Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

Would that be seen as a bona fide conflict of interest? I could see that where the Defendant was going to testify and perjure herself and insisted that her attorney call her and he knew she was going to commit perjury. But to just turn round and say "I quit... my client's a lying cad"; wouldn't the defeat the basic tenets and hallmarks of being a criminal defense attorney (defending a client no matter how unpopular they or their case is).

You can't openly say what exactly the conflict of interest is in that case, because that would harm your client's interests. You have to be really vague and hope the judge understands what you're driving at.

A public defender could not withdraw because he did not like the client. But a private lawyer does not have to take or keep a case he does not like. And even though I've heard criminal defense lawyers say "everyone deserves representation," those who have the ability to choose their clients certainly do not take "everyone."

The only problem is the prosecution must be thinking along similar lines as been here and DT must know that. However, the only alternative is that the DT have no clue but they can't be that clueless, surely.

Hmmm.

 

[uklaw]

But a private lawyer does not have to take or keep a case he does not like. And even though I've heard criminal defense lawyers say "everyone deserves representation," those who have the ability to choose their clients certainly do not take "everyone."

I presume that would be more difficult if the client has paid a "flat-fee" to cover representation for the entire case.

Does that really happen a lot though? That Attorneys drop cases because they don't like their client or they think they have done something wrong. Would make life quite difficult as a Defence Attorney if you only took clients on if you believed in their case lol.

 

[Katprint]

Katprint is one of the WS lawyers, yes.

Lawyers are not slaves. You can drop a client for any reason. But different states have different rules about how difficult it is to actually withdraw from representation of a client. In AZ, at least, it is quite easy unless the trial is coming up very soon, in which case you have to have a decent reason like conflict of interest, etc. Keep in mind you can have a conflict of interest between, e.g., your interest in being a moral person and your client's interest in being a lying cad.

One of my colleagues who was working as a contingency personal injury attorney had the interesting situation arise where he became aware that the plaintiff(s) were attempting to commit insurance fraud by claiming that people were passengers in their vehicle at the time of the accident but in fact those people had NOT been passengers at the time of the accident. The clients refused to execute a Substitution of Attorneys substituting him out (as he had no interest in being an accomplice to felony larceny) so he filed a Motion to Withdraw. The clients actually hired a different attorney to file an Opposition to his Motion to Withdraw - at which point I entered the case and prepared his Reply to Opposition to Motion to Withdraw including a privileged In Camera/Filed Under Seal explanation of the conflict of interest which had arisen.

Happily, California is one of the states which recognizes that the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (prohibiting involuntary servitude) applies to attorneys. Thus, attorneys in California cannot be forced against their will to continue representing a client unless the client will be irreparably harmed by the attorney quitting.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

I presume that would be more difficult if the client has paid a "flat-fee" to cover representation for the entire case.

Does that really happen a lot though? That Attorneys drop cases because they don't like their client or they think they have done something wrong. Would make life quite difficult as a Defence Attorney if you only took clients on if you believed in their case lol.

I don't think I could be a criminal defense attorney for that very reason. But speaking only for myself, I do "fire" clients if I am no longer comfortable representing them.

ETA: And yes, if you were representing a client on a "flat fee," there could be disagreements about how much of the fee should be returned.

 

[katydid23]

My father was a criminal defense attorney. He liked that our criminal justice system is based upon giving everyone a solid opportunity for a proper defense.

But there was one time, that I know of, when his emotions were sorely tested. He was representing another attorney who was accused of extortion. He had no qualms about defending him, until he found out something right before the trial. He uncovered information that showed the client was sexually abusing his step-daughter. But the wife was begging the girl to wait until after the trial to report the abuse. My dad was uncomfortable with it, and also felt a conflict of interest, personally, because suddenly he did not feel like fighting for his client anymore. And that was messing with his own internal sense of justice, because it would be unfair to 'defend' a client that you hoped would be found guilty.
After wrestling with it, my Dad decided his best course of action was to speed up some upcoming surgery he had scheduled. He was going to go in after the trial, but asked for it to be moved up so he could bow out of the trial. It worked out for him and it might have been 'unethical', IDK, but it was justified imo.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can I be silly?

Baez: I can't represent Casey any more because I have fallen madly in love with her.

Hmmm I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[grammieto5]

I am 99% sure KC is guilty, BUT where is the proof? Everything I have read points to her, but where is the 100% proof it was done by her? Is this the "thing" that will come out in trial, am I missing something???? What is the one piece of evidence that prooves SHE did this? I'm worried there will be someone like me on the jury :-( It only takes one right?

 

[AZlawyer]

I am 99% sure KC is guilty, BUT where is the proof? Everything I have read points to her, but where is the 100% proof it was done by her? Is this the "thing" that will come out in trial, am I missing something???? What is the one piece of evidence that prooves SHE did this? I'm worried there will be someone like me on the jury :-( It only takes one right?

Grammie it is not any one particular piece of evidence, rather the totality of the evidence. Many of us here at WS have been following this from day 32 and have read through all of it, and there is so very much.

There will be no new "smoking gun" proof at trial. Here are the things that are pretty well established and I think will be accepted by the jury (although these conclusions will be challenged by the defense at trial):

1. Casey searched for "chloroform," "how to make chloroform," etc. in March 2008;

2. Casey left the house with Caylee on or about June 16, 2008, and Caylee was never seen again, either in Casey's company or with anyone else;

3. Within a few hours of leaving the house, Casey was happily renting movies and having sex;

4. Sometime between June 16 and June 27, 2008, Caylee's body was in Casey's trunk;

5. By June 27, 2008, Caylee's body had been removed from Casey's trunk and Casey reported to a friend that she had taken care of the terrible smell in her car by disposing of a dead squirrel that had been stuck to it;

6. For the next month, whenever Casey was asked about Caylee's whereabouts, she claimed that Caylee was with a person who did not exist;

7. For the next month, Casey also avoided her parents and lied to them constantly about her whereabouts and activities;

8. For the next month, Casey partied, and reported to Iassen that she was the happiest she had been in a long time;

9. When caught by her mother, Casey falsely reported that she had received a phone call from Caylee hours earlier;

10. Casey has given more than one explanation for Caylee's disappearance, all of which are demonstrably untrue;

11. When Casey's car was retrieved, it smelled overwhelmingly of human decomposition, and the carpet contained a large amount of chloroform;

12. Caylee's body was later found in a swamp around the corner from Casey's home, wrapped in a blanket that Cindy had noticed was missing from the house, garbage bags matching those used at the Anthony home, and a laundry bag that had been stored in the Anthony garage. Over the mouth area of her skull were several layers of duct tape that matched duct tape used by the Anthonys.

It's a pretty strong circumstantial case. Hopefully the jurors will understand after weeks of argument and after listening to the jury instructions that there does not have to be ONE piece of evidence that leads to a conclusion of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"--the jury must look at all the evidence together and ask itself, "What are the chances that these things would all happen to an innocent person?"

 

[chefmom]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6422059&postcount=53"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - State's Attorney request transcripts from GA and CA Testimony[/ame]



The above post was posted in another thread by coco puff, and I thought it made so much sense that I wanted to ask our attorneys if this is something that can be done. Could the SA request a list of all medications that CA has been on seeing as how she is blaming her changing stories on new medications? TIA! And kudos to coco puff thinking of this!

 

[JWG]

I saw some comments earlier on another thread that the judge, all attorneys, and KC went to the jury room for about 1/2 hour at today's hearing to discuss "housekeeping" issues. Why would that not be done in public? :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - State's Attorney request transcripts from GA and CA Testimony



The above post was posted in another thread by coco puff, and I thought it made so much sense that I wanted to ask our attorneys if this is something that can be done. Could the SA request a list of all medications that CA has been on seeing as how she is blaming her changing stories on new medications? TIA! And kudos to coco puff thinking of this!

IMO the judge will not allow the SA to get into this kind of tangential issue. Who cares why CA changed her testimony? The SA, if it is important to the case, can point out that she did it. Personally, if I were the SA, I would focus more on getting the experts to explain that Febreeze would not cause that chloroform spike than on getting the jurors to think it was a lie. Once the jurors meet CA, they will be more than ready to believe that she sprayed every bit of Febreeze in the house into that trunk, washed the pants on the "heavy soil" setting, etc.

I saw some comments earlier on another thread that the judge, all attorneys, and KC went to the jury room for about 1/2 hour at today's hearing to discuss "housekeeping" issues. Why would that not be done in public? :waitasec:

I think the judge said at some point that the parties would be given the jury selection location on May 2, so maybe that was it. Obviously he can't wait until the day before to tell the parties, because they need to have the opportunity to object.

 

[Oakley]

Hi AZlawyer. Appreciate your kind help at WS. Question: If the DT decides to object to the jury selection location, will HHJP select another location, and would that push back the start date of the trial? I recall HHJP 'threatened' to pick the jury from Orlando if such and such occurred but I am not recalling exactly what that was. TIA.

 

[kaRN]

AZ didn't BP also say that only one member of the SAO and one from the DT would be given the location and would make the arrangements for the rest of the team? IIRC, the rest would find out at 08:30h, the day of jury selection. That was the constraint that got JA upset and CM then stated we don't need you anyway.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZlawyer. Appreciate your kind help at WS. Question: If the DT decides to object to the jury selection location, will HHJP select another location, and would that push back the start date of the trial? I recall HHJP 'threatened' to pick the jury from Orlando if such and such occurred but I am not recalling exactly what that was. TIA.

I am confident that the DT will object, and I am equally confident that the objection will be overruled.

I think HHJP threatened to go back to Orlando if they were making no progress in finding eligible (e.g., untainted) jurors after a week in the secret location.

AZ didn't BP also say that only one member of the SAO and one from the DT would be given the location and would make the arrangements for the rest of the team? IIRC, the rest would find out at 08:30h, the day of jury selection. That was the constraint that got JA upset and CM then stated we don't need you anyway.

Yes, I remember that. I just can't think of anything else they would have needed to talk about in private this morning. Maybe HHJP and 2 attorneys stepped into the jury room bathroom and he whispered the secret location to them. :floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

Secret conversation of the jury selection taking place in the jury bathroom aside, wouldn't there be a lot of details the judge would need to go over with ICA, her defense team and the SA?

Such as where how and when ICA would be transported, where she will stay, what hours they will work, how her change of clothes will be brought to her, what will be done for simple things like laundry and dry cleaning services once they are there - how meals will be arranged etc.

Besides that, would they not be reviewing the format of the range of questions etc. CJBP will allow each side to ask? And at what point they would move on to another location should the first not work, and how that would also be arranged?

I can actually come up with a pretty long laundry list of what they could have been discussing...:waitasec: ...but then enquiring minds want to know!

 

[AZlawyer]

Secret conversation of the jury selection taking place in the jury bathroom aside, wouldn't there be a lot of details the judge would need to go over with ICA, her defense team and the SA?

Such as where how and when ICA would be transported, where she will stay, what hours they will work, how her change of clothes will be brought to her, what will be done for simple things like laundry and dry cleaning services once they are there - how meals will be arranged etc.

Besides that, would they not be reviewing the format of the range of questions etc. CJBP will allow each side to ask? And at what point they would move on to another location should the first not work, and how that would also be arranged?

I can actually come up with a pretty long laundry list of what they could have been discussing...:waitasec: ...but then enquiring minds want to know!

Yes, there are a lot of truly "housekeeping" issues that might have been involved, but only the revelation of the secret location would require sealing the transcript of the discussion.

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes, there are a lot of truly "housekeeping" issues that might have been involved, but only the revelation of the secret location would require sealing the transcript of the discussion.

And if you were the press, would you be watching, trying to get a tip off for when and how ICA will be transported? I'm having visions of hundreds of journalists rushing to their drivers screaming "Follow that armored van!"

I guess this isn't exactly a legal question, but could the press also follow pursuit if she was taken by helicopter and would/could CJBP do anything to prevent it?

 

[ZsaZsa]

I don't understand why HHJP says that media can use their own investigative methods to locate the change of venue, but when they did that last weekend, after someone reported that he was in Palm Beach, he was irate. Am I missing something?

 

[LambChop]

Eaton has presided over change of venue cases. This close to a trial, he said Perry has undoubtedly chosen the location for jury selection.

"I don't believe he is still looking for a location, and this appears to be a good shot," Eaton said.

Isn't this a little unprofessional on the judge's part to be making comments about the location when he knows HHJP is trying to seat a fair jury?

 

[AZlawyer]

And if you were the press, would you be watching, trying to get a tip off for when and how ICA will be transported? I'm having visions of hundreds of journalists rushing to their drivers screaming "Follow that armored van!"

I guess this isn't exactly a legal question, but could the press also follow pursuit if she was taken by helicopter and would/could CJBP do anything to prevent it?

I don't know--by the time she's being transported, wouldn't the media already know the location? If not, I agree that the media will be on the lookout for any clue. And no, HHJP could not do anything about it. But I don't think the media will have helicopters just floating around over the jail on the off chance that Casey will leave by that means.

I don't understand why HHJP says that media can use their own investigative methods to locate the change of venue, but when they did that last weekend, after someone reported that he was in Palm Beach, he was irate. Am I missing something?

He knows that they have a 1st Amendment right to report on these things. He might be frustrated by that fact sometimes, but he seems to be very aware of it.

Personally, I think the visit to West Palm Beach might have been a decoy. In which case, he was not irate that they followed him so much as that they would then act like they are worthy of his trust.