Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[strawberry]

I understand that GA and CA can't "testify" while in the gallery by making facial gestures, nodding, shaking head, but what if they cry? I can't imagine them getting through testimony of Caylee's remains without crying.

 

[Joanner]

Do you think we, the general public, will get to see the questionnaire that prospective jurors are going to be dealing with?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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!

I'm pretty sure the mistrial that JB supposedly promised ICA related to a hung jury. Witnesses are impeached every day in court--it will not result in a mistrial.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Do you think we, the general public, will get to see the questionnaire that prospective jurors are going to be dealing with?

It's part of the court record, so at some point in time, yes.

 

[Mamabear1963]

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


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.


Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Respectfully snipped.

I found this: I don't fully understand it...regarding impeachment http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid22.htm

most of it above my head...but wonder if this is what HHJP is referring to.

 

[beach]

Mod reminder:

This thread is for legal questions only. Please post any other questions regarding trial coverage, etc... in an appropriate topical thread.

Thanks!

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

If the jury hears both sides' arguments and decides KC is guilty of manslaughter, or some other lesser crime, how is that decision announced?

Let's say that, during deliberation, the jury thinks Caylee died by accident, but because of KC's negligence. They think KC is guilty of a lesser charge. So, now what???

I mean, what do they say when the judge asks ,"...On the charge of Murder in the First Degree, how do you find the defendant?"

Do they say, "not guilty, but...?"

Or, do they say, "not guilty," and then something else happens legally that will announce the decision that she is guilty of manslaughter, or whatever???

Is there another chance, then, for the jury to say, "Not guilty of Murder 1, but while we are on the subject..." (of course, not like that, lol, but you know what I mean.)

Or, does KC walk free because they don't think she committed the specific crime for which she is being tried??? I don't think that is the case, but I want to make sure.

Thanks for all of your help!!

 

[Felix]

In the mitigation at capital sentencing phase, could this DT's psychologist/psychiatrist offer a etiology and pathway to this homicide (or accidental death) that involves a mental disorder or syndrome which is not recognized by DSM-IV, and Florida courts through Frye?

JA talked about this in the context of the first use of battered woman syndrome in Hickson. Dr. Harry Krop was involved in that case.

Again, to all of the verified lawyers on WS, thank you. It's been an education, and a very valuable one.

 

[Katprint]

Respectfully snipped.

I found this: I don't fully understand it...regarding impeachment http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid22.htm

most of it above my head...but wonder if this is what HHJP is referring to.

I do understand the general rules governing witness credibility and impeachment. I don't understand specifically which collateral matter - apparently involving impeaching Dr. Vass with another scientist's statements - had previously been discussed with HHJP.

It's possible that some other scientist made hearsay (unsworn out-of-court) statements which differ from Dr. Vass' testimony in some regard. Perhaps Baez would like to introduce those "inconsistent" statements (which aren't really "inconsistent" because they didn't come from Dr. Vass himself) without going to the time, effort and expense of bringing the other scientist to testify.

It's also possible that Baez asked Dr. Vass some trivial or irrelevant question which Dr. Vass answered incorrectly. Now Baez wants to introduce evidence of the correct answer along the lines of: "You graduated in May 1972, not June 1972, didn't you? When you testified at your deposition that you graduated in June, 1972, that wasn't true, was it?" then try to argue that Dr. Vass' testimony should be viewed with suspicion as a result of this impeachment.

It's also possible that Baez tricked Dr. Vass into misspeaking, like we saw at one of the hearings where Baez was questioning a detective, and asked a string of questions then changed one of the words in the middle eliciting a "Yes. I mean, no." answer at one point. Then Baez says, "You have already answered the question. Do you want to change your testimony?" in a snarky tone as though the detective had been caught in a lie or had otherwise done something wrong. (My prior post on this: http://boards.insessiontrials.com/s...ternoon-Session-PT-II&p=14834087#post14834087 ) Perhaps Baez has a similar "gotcha!" for Dr. Vass buried in the 5200+ documents.

Well, we ought to get some idea tomorrow what the defense theory is. They will want to, or at least should want to, determine whether the jurors are prejudiced against their particular defense theory. For example, if they want to blame post traumatic stress disorder or postpartum depression then they need to bounce jurors who share Tom Cruise's opinion that there is no such thing. Similarly, many of us have made up our minds concerning any "battered molested spoiled young sociopath syndrome" and we would not be proper unbiased, impartial jurors about it.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

Yes, we should see most of the questioning. However, in order to avoid tainting the rest of the panel, some questioning of individual jurors might take place in chambers.

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.

I think it only happens if you have some particular reason not to want the jury to think the witness in question is rich, etc. I might ask a witness to remove religious jewelry that could turn off jurors of a different religion.

I understand that GA and CA can't "testify" while in the gallery by making facial gestures, nodding, shaking head, but what if they cry? I can't imagine them getting through testimony of Caylee's remains without crying.

Crying is generally considered to be more involuntary than smirking, pulling "WTF" faces, etc. If CA and GA cry quietly and without making a scene, they will probably not be ejected for that.

If the jury hears both sides' arguments and decides KC is guilty of manslaughter, or some other lesser crime, how is that decision announced?

Let's say that, during deliberation, the jury thinks Caylee died by accident, but because of KC's negligence. They think KC is guilty of a lesser charge. So, now what???

I mean, what do they say when the judge asks ,"...On the charge of Murder in the First Degree, how do you find the defendant?"

Do they say, "not guilty, but...?"

Or, do they say, "not guilty," and then something else happens legally that will announce the decision that she is guilty of manslaughter, or whatever???

Is there another chance, then, for the jury to say, "Not guilty of Murder 1, but while we are on the subject..." (of course, not like that, lol, but you know what I mean.)

Or, does KC walk free because they don't think she committed the specific crime for which she is being tried??? I don't think that is the case, but I want to make sure.

Thanks for all of your help!!

The jury should be specifically asked about any lesser-included charge on which they are instructed.

In the mitigation at capital sentencing phase, could this DT's psychologist/psychiatrist offer a etiology and pathway to this homicide (or accidental death) that involves a mental disorder or syndrome which is not recognized by DSM-IV, and Florida courts through Frye?

JA talked about this in the context of the first use of battered woman syndrome in Hickson. Dr. Harry Krop was involved in that case.

Again, to all of the verified lawyers on WS, thank you. It's been an education, and a very valuable one.

Mitigation testimony regarding mental issues is not limited to things that are recognized by the DSM-IV. The Frye test does not apply to individual mental illnesses, but rather to scientific processes. Frye should not affect the admissibility of mitigation testimony regarding mental issues.

 

[uklaw]

Hi all you wonderful US lawyers.

A question that came up in a recent thread:
Defense Attorneys usually tell there clients to tell them the truth as I understand it (one example is Mark Bennett from Texas but I can't find the link on his page).

The question is: Once a client tells his/her defense attorney that he committed the crime he is charged with (or words similar) but still wants to adhere to a plea of "Not Guilty" how is the Defense Attorney limiited in the representation of the client (as a matter of law and/or ethics).

I appreciate that the law and ethics canons on this may well differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in the US.

Because my understanding from the David Westerfield case is that Feldman (the Defense Attorney) must have known that Westerfield was guilty due to pre-trial plea bargains which fell through and involved Westerfield revealing the body location in exchange for LWOP.

I always thought (because of cases like this) that the ethics rules are slightly more lax in the US than over here (in the UK) for a lawyer representing a client who insists on pleading not guilty despite admitting guilt to his lawyer.

The ethics laws in the UK for anyone who is interested are broadly-speaking (the legal profession is split across more than one jurisdiction with differing legal systems and importantly there is a "split-profession" between "Solicitors" and "Barristers"/"Advocates"), that once a client admits guilt (or facts amounting to guilt) to the lawyer but insists on maintaining a Not Guilty plea the lawyer is limited in defending the client in certain ways. Importantly the lawyer cannot present a defense or argument, or question a witness on the basis, of a set of facts inconsistent with the clients admission. The lawyer COULD however, in the UK, argue that the court has no jurisdiction, the charge is not "relevant" or importantly that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict of Guilty (as opposed to presenting evidence or rebutting evidence on the basis that the client is "Not Guilty").

 

[LinasK]

What happens if the media starts setting up camp there today? Will that cause problems based on this leaked information???

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi all you wonderful US lawyers.

A question that came up in a recent thread:
Defense Attorneys usually tell there clients to tell them the truth as I understand it (one example is Mark Bennett from Texas but I can't find the link on his page).

The question is: Once a client tells his/her defense attorney that he committed the crime he is charged with (or words similar) but still wants to adhere to a plea of "Not Guilty" how is the Defense Attorney limiited in the representation of the client (as a matter of law and/or ethics).

I appreciate that the law and ethics canons on this may well differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in the US.

