Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

AZ, Please correct me if I'm wrong but if someone is on the witness list for one side then they cannot be for the other side. ei: if you are a defense expert witness you cannot be a prosecutor's expert witness. And that even if you are on the list, that does not mean you will be called to testify. That this is a tactic maybe so much not that the State plans to use them but to more to prevent the defense from taking them back and using them during the trial. In other words is this a tactic to "remove" these experts from the game.

Oh, yes, witnesses can be on the lists for both sides, and, in addition, I have never had the slightest problem calling a witness to the stand who was ONLY on the other side's list and NOT on mine.

As for expert witnesses, a PAID expert is not going to work for both sides. But a witness who just happens to be an expert could be on both lists.

You are correct that being on the list does not mean you will be called to testify.

However, placing someone on your list does not remotely remove them from the game. The other side can still put them on their own list, and moreover would probably be allowed to call them as witnesses even WITHOUT putting them on their own list because they are on yours.

The SA obviously knows that they have enough evidence to get a conviction with DP in this case. The most IMO that ICA can hope to get out of the SA in a plea deal is LWOP.

Is it even possible at this point for ICA to seek a plea deal at the last minute or does the SA have to offer her one in order for her to accept?

Either side may initiate plea negotiations.

I suspect that the SA is more objective about its case (i.e., sees the weaknesses more clearly) than most WS'ers are, and would be willing to discuss a plea. I agree that the SA would start the negotiations seeking a life sentence, but IMO they would likely ultimately agree to less.

 

[mombomb]

Thank you AZLawyer for answering my earlier question! I have one more, if it's okay. I'm pretty sure this has already been discussed, but I searched and couldn't find it.

Regarding opening statements, I imagine the State goes first. Then, does the DT give their opening statements immediately following - which, I would guess, shows their hand to the SA - whereby the SA can tweak the presentation of their case to address DT's theory? Or, does the DT wait until the SA has presented their case before giving their opening statement - thereby giving the DT time to decide, based on the State's case, what theory they will use?

I hope that makes sense. Forgive me if it is a silly question - I just can't imagine what the DT will be able to say that won't be torn apart.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZLawyer for answering my earlier question! I have one more, if it's okay. I'm pretty sure this has already been discussed, but I searched and couldn't find it.

Regarding opening statements, I imagine the State goes first. Then, does the DT give their opening statements immediately following - which, I would guess, shows their hand to the SA - whereby the SA can tweak the presentation of their case to address DT's theory? Or, does the DT wait until the SA has presented their case before giving their opening statement - thereby giving the DT time to decide, based on the State's case, what theory they will use?

I hope that makes sense. Forgive me if it is a silly question - I just can't imagine what the DT will be able to say that won't be torn apart.

The SA gives its opening first. The defense has the option of waiting to give its opening statement until after the state presents its case, but that's pretty risky, particularly in a lengthy trial like this one, because the jurors are going to have their minds pretty set in favor of the prosecution if they have no clue what the defense theory is while they're hearing the State's evidence.

Still, this defense team is getting a bit desperate. They must be considering all options.

 

[Aedrys]

So since the chloroform is in, does that pave the way for the air tests to be in? I just wanted to know what you lawyers thought of this latest ruling and how you think it might affect the air tests, if it does!

 

[AZlawyer]

So since the chloroform is in, does that pave the way for the air tests to be in? I just wanted to know what you lawyers thought of this latest ruling and how you think it might affect the air tests, if it does!

The air tests for "decomp" are a completely separate issue and a completely separate motion. If Vass is not relying on the whole "secret decomp database" but only on the 30 chemicals mentioned in his public papers, perhaps HHJP will let in his testimony.

 

[BigMomma]

Forgive if this is a repeat question, but after these Ants have exausted whatever else could come into their mind re this trial, Could they, after all is said and done be intitled to invoke the 5th when their turn comes up to testify? Or is that a no go since they have already spoken in pretrail, grand jury, etc.?

 

[AZlawyer]

Forgive if this is a repeat question, but after these Ants have exausted whatever else could come into their mind re this trial, Could they, after all is said and done be intitled to invoke the 5th when their turn comes up to testify? Or is that a no go since they have already spoken in pretrail, grand jury, etc.?

If they are asked something and the answer could incriminate them, they can invoke the 5th amendment. But what would they take the 5th on? Wouldn't it be better to just give whatever answer they've already given?

E.g., SA: "Cindy, did you intentionally destroy evidence you found in the trunk?" Cindy: "I take the 5th."

vs. SA: "Cindy, did you intentionally destroy evidence you found in the trunk?" Cindy: "No. I washed the pants because they were smelly and sprayed a bottle of Febreeze into the trunk for the same reason."

