Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

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?

I don't think she will easily win, but I don't especially want to get sidetracked on that issue.

If ZG wins a judgment and Casey has no money to satisfy the judgment, then ZG will not get any money.

I don't believe GA or CA is a party to the case, although I sort of remember some discussion about adding CA as a defendant. Really, CA was the one who was trying to keep speculation about this lady alive in the beginning, IMO.

 

[Trapshooter]

AZlawyer,

Once the Judge goes through this preliminary jury selection, what happens next? Do you have any idea how many potential jurors were called upon to serve?

Thanks for all you do here! :blowkiss:

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer,

Once the Judge goes through this preliminary jury selection, what happens next? Do you have any idea how many potential jurors were called upon to serve?

Thanks for all you do here! :blowkiss:

I assume they will have a new batch every day. My guess is that they will need a total of about 500 in order to find enough people who have no hardship for a 2-month sequestered trial, are unbiased, and are willing to advise imposition of the death penalty if appropriate.

Once they find the group with no hardships, they will ask questions about bias and the death penalty. An unlimited number of jurors can be stricken by the judge "for cause" (bias, etc.). They will need to have at least 40 jurors left at that point, so IMO, for this case, they'd better have at least 100 when they start that phase.

Because this is a death penalty case, each party will then get 10 "free strikes" (peremptory strikes) of jurors that they can use for whatever reason they want (except for an unlawful reason, like to kick off all the minorities). Normally, in AZ, the parties get a printout of all the remaining jurors on the panel, and then they pass the list back and forth, each party crossing off one juror on each "turn," until 20 are crossed off.

Then there will at least 20 jurors left. The first 12 will be the jury; the next 8will be the alternates. Normally, the jurors are not told which of them are the alternates until the end of the trial--at that point, if there are still more than 12 jurors left in the box, the remaining alternates will be excused. Although sometimes I've seen judges let the alternates stay for deliberations in cases in which the deliberations are expected to take awhile, in case jurors are "lost" during deliberations (e.g., by being seen passing notes to the attorneys, getting ill, or whatever).

ETA: There may be additional peremptory challenges allowed in light of the number of alternate jurors. HHJP will have some discretion in increasing the number of challenges allowed.

 

[ZsaZsa]

A lady was just questioned, she stated at the outset that her religious beliefs do not allow her to judge others, she could not point a finger at someone and put them away.
They didn't excuse her. DT wanted her called back.
Knowing that she cannot convict, whether she finds ICA guilty or not, why would HHJP allow her to be recalled for further screening? Would he allow her to serve with that bias?

 

[MissJames]

Will jurors be allowed to attend Church,Synagogue or Mosque?

 

[Kentjbkent]

I assume they will have a new batch every day. My guess is that they will need a total of about 500 in order to find enough people who have no hardship for a 2-month sequestered trial, are unbiased, and are willing to advise imposition of the death penalty if appropriate.
Once they find the group with no hardships, they will ask questions about bias and the death penalty. An unlimited number of jurors can be stricken by the judge "for cause" (bias, etc.). They will need to have at least 40 jurors left at that point, so IMO, for this case, they'd better have at least 100 when they start that phase.

Because this is a death penalty case, each party will then get 10 "free strikes" (peremptory strikes) of jurors that they can use for whatever reason they want (except for an unlawful reason, like to kick off all the minorities). Normally, in AZ, the parties get a printout of all the remaining jurors on the panel, and then they pass the list back and forth, each party crossing off one juror on each "turn," until 20 are crossed off.

Then there will at least 20 jurors left. The first 12 will be the jury; the next 8will be the alternates. Normally, the jurors are not told which of them are the alternates until the end of the trial--at that point, if there are still more than 12 jurors left in the box, the remaining alternates will be excused. Although sometimes I've seen judges let the alternates stay for deliberations in cases in which the deliberations are expected to take awhile, in case jurors are "lost" during deliberations (e.g., by being seen passing notes to the attorneys, getting ill, or whatever).

ETA: There may be additional peremptory challenges allowed in light of the number of alternate jurors. HHJP will have some discretion in increasing the number of challenges allowed.

We know from those in the courtroom that 130 were called to the courthouse today (summoned...see twitter thread), but if they go through these 130 in the next two days, will they send out additional summons and bring in even more to consider?

 

[uklaw]

When will transcripts of the side-bars be released?

The SAs seemed to complain about ICA crying this morning. Could you court properly issue an order enjoining her from "crying" or showing emotion during the trial. On some level this would (ostensibly, at least) be hard to stop/control.

 

[AZlawyer]

A lady was just questioned, she stated at the outset that her religious beliefs do not allow her to judge others, she could not point a finger at someone and put them away.
They didn't excuse her. DT wanted her called back.
Knowing that she cannot convict, whether she finds ICA guilty or not, why would HHJP allow her to be recalled for further screening? Would he allow her to serve with that bias?

Right now, they're focusing on hardships, not on ability to convict. The one guy who said he had already formed an opinion of guilt clearly had to be excused, even though he raised the issue "out of order." There were no questions that could be asked of him that would have "fixed" that situation. But this lady--there are a whole series of carefully worded questions HHJP would have to go through to excuse her without leaving open an appellate issue for the defense. HHJP did not want to get sidetracked on that issue today. DO NOT FEAR--she will be asked these questions during the next "round" and I would bet money she will be excused for cause due to inability to recommend the death penalty (or possibly even for inability to vote "guilty").

Will jurors be allowed to attend Church,Synagogue or Mosque?

Yes, they will have to work out something for religious observances.

We know from those in the courtroom that 130 were called to the courthouse today (summoned...see twitter thread), but if they go through these 130 in the next two days, will they send out additional summons and bring in even more to consider?

Yes, they would have already sent out summonses for additional days.

When will transcripts of the side-bars be released?

The SAs seemed to complain about ICA crying this morning. Could you court properly issue an order enjoining her from "crying" or showing emotion during the trial. On some level this would (ostensibly, at least) be hard to stop/control.

We will not see any sidebar transcripts unless someone orders a copy and files it with the court clerk--normally this would be done at the start of the appeal process if something critical happened during a sidebar.

Are you sure the SA complained? I heard HHJP give the standard "don't consider emotion" instruction, but that is just a normal thing. The SA would not have had to say anything for him to mention that.

HHJP will not order Casey or anyone in the gallery not to cry, although if someone in the gallery is crying in a distracting manner they may be ejected. There is a line between having a genuine, uncontrollable emotional reaction and making "faces," etc., that are intended to communicate something to the jury. Cindy has demonstrated many times the type of behavior that crosses that line.

 

[uklaw]

Can a Indigent Defendant obtain funds to secure out-of-state documents witnesses and any litigation is necessary?

There seems to be that the State were not going to assist ICA in obtaining information from out-of-state sources. Surely in these circumstances this information would be untouchable for an indigent Defendant.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can a Indigent Defendant obtain funds to secure out-of-state documents witnesses and any litigation is necessary?

There seems to be that the State were not going to assist ICA in obtaining information from out-of-state sources. Surely in these circumstances this information would be untouchable for an indigent Defendant.

Yes, the defense can receive (and has received) funds for obtaining out-of-state docs and depos of out-of-state witnesses. Don't know what you mean by litigation in this context. The State is not responsible for conducting the defense team's discovery.

 

[uklaw]

Yes, the defense can receive (and has received) funds for obtaining out-of-state docs and depos of out-of-state witnesses. Don't know what you mean by litigation in this context. The State is not responsible for conducting the defense team's discovery.

In this case Dr. Vaas is offering expert testimony and the Defense wanted information from the State surrounding Dr. Vaas' testimony (a compound list).

The State said that the Court had no jurisdiction to compel it's production and that if the defense wanted the Compound List they would have to litigate for it in TN (I understand to get out of state documents you need to get a Subpoena in the court where the case is proceeding and then take that Subpoena to the court where the documents are held where litigation may ensue)

I was just asking because it would seem unfair if the Prosecution could present evidence and then hide potentially exculpatory evidence with the FBI and then say if you want this other information goto another jurisdiction and get it (where JB does not have rights of audience, etc).

 

[AZlawyer]

In this case Dr. Vaas is offering expert testimony and the Defense wanted information from the State surrounding Dr. Vaas' testimony (a compound list).

The State said that the Court had no jurisdiction to compel it's production and that if the defense wanted the Compound List they would have to litigate for it in TN (I understand to get out of state documents you need to get a Subpoena in the court where the case is proceeding and then take that Subpoena to the court where the documents are held where litigation may ensue)

I was just asking because it would seem unfair if the Prosecution could present evidence and then hide potentially exculpatory evidence with the FBI and then say if you want this other information goto another jurisdiction and get it (where JB does not have rights of audience, etc).

The defense did not want the information from the State, because the State did not have it. They wanted the information from (IIRC) the FBI, which owns the database.

Yes, to get this information the DT would need to get a subpoena from HHJP and then file it with the court in the proper jurisdiction. I see what you meant by litigation now--if there is an objection, that would be litigated in the other court.

The prosecution is not hiding this evidence. The prosecution does not have it. Neither does the defense. I'm not sure what you mean by rights of audience, but the SA would have no greater ability to obtain those documents than the defense, because the FBI is claiming intellectual property rights and refusing to release them.

I said early on that if I were the SA I would have done the out-of-state subpoena myself and obtained that database (if possible) to avoid any appellate issues due to the DT's incompetence in not obtaining it. But it certainly was not the SA's job to do this.

 

[reasonable]

The defense did not want the information from the State, because the State did not have it. They wanted the information from (IIRC) the FBI, which owns the database.

Yes, to get this information the DT would need to get a subpoena from HHJP and then file it with the court in the proper jurisdiction. I see what you meant by litigation now--if there is an objection, that would be litigated in the other court.

The prosecution is not hiding this evidence. The prosecution does not have it. Neither does the defense. I'm not sure what you mean by rights of audience, but the SA would have no greater ability to obtain those documents than the defense, because the FBI is claiming intellectual property rights and refusing to release them.

I said early on that if I were the SA I would have done the out-of-state subpoena myself and obtained that database (if possible) to avoid any appellate issues due to the DT's incompetence in not obtaining it. But it certainly was not the SA's job to do this.

