida have an interest in prosecuting criminal laws.

When a person "presses charges" what it just means is that they are a complaining witness. A complaining witness can have victim/witness rights, but those rights do not include the right to make a decision to prosecute or settle a case. Sometimes they can have inputs and the SA will listen to their position, but they don't get to decide. Only the State's Attorney has the power to decide which charges to bring and prosecute. It is called prosecutorial discretion and it is vested solely in the Office of the State's Attorney.

 

[Themis]

This mock jury thing coming up on 48HRS has me thinking. In the previews they all seem to be saying no to 1st Degree.

I know the SA are going for 1st Degree but if the jury doesn't agree on 1st Degree can they convict her of 2nd Degree?

There are threads in this forum on this subject from back in about 2008 when the Grand Jury indictment came out. You might want to search for the term "lesser included offenses."

Basically, if all the elements of the lesser included offense are included in the larger offense then yes. The larger offense will have more elements so the lesser included offense is really a subset of the larger offense. Watch for the part of the trial where the Judge instructs the jury. The instructions about lesser included offenses will be there.

 

[Joanner]

During the hearings, we have seen George, Cindy, and Lee all make gestures at Casey (I love you, hands in prayer, kiss, etc.).

Will this be allowed during the trial when they take the stand? What could the judge do if they defy him and basically do it after they have testified and are on their way out of the courtroom?

 

[Themis]

During the hearings, we have seen George, Cindy, and Lee all make gestures at Casey (I love you, hands in prayer, kiss, etc.).

Will this be allowed during the trial when they take the stand? What could the judge do if they defy him and basically do it after they have testified and are on their way out of the courtroom?

If he has instructed them not to do it and they do it anyway, he could hold them in contempt of court.

 

[Themis]

I have a question about jury selection.

Is there a law that states KC is to face the jurors as they are being selected?

It is generally part of the law of Due Process that began with the Magna Carta in 1215. It applies to the States through the 14th Amendment.

By the way, you should check out how difficult it was to be a juror in those early years. If they didn't come to a decision that pleased the king, they were killed, imprisoned or fined. If they took too long, they were starved and deprived of the means to meet their bodily needs. Even today we only pay them pennies for their services.

 

[Kimster]

Sooooo, the defendant has a right to be there. Thanks for answering that since I'm clueless when it comes to trials.

Another question, can the public be there? I'm thinking no.

And can the press be there during jury selection?

 

[Joanner]

In the case I was involved with, no spectators and no media allowed. Basically we signed in during the morning and had a large room to sit in, with side rooms of computers, library, and a small vending area. Then someone would come in and announce numbers and those people were gathered up and brought out. We were allowed one hour for lunch in which we could leave the grounds. I was not called until the afternoon. Only court officials and security were allowed past the registration desk. Due to the notoriety, I would assume (but don't know for sure) that prospective jurors won't even be allowed to leave for lunch.

 

[Macushla]

Someone asked this on the thread about the motions about the doctors and I didn't see an answer so I am going to ask it here. If the defense says that KC is going to testify so they can get the doctors and their reports in during the guilt phase and then does not put her on the stand, after the doctors have testified, what recourse does the State have or do they have any?

 

[gamom]

I posted this on another thread, but figured our Attorneys may be able to help. It sounds as if Ashton is asking that the information not even be discussed in court on Friday. Do you think he feels it is powerful enough to taint the potential jury pool? I am also confused as to why every other statement (including letters and videos) can be heard but not statements made to the MD's?? If the defense was shady enough (which I beleive they are) who is to say that can't have KC just write a letter stating the same facts to her parents or another inmate in order to get the statements into record? Perhaps that was the point of the molestation claim in her letters to Robin. She seemed quite chippy on the days the state filed new discovery of those letters and the defense never objected to them being admitted. They have objected to everything else so far, so that was a red flag for me back then.

 

[AZlawyer]

Sooooo, the defendant has a right to be there. Thanks for answering that since I'm clueless when it comes to trials.

Another question, can the public be there? I'm thinking no.

And can the press be there during jury selection?

The US Supreme Court decided this issue last year:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-5270.ZPC.html

Summary of ruling: Jury selection must be public, unless there is a really darn good reason for it not to be and the court makes it clear on the record what the reason is.

Someone asked this on the thread about the motions about the doctors and I didn't see an answer so I am going to ask it here. If the defense says that KC is going to testify so they can get the doctors and their reports in during the guilt phase and then does not put her on the stand, after the doctors have testified, what recourse does the State have or do they have any?

A motion for mistrial, I guess. But I have a feeling that HHJP would make KC go first to avoid that problem.

I posted this on another thread, but figured our Attorneys may be able to help. It sounds as if Ashton is asking that the information not even be discussed in court on Friday. Do you think he feels it is powerful enough to taint the potential jury pool? I am also confused as to why every other statement (including letters and videos) can be heard but not statements made to the MD's?? If the defense was shady enough (which I beleive they are) who is to say that can't have KC just write a letter stating the same facts to her parents or another inmate in order to get the statements into record? Perhaps that was the point of the molestation claim in her letters to Robin. She seemed quite chippy on the days the state filed new discovery of those letters and the defense never objected to them being admitted. They have objected to everything else so far, so that was a red flag for me back then.

BBM
I don't see this in the Motion in Limine. The media seems to make up a lot of stuff in this case, so unless someone can show me where Ashton actually said this I don't see much point in talking about why he said it lol.

KC's statements in a letter would not be admissible unless they are "admissions"--i.e., not stuff that helps her--or fall within some other hearsay exception/exclusion. I'm not sure what you mean about the letters to Robin being "admitted." Nothing has been admitted yet, because the trial has not started.

 

[Joanner]

Former attorney of Casey's talks about Casey. Does this violate attorney-client privilege?

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/27538935/detail.html

 

[AZlawyer]

Former attorney of Casey's talks about Casey. Does this violate attorney-client privilege?

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/27538935/detail.html

If Casey ADMITTED to LKB that she had lied, it would violate A/C privilege for LKB to reveal that.

If Casey never admitted to LKB that she had lied, but LKB THOUGHT she had lied anyway (as any moderately intelligent person would think), it would not violate A/C privilege to say so. But the fact that LKB freely discussed her thoughts in this regard suggests that Step 1 of the defense trial strategy will be to admit up front that the Zanny story was a lie.

 

[bananarama]

I posted this on another thread, but figured our Attorneys may be able to help. It sounds as if Ashton is asking that the information not even be discussed in court on Friday. Do you think he feels it is powerful enough to taint the potential jury pool?

The US Supreme Court decided this issue last year:

BBM
I don't see this in the Motion in Limine. The media seems to make up a lot of stuff in this case, so unless someone can show me where Ashton actually said this I don't see much point in talking about why he said it lol.

AZ I think GAMom is referring to this line in the motion: