Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[WolfmarsGirl]

Ok, I have to ask this again, because I am worried terribly. Sorry if many others have asked (I think I did once on another thread), but I am trying to resolve, in my mind, what might happen and what is the worst that can happen. So, here it goes:

1)Can JB or any of the DT legally say, in opening statements, "KC found Caylee dead and panicked." ????

2) If there is an alternate scenario presented (like the accident one), does KC then have to testify?? Or can it be done by her attorneys?

3) Will the attorneys get in trouble by offering an alternate theory (without telling the state first about what they are going to contend)? and without KC testifying??

4) If the jury believes the alternate theory, can KC walk free or be sentenced to some light few years??

Thank you in advance.

 

[GourmetSoy]

The media filed an appeal the Judge Perry's ruling yesterday. Can the DT now file a motion to continue (not sure of exact legal wording) for a "cooling off period" the judge mentioned yesterday? I have a bad feeling we're in for another 6 month wait in seeing justice served for Caylee.

Does this seem likely now?

 

[AZlawyer]

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

Yes, it should be public.

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?

I sure hope they're already working on it. Normally, in AZ at least, there is an oral argument a few days before trial about which questions will or will not be allowed. Prospective jurors get the questionnaire at the beginning of jury selection.

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?

Interesting. Thanks for the mini-transcript.

They can say that the evidence is consistent with an accident, and proceed to try to explain that theory.

Ok, I have to ask this again, because I am worried terribly. Sorry if many others have asked (I think I did once on another thread), but I am trying to resolve, in my mind, what might happen and what is the worst that can happen. So, here it goes:

1)Can JB or any of the DT legally say, in opening statements, "KC found Caylee dead and panicked." ????

2) If there is an alternate scenario presented (like the accident one), does KC then have to testify?? Or can it be done by her attorneys?

3) Will the attorneys get in trouble by offering an alternate theory (without telling the state first about what they are going to contend)? and without KC testifying??

4) If the jury believes the alternate theory, can KC walk free or be sentenced to some light few years??

Thank you in advance.

1) Depends on what evidence they plan to present. If Casey will testify to this, sure. If not, probably they will have to say something more like, "the evidence you will see will be consistent with a scenario in which Casey simply found Caylee dead, panicked and covered it up."

2) The attorneys can't present evidence, but they can argue any theory consistent with the evidence. KC does not have to testify in order for them to say that the evidence is consistent with an accident. If they want to say there was some specific kind of accident, IMO they will need to explain why the evidence supports that kind of accident over some other kind. Maybe they will say, e.g., that the evidence supports a drowning accident due to the chloroform levels. (Yes yes I know all the reasons this does not work lol. )

3) The defense team does not have to disclose their THEORY ahead of time, just their witnesses and exhibits.

4) Depends on what alternative theory the jury believes. It's tough for me to think of an "accident" theory that does not involve some level of culpability on Casey's part--but yes, the sentence for something like that would probably be only a few years.

The media filed an appeal the Judge Perry's ruling yesterday. Can the DT now file a motion to continue (not sure of exact legal wording) for a "cooling off period" the judge mentioned yesterday? I have a bad feeling we're in for another 6 month wait in seeing justice served for Caylee.

Does this seem likely now?

The DT can file whatever it wants, I guess. IMO HHJP ought to just move forward with the trial. I don't get what the "cooling off period" would be for if the media does NOT go to the secret location and create a circus atmosphere before trial--I thought HHJP was saying that IF the media had been allowed to inundate the secret location with coverage just before trial, THEN the DT would probably ask for a continuance for a cooling off period. :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

I appreciate how you guys tell me what's happening in the news before you ask your questions. It makes it a lot easier to just pop in on this thread and answer questions without having to catch up on all the other threads first! :blowkiss:

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Since the media has now appealed for whatever the frig'**&@@&^ they are wanting with the disclosure of the jury selection location, what is going to happen now????

Try as I might, I was not able to really understand His Honor's warnings from the hearing yesterday from a legal standpoint.

Now that the media has appealed, what does that really mean for a delay in the start of the trial and why is that so????

Thank you so much for answers in advance...I am fuming mad here :maddening::maddening::maddening:

 

[AZlawyer]

Since the media has now appealed for whatever the frig'**&@@&^ they are wanting with the disclosure of the jury selection location, what is going to happen now????

Try as I might, I was not able to really understand His Honor's warnings from the hearing yesterday from a legal standpoint.

Now that the media has appealed, what does that really mean for a delay in the start of the trial and why is that so????

Thank you so much for answers in advance...I am fuming mad here :maddening::maddening::maddening:

Personally I doubt there will be a delay. Appellate courts can be really fast when they want to be, and HHJP is under no obligation IMO to delay the trial for the benefit of the media. If they can't finish the appeal in time, the trial can still go forward.

 

[chefmom]

Personally I doubt there will be a delay. Appellate courts can be really fast when they want to be, and HHJP is under no obligation IMO to delay the trial for the benefit of the media. If they can't finish the appeal in time, the trial can still go forward.

BBM

Assuming that the trial has started and THEN the appeals court rules against HHJP, what ramifications, if any, would it have on the trial? TIA!

 

[Amil]

Now I understand that the media attorney is with a firm who is connected the the ACLU. If the motion is denied by the district court of appeals, can they appeal it again to the Supreme Court or does the jury selection begin on time?

 

[mombomb]

If CA and GA do visit ICA before jury selection, and the video is released under the Sunshine Law, and either SA or the DT ask for it to become discovery, could this be a way for ICA to get her side of the story into evidence without having to take the stand and be cross examined?

Also, the A's attorney has said that, if a visit occurs, he will fight to keep the video from being released. Do you think that CJBP would agree to that?

 

[LambChop]

Wouldn't it be a risk for defense to use a taped visit with KC telling her family a different story when Dr. Glass could be called to testify as to whether or not KC was again lying? The A's can't practice their conversation with KC and if it does not go the way defense wants it to go wouldn't it be an even bigger problem for them??

 

[zoey]

yesterday in the interview CM stated he has spent 800 hours going over this case....I'm sorry but that really doesn't sound like a lot of hours for this...am I right? or is the 800 alot??? JB stated that he worked 6 1/2 days a week on this (I think he also stated 24/7---but a good 12 hours at least)--and on the 7th day he played with his family-----Thanks---and yes they are both "humble"---(according to the interviewer both stated it and both times made me gag....my poor dogs.....)

 

[LambChop]

Because the A's are the State's witnesses would this be a problem for JB to allow them to see KC if they try to coax KC into providing another story?

 

[Wagara]

After CJBP has his say this week is it possible the DT could be held in contempt if they continue to do interviews? Especially if they appear to have the ability to taint the jury? Could the judge make that ruling? TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM

Assuming that the trial has started and THEN the appeals court rules against HHJP, what ramifications, if any, would it have on the trial? TIA!

None. But the appellate court most likely won't rule after the issue has become moot (i.e., after the secret location has been revealed).

Now I understand that the media attorney is with a firm who is connected the the ACLU. If the motion is denied by the district court of appeals, can they appeal it again to the Supreme Court or does the jury selection begin on time?

Yes, they can keep appealing, but I don't see how any of these appeals will prevent jury selection from beginning on time. Has anyone even ASKED for a stay? If not, how can one possibly be granted?

If CA and GA do visit ICA before jury selection, and the video is released under the Sunshine Law, and either SA or the DT ask for it to become discovery, could this be a way for ICA to get her side of the story into evidence without having to take the stand and be cross examined?

Also, the A's attorney has said that, if a visit occurs, he will fight to keep the video from being released. Do you think that CJBP would agree to that?

1. If another visit is done and the tape is offered as an exhibit, any parts that are hearsay won't be admitted. If the State offers the tape to show statements of Casey telling some new story, it will not be hearsay (because there is an exclusion to the hearsay rule for statements of the defedant when offered by the state). But if the defense tries to offer the tape to show statements of Casey telling some new story, it will be hearsay and inadmissible. So this strategy is no good for the defense.

2. I think they might be able to get an order that the visit will not be released, UNLESS the State identifies it in disclosure, in which case the policy of the Sunshine Laws ought to "trump" any privacy argument.

Wouldn't it be a risk for defense to use a taped visit with KC telling her family a different story when Dr. Glass could be called to testify as to whether or not KC was again lying? The A's can't practice their conversation with KC and if it does not go the way defense wants it to go wouldn't it be an even bigger problem for them??

Dr. Glass? Is that the body language expert? No one would ever be allowed to testify that the body language of the defendant shows that the defendant is lying. And as I said above, the defense wouldn't be able to introduce the tape in any event because it would be hearsay.

yesterday in the interview CM stated he has spent 800 hours going over this case....I'm sorry but that really doesn't sound like a lot of hours for this...am I right? or is the 800 alot??? JB stated that he worked 6 1/2 days a week on this (I think he also stated 24/7---but a good 12 hours at least)--and on the 7th day he played with his family-----Thanks---and yes they are both "humble"---(according to the interviewer both stated it and both times made me gag....my poor dogs.....)

800 hours doesn't sound like much considering how long he's been on the case and the fact that he's "retired" lol.

Because the A's are the State's witnesses would this be a problem for JB to allow them to see KC if they try to coax KC into providing another story?

No, there is no problem with them being "State's witnesses." Neither side "owns" the witnesses on its list. If they try to coax Casey into telling another story, however, they might be tampering with a witness.

After CJBP has his say this week is it possible the DT could be held in contempt if they continue to do interviews? Especially if they appear to have the ability to taint the jury? Could the judge make that ruling? TIA!

No, they can't be held in contempt because they are not violating any court order. Also, I do not believe HHJP will issue a gag order unless someone files a motion asking for one.

 

[beach]

The DT can file whatever it wants, I guess. IMO HHJP ought to just move forward with the trial. I don't get what the "cooling off period" would be for if the media does NOT go to the secret location and create a circus atmosphere before trial--I thought HHJP was saying that IF the media had been allowed to inundate the secret location with coverage just before trial, THEN the DT would probably ask for a continuance for a cooling off period. :waitasec:

<snipped>

Offering my interpretation and how I recall this went down -

HHJP said, "...this is what I am going to do and if I am wrong the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will tell me so..." He denied the media's order and said that it if the appeals court overturned his ruling he would have to hold an evidentiary hearing. That alone would cause a delay and he said, "if that happens, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the defense will file for a continuance." If he was forced to do this, he would grant a 6 month delay (I think that is the length term he threw out, I could be wrong...) and that during that time he would be issuing a gag order on all parties and he would request relief from the sunshine laws asking that no more documents be released during the cooling off period.
(side note: I loved the gag order threat. I took it as a direct message to the defense "be careful what ya ask for because *SNAP* your media blitz is gonna be instantly cut off at the knees")

I promise I am eventually getting to a question here -- :innocent:

From what I understand the 5th Cir. App. Ct. has 3 options:

1. They can uphold HHJP's order - in that case, no harm no foul. everything proceeds per HHJP's order;
2. They can choose to vacate his order (for non-legal minds, that basically means it is trashed...no longer exists); or
3. They can overturn his ruling and order he hold an evidentiary hearing and entertain oral arguments.

I am confused how ANY of those work in the best interests of the media. :waitasec: At this point, we are a mere 5 days away. Even if the appeals court rules in favor of either option 2 or 3, the media still loses, imo. The media is more rabid that anyone about this case going forward, ergo their initial motion. Ratings and all that jazz. So isn't this whole deal one of those "cutting your nose off to spite your face" type things?

Help me understand where the media thinks this is going to help them in the long run? I really don't get where they are coming from, EXCEPT for future cases maybe. Maybe they don't want any precedents set?

(another side note and my own VHO: I think the very important part of this is whole thing is that HHJP specifically and on the record stated that no media outlet was being forced to sign this contract - only if they wanted advance info and that NOTHING was stopping them from trying to figure it out on their own. IOW, good luck to ya, but you're on your own. My point is, I think HHJP covered himself.) Thoughts?

 

[AZlawyer]

<snipped>

Offering my interpretation and how I recall this went down -

HHJP said, "...this is what I am going to do and if I am wrong the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will tell me so..." He denied the media's order and said that it if the appeals court overturned his ruling he would have to hold an evidentiary hearing. That alone would cause a delay and he said, "if that happens, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the defense will file for a continuance." If he was forced to do this, he would grant a 6 month delay (I think that is the length term he threw out, I could be wrong...) and that during that time he would be issuing a gag order on all parties and he would request relief from the sunshine laws asking that no more documents be released during the cooling off period.
(side note: I loved the gag order threat. I took it as a direct message to the defense "be careful what ya ask for because *SNAP* your media blitz is gonna be instantly cut off at the knees")

I promise I am eventually getting to a question here -- :innocent:

From what I understand the 5th Cir. App. Ct. has 3 options:

1. They can uphold HHJP's order - in that case, no harm no foul. everything proceeds per HHJP's order;
2. They can choose to vacate his order (for non-legal minds, that basically means it is trashed...no longer exists); or
3. They can overturn his ruling and order he hold an evidentiary hearing and entertain oral arguments.

I am confused how ANY of those work in the best interests of the media. :waitasec: At this point, we are a mere 5 days away. Even if the appeals court rules in favor of either option 2 or 3, the media still loses, imo. The media is more rabid that anyone about this case going forward, ergo their initial motion. Ratings and all that jazz. So isn't this whole deal one of those "cutting your nose off to spite your face" type things?

Help me understand where the media thinks this is going to help them in the long run? I really don't get where they are coming from, EXCEPT for future cases maybe. Maybe they don't want any precedents set?

(another side note and my own VHO: I think the very important part of this is whole thing is that HHJP specifically and on the record stated that no media outlet was being forced to sign this contract - only if they wanted advance info and that NOTHING was stopping them from trying to figure it out on their own. IOW, good luck to ya, but you're on your own. My point is, I think HHJP covered himself.) Thoughts?

Here are the options as I see them. The media hasn't requested a stay of the Casey Anthony trial and IMO they wouldn't be given one even if they asked, so I haven't included any stay in my options:

1. They win the appeal, which means what? That if they choose to sign the confidentiality agreement, they don't have to abide by it? IMO the appellate court is not going to order HHJP to enter into a one-sided agreement. So what else could it mean? That the court has to give them and all media the secret location ASAP unconditionally? I don't think their trial court motion really asked for that relief, so the appellate court could refuse to grant the relief for that reason alone. But when would this ruling come down? I doubt it would be earlier than Monday morning anyway. What if the ruling is just (as HHJP suggested) that HHJP can't require secrecy unless he has held an evidentiary hearing and determined there is a real danger to Casey's right to a fair trial? So then HHJP comes out on Monday morning at 8 am and says, "OK, well, I would give you an evidentiary hearing but there's not much point now. I'll just tell you the location instead, like I said I would."

2. They lose the appeal, which would leave everything as is.

3. The appellate court issues no order before Monday at 8 am, at which point the location has already been released, so it issues an order saying "the appeal is moot, so we decline to decide it."

4. The appellate court issues no order before Monday at 8 am, so the appeal is moot, but the appellate court decides to address the issue anyway as a matter of public policy to avoid this situation coming up in future cases. The media then either wins or loses, but either way, the issue is moot as to the Casey Anthony case, because the location has already been released.

 

[beach]

Thanks so much, AZ! Makes perfect sense.

So, we agree that the only way this could be actually be beneficial to the media at all is if the same situation were to arise in future cases? Because per your #4, in future instances, an evidentiary motion would be required.

If I'm understanding you correctly - considering the timing and no matter the outcome of the appeals court ruling, this is kinda all for naught as far as the Anthony case.

 

[enelram]

To AZlawyer: Why do YOU think the Anthonys suddenly want to visit ICA??
What are they plotting? Give us your wise, analytical opinion, please.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I don't recall where I saw him quoted but apparently yesterday Judge Eaton said that an appeal of this nature could be heard and settled within hours..
Do you think that is so? If it is not achieved in, say 24hrs,is it possible they are dragging their feet to delay it past the point where it even matters. Is there a time limit for these things? What can Ms Mercier do about it if she feels they are stalling?

 

[Katprint]

Here are the options as I see them. The media hasn't requested a stay of the Casey Anthony trial and IMO they wouldn't be given one even if they asked, so I haven't included any stay in my options:

1. They win the appeal, which means what? That if they choose to sign the confidentiality agreement, they don't have to abide by it? IMO the appellate court is not going to order HHJP to enter into a one-sided agreement. So what else could it mean? That the court has to give them and all media the secret location ASAP unconditionally? I don't think their trial court motion really asked for that relief, so the appellate court could refuse to grant the relief for that reason alone. But when would this ruling come down? I doubt it would be earlier than Monday morning anyway. What if the ruling is just (as HHJP suggested) that HHJP can't require secrecy unless he has held an evidentiary hearing and determined there is a real danger to Casey's right to a fair trial? So then HHJP comes out on Monday morning at 8 am and says, "OK, well, I would give you an evidentiary hearing but there's not much point now. I'll just tell you the location instead, like I said I would."

2. They lose the appeal, which would leave everything as is.

3. The appellate court issues no order before Monday at 8 am, at which point the location has already been released, so it issues an order saying "the appeal is moot, so we decline to decide it."

4. The appellate court issues no order before Monday at 8 am, so the appeal is moot, but the appellate court decides to address the issue anyway as a matter of public policy to avoid this situation coming up in future cases. The media then either wins or loses, but either way, the issue is moot as to the Casey Anthony case, because the location has already been released.

I generally agree, but I have a little bit different analysis of this.

The media attorney was absolutely right: Judge Perry made an order that he was entitled to make IF THAT ORDER WAS BASED ON SPECIFIC FINDINGS which he had not made. To be even more clear, specific findings that he had not made *YET*. Although Judge Perry officially denied the media's motion for reconsideration, in response to the motion he went ahead and made those specific findings and stated them on the record - which is pretty much what the law had required him to do in the first place but which he had kind of skipped over. Dotting his I's and crossing his T's on this fairly undisputed issue was not top on his list compared to all the other plates he is spinning. (Yes, I am mixing my metaphors here. I am taking artistic license for emphasis as a rhetorical device.) IMO, that is why Judge Perry was so rude to the media attorney i.e. even though she was right, she was consuming his valuable limited time/effort dealing with a nuisance rather than the really important stuff.

Plus, I'm guessing the "in camera" stuff at the last hearing was not necessarily a discussion of jury selection venue. It might have been Baez and Mason disclosing that they had been paid a little bit more for their recent TV interviews. If I were Judge Perry, I would be extremely annoyed at both the media and the defense team for that extra bit of sensationalism that will make it all that much more difficult to pick a fair and impartial jury.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions