Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

Bill Sheaffer seems to think the actions of the DT are a precursor to asking for a delay in the trial. If they file a motion for a continuance at the last minute, do you think they have a chance of being successful.

I'm curious why JB withdrew his motion to challenge the jury selection location ????

One tends to start thinking of a trial delay when one starts to think one will lose the trial....

I don't think HHJP will grant any such motion unless there is some big giant new thing that happens.

IMO HHJP told JB in chambers, look, if you object to this location, here's my second choice...and that choice (whatever it was) was worse for JB than the first choice.

 

[Patty G]

http://www.5dca.org/Clerk/5D11-1452/11-1452_Order050611.pdf

We vacate the portion of the order that implements the Confidentiality
Agreement, but deny the request to order the trial court to immediately disclose
the location of jury selection proceedings.[/I]

Does this mean now that the media that signed the agreement end up in the "pool" of media that didn't sign the agreement and everyone has to wait to learn where the location is for Jury selection?

 

[AZlawyer]

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin201...11-1452.op.pdf

We vacate the portion of the order that implements the Confidentiality
Agreement, but deny the request to order the trial court to immediately disclose
the location of jury selection proceedings.

Does this mean now that the media that signed the agreement end up in the "pool" of media that didn't sign the agreement and everyone has to wait to learn where the location is for Jury selection?

Yes. I am still laughing. :floorlaugh:

 

[Patty G]

Yes. I am still laughing. :floorlaugh:

That's what I thought also, but before I started to laugh, I needed to hear it from you. :floorlaugh:

 

[JSR]

Yes. I am still laughing. :floorlaugh:

Let me join you .... :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Ah, that old adage comes to mind. Be careful of what you wish for. And a little of stop crying or I'll give you something to really cry about ...

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

PRICELESS

 

[Katprint]

Kind of a moot point now lol. IMO the Anthonys would have been entitled to watch opening statements even if they were sequestered, but now HHJP has ruled they can watch the whole trial--until they get kicked out for making faces at least!

I predict we will see some Anthony-style hairsplitting on following the rules. If the written rule posted in the courtroom says, "Any person making faces in response to testimony will be ejected from the courtroom" then we can expect to hear prevarication along the lines of: "I wasn't making a face! I was nodding my head / shaking my head / dramatically gasping / raising my hand / flipping the bird!" All of which we have seen Cindy do before in court.

Similarly, with the gum chewing: "Why do you think I'm chewing gum? (*gulp*) I'm not chewing gum! Look, I'll open my mouth so you can see there is no gum in there."

OTOH, perhaps the health care provider who certified Cindy's psychological disability so she could receive her benefits, will write her a prescription for tranquilizers so she can better control herself.

All of the above goes for George, too.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[legalmania]

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin201...11-1452.op.pdf

We vacate the portion of the order that implements the Confidentiality
Agreement, but deny the request to order the trial court to immediately disclose
the location of jury selection proceedings.

Does this mean now that the media that signed the agreement end up in the "pool" of media that didn't sign the agreement and everyone has to wait to learn where the location is for Jury selection?

Patty I got a page not found on the link. Did anyone else have this problem?

 

[Katprint]

One tends to start thinking of a trial delay when one starts to think one will lose the trial....

<respectfully snipped>

The elephant in the room on further trial delay is that Casey has been incarcerated FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS without getting this case to trial. Unless the defense team is pretty much convinced that Casey will not only be convicted of First Degree Murder but will also be sentenced to death, or unless the defense team is still utterly unprepared to try this case, or both, Casey doesn't really benefit from further delay. Spending year after year serving life on the installment plan for a crime that she hasn't even been convicted of (yet) is really not a benefit.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[ynotdivein]

Patty I got a page not found on the link. Did anyone else have this problem?

Try this one? http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2011/050211/5D11-1452.op.pdf

 

[strach304]

Judges make crucial evidentiary rulings during trial! The DT could ask for a continuance if they could establish prejudice and the other factors necessary for gaining a continuance at this stage of the proceedings but I can't imagine they could establish the grounds for a continuance. I don't recall the dates the court gave for submitting the statement of facts or voire dire questionaire but normally both would be submitted by now and discussed with the judge.

Will the public ever get to see a copy of that questionnaire?

 

[AZlawyer]

Will the public ever get to see a copy of that questionnaire?

For purposes of having a complete record on appeal, it will presumably be filed with the court clerk at some point, and then it will be public record.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Hi and thank you in advance
Does Judge Perry have to rule on the remaining motions before anything starts, for instance the jury selection, or just rule before the actual trial starts?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi and thank you in advance
Does Judge Perry have to rule on the remaining motions before anything starts, for instance the jury selection, or just rule before the actual trial starts?

Neither. He just has to rule before the jury actually hears the specific evidence he's ruling about.

 

[MissJames]

At the end of the last hearing JB brought up some discovery he had turned over to the SA,but he told them he was not going to use it. Now he thinks he might use it if Dr. Vass get in.
I didn't understand HHJP's reference .Can you explain to me what HHJP told JB?

 

[AZlawyer]

At the end of the last hearing JB brought up some discovery he had turned over to the SA,but he told them he was not going to use it. Now he thinks he might use it if Dr. Vass get in.
I didn't understand HHJP's reference .Can you explain to me what HHJP told JB?

Only if you can tell me what he said. I didn't see the hearing.

 

[Whisperer]

IIRC a CD was dropped off the day before the last hearing. It was information about Dr. Vass. State protested stating this was given too late and they do not have time to review thousand of pages. JB responded and said, "Don't worry about it, it was just given to you as a courtesy, we will not be using it."

Judge gave a little sermon to Baez and said all the discovery, etc was to be completed and given a while ago. JB repeated that he was not using the info on the CD. He let him proceed w/questioning.

Is JB NOW saying he may use it? If he does, will he be in contempt?

 

[SevenSeas]

Hello, About jury selection..

This may have already been asked, (sorry) but what will we be able to hear and see of the questioning of the jurors?

I know someone in CA who didn't agree with the lawyers question, and he had to state that on the witness stand to the Judge. Is this how it usually happens?

 

[Meemom]

First, thank you so much to all the lawyers who help out on this thread. We lay people appreciate it so much! I read this thread evey day, hoping to increase my understanding of the nuances of this circus!

My question- in light of all the talk, motions, etc, specifically by the DT stating that they believe GA & CA's testimony will be impeachable, can they somehow twist this into the "mistrial" that JB supposedly promised ICA?

Thank you!

 

[countzero]

Well heck, I didn't know where to put this question/remark so here is where it landed. Mods please move if not appropriate.

Anywho ... When I was testifying in court for the SAO long, long ago, I was asked or rather told, to remove all my jewelry especially my diamonds. Reason given was they didn't want it to distract the jury or judge or make any type of statement. Even my wedding ring. I did as asked, but turned my wedding ring around, so that only the band of gold showed.

Just curious now if this type of thing happens and if it does, will it happen with this trial? What are your legal opinions, if ya'll have any. Thanks much.

 

[Katprint]

At the end of the last hearing JB brought up some discovery he had turned over to the SA,but he told them he was not going to use it. Now he thinks he might use it if Dr. Vass get in. I didn't understand HHJP's reference. Can you explain to me what HHJP told JB?

Only if you can tell me what he said. I didn't see the hearing.

I saw the hearing but I didn't 100% understand the judge's reference.

The day before, Baez had handed a disc containing 5,200+ documents to Ashton, claiming it was all the background information for Dr. Vass thus it might all potentially constitute impeachment evidence. Ashton wanted Baez to identify the specific portions of the specific documents the defense intended to use. Baez claimed the 5,200+ documents were Vass' work, articles he wrote, interviews he gave, etc. Baez claimed that he didn't know exactly what Dr. Vass was going to testify to thus he had no idea what parts of the 5,200+ documents would be introduced for purposes of impeachment. Ashton said no, it was not all stuff by or about Dr. Vass, there were collateral matters like a court case against another scientist at Oakridge, etc.

HHJP said that the defense didn't have a duty to specify which documents it intended to use, that it was enough that all of the documents had been disclosed in discovery. This discussion ends with:

HHJP: Please remember the evidence rule dealing with impeachment on collateral matters, folks.
JB: I certainly wouldn't attempt to impeach Dr. Vass with another scientist's statements.

I'm not sure what that last bit meant.

My knee-jerk reaction is that if Baez says he isn't going to do something, that is a red flag that he is going to do it. Or, he's going to split hairs about it like Bill Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of the word is, is." IMO Baez thinks he's got something great to impeach Dr. Vass, maybe not another scientist's statements but perhaps Dr. Vass accidentally killed a pet by failing to keep its waterbowl filled when Dr. Vass was a child, or perhaps he smoked pot when he was in high school or had a bad breakup with an ex who now wants to testify that he "lied" to her and cannot be trusted or some other irrelevant "gotcha!" is buried in the 5200+ documents. I believe Baez has no idea what specific documents he plans to use about as much as I believe Baez has no idea how he became Casey's attorney (as he recently stated in an interview last week.)

Katprint
Always only my own opinions