Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

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?

Well, he's retired, so I suppose he has a right to opine on these matters. And it's not like the station would have dropped the issue if Eaton had asked them to. I would have thought more highly of him, though, if he had said, "I don't think it's appropriate to try to thwart HHJP's efforts to keep the location secret."

 

[LambChop]

Well, he's retired, so I suppose he has a right to opine on these matters. And it's not like the station would have dropped the issue if Eaton had asked them to. I would have thought more highly of him, though, if he had said, "I don't think it's appropriate to try to thwart HHJP's efforts to keep the location secret."

Yes, that would have been more appropriate. I had the feeling Judge Perry felt he was having a "Ceasar" moment when he mentioned all the legal analyst covering the trial. Wasn't Judge Eaton an Orange County judge?

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes, that would have been more appropriate. I had the feeling Judge Perry felt he was having a "Ceasar" moment when he mentioned all the legal analyst covering the trial. Wasn't Judge Eaton an Orange County judge?

Yes, I think so.

 

[grammieto5]

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?"

Thank you for this, it's what I needed to know

 

[missm]

Thank you so much AZ, for answering my earlier question about CG/GA perjury and if every obviously guilty charge goes to trial.

Piggybacking onto your thoughts above about all the "circumstantial" evidence related to this trial, I have one more question that I hope you can give me your thoughts upon:

How is it decided (for lack of a better term) on what is considered circumstantial evidence, compared to what is effectively a more "smoking gun" variety? Does it all really come down to the subjectivity of the powers that be who write up the charges? It just seems like that one man's circumstantial could be another man's smoking gun. Given that you can rightly figure out a motive, a means, a large number supporting facts including decomposition in the shape of a toddler in the car that belonged to the accused... I guess I'm just baffled as to what else someone would need.

Or is it more up to the reaction of the accused when the charges get pressed over what happens next? As in, if they think they can get away with it, then they'll plead not-guilty and then will it go to trial for a jury to decide?

I'm sorry if this is a dopey question- I promise you I'm actually an intelligent person IRL, but TV shows like "The First 48" and "Law & Order" sure have a lot to answer for, in terms of making everything look so straight forward and easy, without really explaining some pretty basic principles. :blushing:

 

[crucibelle]

Ok, I feel like a dummy having to ask this, but I didn't quite understand why Judge Perry would have to delay the trial if the media appeals the decision he made on their motion, today. Can one of the legal experts explain this to me? Would he absolutely HAVE to delay the trial if this appeal happens? I'm worried, because Channel 13 has already stated they plan to appeal. Thanks in advance.

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

Snipped for space:

Thank you AZ for your answer. And since you are the Legal Icon around here - it is probably a good thing you know, as we get to trial time, that I obviously have a rich internal fantasy life. :great:

 

[hannahsnana]

I have been following this case from the very beginning, and I have to say that I simply do not understand the insatiable need to know the location where the jury will be selected. I don't care which station reports it first. I just want them to get on with it and bring this case to trial. Do any of the attorneys understand why this is so important to the media to know now?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you so much AZ, for answering my earlier question about CG/GA perjury and if every obviously guilty charge goes to trial.

Piggybacking onto your thoughts above about all the "circumstantial" evidence related to this trial, I have one more question that I hope you can give me your thoughts upon:

How is it decided (for lack of a better term) on what is considered circumstantial evidence, compared to what is effectively a more "smoking gun" variety? Does it all really come down to the subjectivity of the powers that be who write up the charges? It just seems like that one man's circumstantial could be another man's smoking gun. Given that you can rightly figure out a motive, a means, a large number supporting facts including decomposition in the shape of a toddler in the car that belonged to the accused... I guess I'm just baffled as to what else someone would need.

Or is it more up to the reaction of the accused when the charges get pressed over what happens next? As in, if they think they can get away with it, then they'll plead not-guilty and then will it go to trial for a jury to decide?

I'm sorry if this is a dopey question- I promise you I'm actually an intelligent person IRL, but TV shows like "The First 48" and "Law & Order" sure have a lot to answer for, in terms of making everything look so straight forward and easy, without really explaining some pretty basic principles. :blushing:

If I understand your question correctly, then yes, whether or not someone pleads guilty normally is based largely on whether or not they think a jury will find them guilty. But this has very little to do with whether or not the evidence is direct or circumstantial.

Direct evidence is evidence that directly establishes an element of the crime. Circumstantial evidence requires an inference to get from the evidence to the fact in question. So a confession would be direct evidence. Eyewitness testimony would also be direct evidence. (Ironically, although most jurors place great weight on confessions and eyewitness testimony, both of these forms of direct evidence have been shown to be pretty unreliable.) DNA would be circumstantial evidence: it proves that a person with certain DNA markers deposited biological material in the place it was found, but it doesn't directly prove that the person was Mr. X or that Mr. X actually did anything to the victim. A smoking gun, I guess, would actually be circumstantial evidence now that I think about it. Circumstantial evidence, particularly if there's a lot of it, can be very convincing.

If you wanted to know if a coin was "fair," direct evidence would be if you inspected the coin and saw that it had 2 heads. Circumstantial evidence would be if you flipped it 500 times and got heads every time.

Ok, I feel like a dummy having to ask this, but I didn't quite understand why Judge Perry would have to delay the trial if the media appeals the decision he made on their motion, today. Can one of the legal experts explain this to me? Would he absolutely HAVE to delay the trial if this appeal happens? I'm worried, because Channel 13 has already stated they plan to appeal. Thanks in advance.

I don't think he will have to delay the trial. I think the appeals court will decide this in about 48 hours. And if it takes too long the appeals court will just say, "Oh well, I guess your appeal is moot. Too bad so sad and better luck next time."

I have been following this case from the very beginning, and I have to say that I simply do not understand the insatiable need to know the location where the jury will be selected. I don't care which station reports it first. I just want them to get on with it and bring this case to trial. Do any of the attorneys understand why this is so important to the media to know now?

I don't get it either. I think they just have a pathological desire to know things. This is why they went to journalism school.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Thank You AZ for your time and explaining how things work..

ICA can ask His Honor for a bench trial and forego a jury trial...I wonder if this would be a better strategy for her...What do you think?

Also I don't remember if you said an Alford Plea would be an acceptable plea in a capital murder case???

TIA

 

[missm]

Thanks again AZ. You are such an asset to this community in helping provide some understanding to everything- from the finer fringe points, to the basics.

One last thing, and then I think I will be done- just to make sure I truly understand:

So when charges are pressed (as in this case for example, with all the evidence and facts, depositions and lies that we know about it), is it just really "bad luck" (for the people who want her convicted and in jail forever) that the inmate is getting a trial? As in, if this crime would have potentially happened somewhere else, would it have been a possibility that she just would have been locked up and that would be that? (I'm in Canada for instance, and I'm wondering if the RCMP would have just charged her with murder and it would be done. Or maybe if she was in a different state in the USA. Just examples off the top of my head.)

Or would it still be down to her saying, "No it wasn't me, so I want a trial!" and she would get one.

Is my question clear? I'm trying not to be too wordy. Basically, I want to know if this same crime with the same evidence happened somewhere else, could she have just been locked up, because other professionals would have read the same evidence differently? Does that make sense?

 

[missm]

Like, I know everyone is entitled to a fair trial, I guess what I am trying to determine is who makes that decision when there is so much evidence. Why do some people just go to jail (99% of the time I think is what you said previously) while others get all this money for a trial?

Is it simply down to the accused demanding one when they don't want to plead guilty to a charge, any charge?

 

[LambChop]

AZ, FYI - Amil pointed out to me that Judge Eaton is from Seminole County.

 

[crucibelle]

I don't think he will have to delay the trial. I think the appeals court will decide this in about 48 hours. And if it takes too long the appeals court will just say, "Oh well, I guess your appeal is moot. Too bad so sad and better luck next time."

Thank you, AZlawyer!

 

[TiaM]

First off - thanks so much to our wonderful, patient verified lawyers for keeping up with all these questions. It really helps me understand some of the finer points we have here.

My question is: Why did HHJP feel it necessary to rule on the media motion yesterday in court? Why couldn't he simply file his ruling, say, next Monday morning, or at the least at 4:45pm this Friday?

That way, the media would be free to still file an appeal (or an emergency appeal I guess), but HHJP would still essentially be getting his way - that the media would not be realeasing the info prior to the Court getting "settled" in their location, and the potential jury pool not getting exploited prior to reporting. That matter would just be moot by then.

Is there any law or "rule of Court ettiquette" that would have prevented him from doing this?

It just seems to me that if parties can file motions at the last minute, that he should be able to rule on them at the last minute also.

Sorry if this has been asked and answered - please point me in the right direction if so. I'm beginning to find keeping up with these threads and all the newest ones cumbersome due to how quickly things are happening.

Thanks so much once again.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank You AZ for your time and explaining how things work..

ICA can ask His Honor for a bench trial and forego a jury trial...I wonder if this would be a better strategy for her...What do you think?

Also I don't remember if you said an Alford Plea would be an acceptable plea in a capital murder case???

TIA

I think Casey needs a jury, because she will need at least one person who refuses to "connect the dots" in order to avoid a guilty verdict.

I don't see why she couldn't make an Alford plea, but how would that help her? HHJP could still sentence her to death.

Thanks again AZ. You are such an asset to this community in helping provide some understanding to everything- from the finer fringe points, to the basics.

One last thing, and then I think I will be done- just to make sure I truly understand:

So when charges are pressed (as in this case for example, with all the evidence and facts, depositions and lies that we know about it), is it just really "bad luck" (for the people who want her convicted and in jail forever) that the inmate is getting a trial? As in, if this crime would have potentially happened somewhere else, would it have been a possibility that she just would have been locked up and that would be that? (I'm in Canada for instance, and I'm wondering if the RCMP would have just charged her with murder and it would be done. Or maybe if she was in a different state in the USA. Just examples off the top of my head.)

Or would it still be down to her saying, "No it wasn't me, so I want a trial!" and she would get one.

Is my question clear? I'm trying not to be too wordy. Basically, I want to know if this same crime with the same evidence happened somewhere else, could she have just been locked up, because other professionals would have read the same evidence differently? Does that make sense?

No, there is nowhere in the US that you can just be charged for murder and then kept in prison with no trial. It does not matter how much evidence there is against someone, they still have a right to a trial. AFAIK it is the same in Canada.

Like, I know everyone is entitled to a fair trial, I guess what I am trying to determine is who makes that decision when there is so much evidence. Why do some people just go to jail (99% of the time I think is what you said previously) while others get all this money for a trial?

Is it simply down to the accused demanding one when they don't want to plead guilty to a charge, any charge?

The inmate makes the decision whether or not to go to trial, yes.

First off - thanks so much to our wonderful, patient verified lawyers for keeping up with all these questions. It really helps me understand some of the finer points we have here.

My question is: Why did HHJP feel it necessary to rule on the media motion yesterday in court? Why couldn't he simply file his ruling, say, next Monday morning, or at the least at 4:45pm this Friday?

That way, the media would be free to still file an appeal (or an emergency appeal I guess), but HHJP would still essentially be getting his way - that the media would not be realeasing the info prior to the Court getting "settled" in their location, and the potential jury pool not getting exploited prior to reporting. That matter would just be moot by then.

Is there any law or "rule of Court ettiquette" that would have prevented him from doing this?

It just seems to me that if parties can file motions at the last minute, that he should be able to rule on them at the last minute also.

Sorry if this has been asked and answered - please point me in the right direction if so. I'm beginning to find keeping up with these threads and all the newest ones cumbersome due to how quickly things are happening.

Thanks so much once again.

I think, as a matter of courtesy, HHJP wanted to give the media the opportunity to take their "quickie" appeal before the trial starts. IOW, if the media was unable to finish the appeal before trial, he did not want it to be his fault.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Is the Jury selection process(voir dire) open to the public/media?

 

[Joanner]

I think I remember Judge Perry talking about a jury questionnarie and that he wanted to review the questions from both sides. Since it is so close to jury selection, do you think this has probably been done? Also, when do prospective jurors get that questionnaire to fill out?

 

[katydid23]

Okay, in an IN SESSION interview today C. Mason implied that the defense strategy would be that it was a 'tragic accident.'

JC plays word association with CM. She says Caylee, he says:

"Well, you know, a beautiful young child... tragically... died... uh. Not much you can say about that can't bring her back. Uh, as I've said I have seven grandchildren so I can empathize with for all ages... a beautiful child, just an unfortunate tragedy uh... an accident, it's unfortunate."


Can they go with that strategy without putting Casey on the stand? How would they get that theory out to the jury, other than opening statement, without any witnesses to an accident?

 

[missm]

Thanks AZ!