Why would Cindy pick option 1 over option 2? :waitasec: Option 1 looks a lot worse for her and also for Casey.

 

[BigMomma]

If they are asked something and the answer could incriminate them, they can invoke the 5th amendment. But what would they take the 5th on? Wouldn't it be better to just give whatever answer they've already given?

E.g., SA: "Cindy, did you intentionally destroy evidence you found in the trunk?" Cindy: "I take the 5th."

vs. SA: "Cindy, did you intentionally destroy evidence you found in the trunk?" Cindy: "No. I washed the pants because they were smelly and sprayed a bottle of Febreeze into the trunk for the same reason."

Why would Cindy pick option 1 over option 2? :waitasec: Option 1 looks a lot worse for her and also for Casey.

Thank you. I was under the impression though that once somebody invokes the 5th, if they answer anything after, then any other 5ths are null and void. No option to choose which one to disregard and which one to answer.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you. I was under the impression though that once somebody invokes the 5th, if they answer anything after, then any other 5ths are null and void. No option to choose which one to disregard and which one to answer.

The answer to this varies based on whether it is the defendant or a witness you are talking about, the same or different proceedings, the same or different areas of questioning, the case law in Florida as applied to the "gray areas" of 5th amd. law, sometimes the discretion of the judge, etc. We could try to narrow it down by looking at a specific hypothetical, but I am unclear on what you think the As might want to take the 5th about.

 

[strach304]

The SA gives its opening first. The defense has the option of waiting to give its opening statement until after the state presents its case, but that's pretty risky, particularly in a lengthy trial like this one, because the jurors are going to have their minds pretty set in favor of the prosecution if they have no clue what the defense theory is while they're hearing the State's evidence.

Still, this defense team is getting a bit desperate. They must be considering all options.

As an extention of this question from the answer you gave can you tell me what you think personally and professionally of course, since you are aware of all of the evidence in this case if you think the defense might actually benefit by holding back their opening statement in the hopes of confusing the jury and helping them to forget slightly evidence and testimony presented from six weeks ago? I hope I'm being clear enough. There's so much info in this case and sometimes I forget things until I am reminded by other posters. Vice versa.

A legal analyst on in-session today opined that just because the judge is allowing this evidence doesn't mean the SA will use it. Too much and they run the risk of boring or over whelming the jury. Something like that. As has been pointed out it is a defense lawyers job to confuse. The jury could consist of retirees because of the length and hardship and imo could be tired out more easily or on meds that have some effects on memory, etc. CM is half asleep in the hearings sometimes.

 

[AZlawyer]

As an extention of this question from the answer you gave can you tell me what you think personally and professionally of course, since you are aware of all of the evidence in this case if you think the defense might actually benefit by holding back their opening statement in the hopes of confusing the jury and helping them to forget slightly evidence and testimony presented from six weeks ago? I hope I'm being clear enough. There's so much info in this case and sometimes I forget things until I am reminded by other posters. Vice versa.

A legal analyst on in-session today opined that just because the judge is allowing this evidence doesn't mean the SA will use it. Too much and they run the risk of boring or over whelming the jury. Something like that. As has been pointed out it is a defense lawyers job to confuse. The jury could consist of retirees because of the length and hardship and imo could be tired out more easily or on meds that have some effects on memory, etc. CM is half asleep in the hearings sometimes.

I understand what you mean. For me, though, it would be too big of a risk to say nothing to the jury for the first month of trial. Even if they forgot half of the evidence during that time (and they'll get to take notes, so they won't forget), they will still be left with the feelings created by that evidence ("OMG she killed her baby"). Also, it would be very very difficult to cross-examine all the State's witnesses without giving away the theme of your case! I think the defense team (JB) will give the opening statement on Day 1.

 

[BigMomma]

The answer to this varies based on whether it is the defendant or a witness you are talking about, the same or different proceedings, the same or different areas of questioning, the case law in Florida as applied to the "gray areas" of 5th amd. law, sometimes the discretion of the judge, etc. We could try to narrow it down by looking at a specific hypothetical, but I am unclear on what you think the As might want to take the 5th about.

My thought is that perhaps one or both of them might try and pull the 5th on every question when they are called up to testify. Just wondering if that would work so late in the game, or if they have such an option. I just don't want anyone getting an idea this is a quick fix to get out of some or all of their prior statements. Wouldn't look so good imo.

 

[AZlawyer]

My thought is that perhaps one or both of them might try and pull the 5th on every question when they are called up to testify. Just wondering if that would work so late in the game, or if they have such an option. I just don't want anyone getting an idea this is a quick fix to get out of some or all of their prior statements. Wouldn't look so good imo.

No, the vast majority of questions they would be asked would have no possibility at all of incriminating them, so they couldn't take the 5th on those questions.

 

[JWG]

As an extention of this question from the answer you gave can you tell me what you think personally and professionally of course, since you are aware of all of the evidence in this case if you think the defense might actually benefit by holding back their opening statement in the hopes of confusing the jury and helping them to forget slightly evidence and testimony presented from six weeks ago? I hope I'm being clear enough. There's so much info in this case and sometimes I forget things until I am reminded by other posters. Vice versa.

To be honest with you, strach, I am befuddled every time the defense opens their mouth, whether it is Jose, Cheney, or Dorothy. I've worried that the confused and disorganized manner in which the defense team questions witnesses will actually prove an effective strategy for diluting the potency of the state's evidence, leaving the jurors to ask themselves time and again: "Remind me again what that was all about?" :waitasec:

A legal analyst on in-session today opined that just because the judge is allowing this evidence doesn't mean the SA will use it. Too much and they run the risk of boring or over whelming the jury. Something like that. As has been pointed out it is a defense lawyers job to confuse. The jury could consist of retirees because of the length and hardship and imo could be tired out more easily or on meds that have some effects on memory, etc. CM is half asleep in the hearings sometimes.

I don't believe that the evidence is that complicated or confusing, and from what I have seen thus far, Mr. Ashton has a courtroom presence that will certainly keep folks awake (Ms. Drane-Burdick less so). It should not be that difficult to weave a simple, credible presentation together. However, as I noted above, the defense team certainly has the ability to inject outright intellectual chaos into the proceedings ... :crosseyed:

 

[momshrink]

I have a question about how ICA knows what the court rules on these motions? Doesn't her attorney have to notify her? And would notification be by phone or personal meeting? Or does she receive written notice?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question about how ICA knows what the court rules on these motions? Doesn't her attorney have to notify her? And would notification be by phone or personal meeting? Or does she receive written notice?

Yes, her attorney would have to notify her. Could be just by sending a copy, or could be by phone or meeting. Knowing Casey, if I were her lawyer I'd prefer to just send a copy so I couldn't hear her "angry voice" after she read it.

 

[PrintGal]

Good morning, AZ-

So am I wrong in thinking that even if Dr. Vass's findings on the decomposition gasses aren't allowed in the grave wax evidence is still in which adequately demonstrates that a human being was decomposing in the trunk?

Thanks!

 

[Katprint]

I understand what you mean. For me, though, it would be too big of a risk to say nothing to the jury for the first month of trial. Even if they forgot half of the evidence during that time (and they'll get to take notes, so they won't forget), they will still be left with the feelings created by that evidence ("OMG she killed her baby"). Also, it would be very very difficult to cross-examine all the State's witnesses without giving away the theme of your case! I think the defense team (JB) will give the opening statement on Day 1.

I agree.

From http://www.kearneywynn.com/cm/Articles/article-03.pdf Opening Statements: You Never Get A Second Chance To Make A First Impression "The reality is that by the time the attorneys finish voir dire and opening statements, a vast majority of the jurors have already made up their minds."

Or, as one of my first managing partners told me, "The first one to an empty mind, wins." This is why adverse pretrial publicity can be so damaging. Once people have made up their mind about something, it can be very, very difficult to persuade them differently. Much more difficult than initially persuading them in your favor.

From a more touchy-feely point of view: If the prosecution gives their Opening Statement explaining all the reasons why Casey should be found guilty of First Degree Murder, especially given the emotionally inflammatory parts like the duct taped skull and Casey's extensive bad behaviors, and the defense sits mute and doesn't counter that with anything then the jury may subconsciously conclude that the defense has nothing.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

Good morning, AZ-

So am I wrong in thinking that even if Dr. Vass's findings on the decomposition gasses aren't allowed in the grave wax evidence is still in which adequately demonstrates that a human being was decomposing in the trunk?

Thanks!

I don't think the defense team filed a motion on that issue, so it is "in" in the sense that it isn't "out" yet. And I can't think of any good reason that evidence would not be allowed in.

JB, of course, will try to get Vass to say it might be bacon grease, banana wax, etc. Vass will then explain that, while there might be some limited number of other substances that could appear this way, very few of them leave toddler-sized stains behind.

 

[Skully]

I hunted for this question but can't find it, so here goes.... What happens if they can't select the jury in the time allotted to them? I heard on panel judge today on HLN state he doesn't think they will select the jury in just a week.