Because my understanding from the David Westerfield case is that Feldman (the Defense Attorney) must have known that Westerfield was guilty due to pre-trial plea bargains which fell through and involved Westerfield revealing the body location in exchange for LWOP.

I always thought (because of cases like this) that the ethics rules are slightly more lax in the US than over here (in the UK) for a lawyer representing a client who insists on pleading not guilty despite admitting guilt to his lawyer.

The ethics laws in the UK for anyone who is interested are broadly-speaking (the legal profession is split across more than one jurisdiction with differing legal systems and importantly there is a "split-profession" between "Solicitors" and "Barristers"/"Advocates"), that once a client admits guilt (or facts amounting to guilt) to the lawyer but insists on maintaining a Not Guilty plea the lawyer is limited in defending the client in certain ways. Importantly the lawyer cannot present a defense or argument, or question a witness on the basis, of a set of facts inconsistent with the clients admission. The lawyer COULD however, in the UK, argue that the court has no jurisdiction, the charge is not "relevant" or importantly that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict of Guilty (as opposed to presenting evidence or rebutting evidence on the basis that the client is "Not Guilty").

My understanding (I don't practice in the criminal area except on appeal) is that the US ethics rules would generally have the same effect as you describe for the UK ethics rules. With one clarification: a defense "that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict of Guilty" is exactly the same thing as a defense maintaining that the client is "Not Guilty."

What happens if the media starts setting up camp there today? Will that cause problems based on this leaked information???

Hopefully it won't cause any problems. The question will be whether anything happens that taints the jury panel to the point where Casey cannot get a fair trial in the new venue. Quite frankly, I don't think there is enough time for that to happen to the extent that 20 untainted people can't be found out of the hopefully hundreds they will have called in for the jury panel.

 

[allycat1208]

I understand what Zenaida Gonzales is suing for but I don't understand the counter suit. Does anyone know what Casey Anthony is countersuing Zenaida Gonzales for?

 

[RR0004]

I understand what Zenaida Gonzales is suing for but I don't understand the counter suit. Does anyone know what Casey Anthony is countersuing Zenaida Gonzales for?

Sorry...not a lawyer...but here is the doc...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=16478419

Not sure if this has been dropped or not.

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry...not a lawyer...but here is the doc...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=16478419

Not sure if this has been dropped or not.

I understand what Zenaida Gonzales is suing for but I don't understand the counter suit. Does anyone know what Casey Anthony is countersuing Zenaida Gonzales for?

The counterclaim alleges that the lawsuit is frivolous. Not the sort of thing you can properly bring as a counterclaim. You could move to dismiss the case and then ask for fees and costs on the ground that it was frivolous--or under limited circumstances you could sue AFTER the civil case was over and seek damages for malicious litigation. But as a counterclaim IMO it makes no sense.

 

[lauriej]

-------court recess "lunch".

..as kc prepares to spend entire days in court, when they break for lunch recess, is she put back in the holding cell and given a standard "jail lunch"?

( i would hope that she doesn't get anything 'special' just b/c she's in court and not back in her cell. )

 

[AZlawyer]

-------court recess "lunch".

..as kc prepares to spend entire days in court, when they break for lunch recess, is she put back in the holding cell and given a standard "jail lunch"?

( i would hope that she doesn't get anything 'special' just b/c she's in court and not back in her cell. )

I don't know the procedure for this specific court. She would more likely get something from the court cafeteria (if there is one) rather than from any jail menu. However, she certainly would not be allowed to wander around the court building or go to the court cafeteria with her lawyers.

 

[allycat1208]

The counterclaim alleges that the lawsuit is frivolous. Not the sort of thing you can properly bring as a counterclaim. You could move to dismiss the case and then ask for fees and costs on the ground that it was frivolous--or under limited circumstances you could sue AFTER the civil case was over and seek damages for malicious litigation. But as a counterclaim IMO it makes no sense.

That makes sense. It does seem like a frivolous lawsuit to begin. But it seems as though Zenaida Gonzalez will easily win. Also, Zenaida Gonzales must be seeking financial compensation besides just clearing her name. How will she get compensated financially if Casey is indigent? I think the countersuit is only against Casey, not George and Cindy. Am I correct?

 

[Toi]

I have a question & I'm SURE it's been asked & answered but can't find it. If the state is going after the death penalty & the jury doesn't find it premeditated does that mean she walks & can't be charged again? Unless it's a hung jury which I know she can be re-charged right? TIA

Toi