Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

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

I read that to mean that the information should not be mentioned in front of the jury prematurely. I don't know about this statement in the media that Ashton doesn't want the pretrial hearing on this issue to be public. I'm not sure where that came from.

 

[Baznme]

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.

and then there's this:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...rs-mystery-raises-more-ethical-questions.html

Looks to me as though there are a few people in violation here. LKB, GR, Pam B. Is this LKB's attempt to move toward a "mistrial"? Is that a possibility?

 

[salvarenga]

I know you haven't seen the actual motion yet...but any ideas who could be filing this:

04/14/2011 Motion to Unseal Depositions of Defense Expert Witnesses

It's the State that filed to unseal the depos so that they can show them to their expert. Apparently JB filed them underseal requesting no one outside of the prosecutors be able to view them. Also, just learned that Danzinger (one of the psychologists) has been withdrawn from the list by the Defense.

 

[LambChop]

and then there's this:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...rs-mystery-raises-more-ethical-questions.html

Looks to me as though there are a few people in violation here. LKB, GR, Pam B. Is this LKB's attempt to move toward a "mistrial"? Is that a possibility?

Makes you wonder what Pam B. was told about the release of this program? I thought they were using an old tape but this is a new statement so something is just not right here because I find it hard to believe she would make any comments this close to trial. jmo

 

[gamom]

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.



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



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.

Ok, so maybe I am confused. I thought everything the SA has listed as discovery can be used at trial unless the defense has already filed a motion to exclude it? Is that not correct?

 

[AZlawyer]

and then there's this:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...rs-mystery-raises-more-ethical-questions.html

Looks to me as though there are a few people in violation here. LKB, GR, Pam B. Is this LKB's attempt to move toward a "mistrial"? Is that a possibility?

I don't see how she can cause a mistrial before the trial has even started. IMO the reason LKB felt free to say this is that the defense team plans to admit that the Zanny story was a lie within the first 10 seconds of the opening statement. Therefore LKB is not prejudicing her client's interests.

Makes you wonder what Pam B. was told about the release of this program? I thought they were using an old tape but this is a new statement so something is just not right here because I find it hard to believe she would make any comments this close to trial. jmo

What was the statement?

Ok, so maybe I am confused. I thought everything the SA has listed as discovery can be used at trial unless the defense has already filed a motion to exclude it? Is that not correct?

No, that is not correct. Nothing has been offered or accepted as evidence. You will know when something is accepted as evidence because, at trial, one attorney will say, "Your Honor, I move to admit Exhibit 25." Then HHJP will say, "Exhibit 25 is admitted." Just sending something to the other side doesn't make it evidence. The SA is required to disclose much, much more than it will be allowed to use at trial.

 

[Capri]

Is the DT walking a fine line here? By Baez admitting that ICA lied, in his cross with Yuri, and now LKB stating there was no Zanny, of course that was a lie, they seem to be treading on sticky territory. I realize lying does not make one a murderer, but if they keep rearranging and changing too many of the statements, their credibility will be non-existant, won't it? I guess it depends on what they offer up as excuses for why she did act the way she did.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is the DT walking a fine line here? By Baez admitting that ICA lied, in his cross with Yuri, and now LKB stating there was no Zanny, of course that was a lie, they seem to be treading on sticky territory. I realize lying does not make one a murderer, but if they keep rearranging and changing too many of the statements, their credibility will be non-existant, won't it? I guess it depends on what they offer up as excuses for why she did act the way she did.

There is no possible way to present a coherent defense theory in this case without admitting that Casey lied. They will have to come up with a "good reason" for her lying.

 

[Curious Me]

Will HHJP issue a gag order at tomorrow's hearing?

Could the 48 Hours show be stopped from showing before the trial begins?

 

[AZlawyer]

Will HHJP issue a gag order at tomorrow's hearing?

Could the 48 Hours show be stopped from showing before the trial begins?

No one has asked him to issue a gag order, so I don't know why he would issue one.

To stop the 48 Hours show, you would need more than a gag order. You would need to provide official notice to the network's lawyers and give them an opportunity to present their side to the court.

 

[pip]

Can new discovery be entered at anytime, even during trial?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Good Morning,

I thought there was a hearing today, Friday - 4/15 ?

Thanks !

 

[faefrost]

Good Morning,

I thought there was a hearing today, Friday - 4/15 ?

Thanks !

1:30 pm est

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

A question for our esteemed lawyers:

Remember the sidebar at the end of the last hearing. When they stepped away, the judge said the sidebar conversation was sealed. BUT, he also said, if I remember correctly, that there would be no transcript of the sidebar conversation. I thought the "no transcrpt" instruction was unusual. Is that unususal and why would he order no transcription?

 

[Solace]

AZ - What is the deal with the mental illness plea in Florida. I thought and obviously wrong that one could not use it. But I found a site that says yes they can but it has to be provedn on several levels.

What did I misunderstand. Why did Perry take issue with 'state of mind'.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can new discovery be entered at anytime, even during trial?

No. If something new is given to the defense very close to or during trial, it either would not be usable at trial or HHJP would make sure the defense had time to do more discovery if necessary to rebut it.

A question for our esteemed lawyers:

Remember the sidebar at the end of the last hearing. When they stepped away, the judge said the sidebar conversation was sealed. BUT, he also said, if I remember correctly, that there would be no transcript of the sidebar conversation. I thought the "no transcrpt" instruction was unusual. Is that unususal and why would he order no transcription?

Maybe he didn't want the defense team to leak it.

AZ - What is the deal with the mental illness plea in Florida. I thought and obviously wrong that one could not use it. But I found a site that says yes they can but it has to be provedn on several levels.

What did I misunderstand. Why did Perry take issue with 'state of mind'.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. All states allow (and must constitutionally allow) a defendant to plead insanity. But there is no mental illness defense or plea involved in this case. KC is not saying that she killed Caylee but was crazy at the time. She is saying she DID NOT kill Caylee but was kind of nuts (but possibly not in any diagnosable way) so she acted in a way that might make someone THINK she was guilty even though she was not.

 

[reasonable]

By simply withdrawing the two mental health witnesses, and then declaring the other motions moot, does ICA give up her right to appeal that issue? It did not appear that JP ruled on any of the issues.

 

[eaglemom]

During the hearing today JB they photos were being discussed. HHJP was asking about the last one and there was some back and forth. In one instance JB said basically (and this is totally my own words) 'this photo (it was one of ICA at Fusion partying) has no bearing on the case it was taken after the crime was committed and has nothing to do with the charges filed against my client'.

Later HHJP admitted the same photo stating that the SA had to establish a foundation that a crime had been committed prior to the photo being taken for it to be relevant.

I think I got the series of events right.

So basically my question is - Didn't JB shoot himself in the foot by admitting when the crime was commited/occurred? I know the jurors don't see this groundwork so to speak but can that come back to 'bite' him in some way?

Secondarily - Does ICA now have valid grounds for an appeal down the road since that information almost seems like attorney/client privilege and something an attorney should never reveal?

Thanks!

 

[AZlawyer]

By simply withdrawing the two mental health witnesses, and then declaring the other motions moot, does ICA give up her right to appeal that issue? It did not appear that JP ruled on any of the issues.

That depends what HHJP said at sidebar or in chambers (not sure what order all those occurred in). If he said he was going to let the State experts examine Casey unless the defense withdrew their experts, for example, the defense could still raise the issue on appeal (because they can argue that they would not have withdrawn their experts if not for HHJP's statements).

During the hearing today JB they photos were being discussed. HHJP was asking about the last one and there was some back and forth. In one instance JB said basically (and this is totally my own words) 'this photo (it was one of ICA at Fusion partying) has no bearing on the case it was taken after the crime was committed and has nothing to do with the charges filed against my client'.

Later HHJP admitted the same photo stating that the SA had to establish a foundation that a crime had been committed prior to the photo being taken for it to be relevant.

I think I got the series of events right.

So basically my question is - Didn't JB shoot himself in the foot by admitting when the crime was commited/occurred? I know the jurors don't see this groundwork so to speak but can that come back to 'bite' him in some way?

Secondarily - Does ICA now have valid grounds for an appeal down the road since that information almost seems like attorney/client privilege and something an attorney should never reveal?

Thanks!

I think he said it was taken after "the crime the State alleges was committed" or something like that.

 

[my2sense]

Apologies in advance if this has been asked and answered -- I've (literally) given myself motion sickness with all the scrolling. My question is: Once the trial is over, and if ICA is found guilty, will/can the transcripts of the psych experts' depos be released?