My concern is that JB said something this morning about needing a continuance because they could not do their own testing without the list of chemicals that they cannot obtain. SO if they get the list, what good does it do them UNLESS they say they need time for their expert to examine and comment and then another hearing on the whole issue. They didn't do any testing on any evidence anyway, but I am afriad the court is more likely to simply disallow the decomposition evidence from Dr. Vass then allow a continuance. I thought the evidence wouldn't come in anyway, but can they use this to bootstrap a continuance?

 

[uklaw]

The defense did not want the information from the State, because the State did not have it. They wanted the information from (IIRC) the FBI, which owns the database.

Yes, to get this information the DT would need to get a subpoena from HHJP and then file it with the court in the proper jurisdiction. I see what you meant by litigation now--if there is an objection, that would be litigated in the other court.

The prosecution is not hiding this evidence. The prosecution does not have it. Neither does the defense. I'm not sure what you mean by rights of audience, but the SA would have no greater ability to obtain those documents than the defense, because the FBI is claiming intellectual property rights and refusing to release them.

I said early on that if I were the SA I would have done the out-of-state subpoena myself and obtained that database (if possible) to avoid any appellate issues due to the DT's incompetence in not obtaining it. But it certainly was not the SA's job to do this.

Thanks for your answer. Sorry "Rights of Audience" is probably not a term used in the US.

I simply mean by it Admission to the Bar of that state and, more particularly, the right to appear before that States courts.

 

[AZlawyer]

My concern is that JB said something this morning about needing a continuance because they could not do their own testing without the list of chemicals that they cannot obtain. SO if they get the list, what good does it do them UNLESS they say they need time for their expert to examine and comment and then another hearing on the whole issue. They didn't do any testing on any evidence anyway, but I am afriad the court is more likely to simply disallow the decomposition evidence from Dr. Vass then allow a continuance. I thought the evidence wouldn't come in anyway, but can they use this to bootstrap a continuance?

They didn't do their own testing for the chemicals Vass identified before--why would they suddenly want to do it now because they have a longer list?

If HHJP just wants to get them the list of chemicals, that can probably be done without delaying the trial. If he decides that the DT needs to have an opportunity to test for the chemicals, that will be a bigger problem--however, it could still be done if he orders that the SA cannot mention the air tests during trial until that testing is complete, results received, etc. In other words, he could allow discovery to continue on this limited issue DURING trial, with no mention of the subject in front of the jury until the discovery is complete.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks for your answer. Sorry "Rights of Audience" is probably not a term used in the US.

I simply mean by it Admission to the Bar of that state and, more particularly, the right to appear before that States courts.

Thanks. None of the attorneys involved would have "rights of audience" in Tennessee as far as I know. What you do is hire a local lawyer for about $1500 to help you out, and/or apply for admission "pro hac vice," which means "for this turn," i.e. a one-time-only admission to that court.

 

[uklaw]

Thanks. None of the attorneys involved would have "rights of audience" in Tennessee as far as I know. What you do is hire a local lawyer for about $1500 to help you out, and/or apply for admission "pro hac vice," which means "for this turn," i.e. a one-time-only admission to that court.

I understand about the concept of pro hac vice admission thanks.

But would the state indigency fund pay for the travel costs or the costs of the local attorner as a matter of standard practice.

 

[AZlawyer]

I understand about the concept of pro hac vice admission thanks.

But would the state indigency fund pay for the travel costs or the costs of the local attorner as a matter of standard practice.

Yes, most likely HHJP would approve those costs to be paid by the JAC.

 

[uklaw]

Yes, most likely HHJP would approve those costs to be paid by the JAC.

Ahh right. So it was not too unreasonable for the SA to take that position.

Thanks

 

[Kentjbkent]

Right now, they're focusing on hardships, not on ability to convict. The one guy who said he had already formed an opinion of guilt clearly had to be excused, even though he raised the issue "out of order." There were no questions that could be asked of him that would have "fixed" that situation. But this lady--there are a whole series of carefully worded questions HHJP would have to go through to excuse her without leaving open an appellate issue for the defense. HHJP did not want to get sidetracked on that issue today. DO NOT FEAR--she will be asked these questions during the next "round" and I would bet money she will be excused for cause due to inability to recommend the death penalty (or possibly even for inability to vote "guilty").



Yes, they will have to work out something for religious observances.



Yes, they would have already sent out summonses for additional days.



We will not see any sidebar transcripts unless someone orders a copy and files it with the court clerk--normally this would be done at the start of the appeal process if something critical happened during a sidebar.

Are you sure the SA complained? I heard HHJP give the standard "don't consider emotion" instruction, but that is just a normal thing. The SA would not have had to say anything for him to mention that.

HHJP will not order Casey or anyone in the gallery not to cry, although if someone in the gallery is crying in a distracting manner they may be ejected. There is a line between having a genuine, uncontrollable emotional reaction and making "faces," etc., that are intended to communicate something to the jury. Cindy has demonstrated many times the type of behavior that crosses that line.

AZ,

I think it is what transpired immediately before that leads some of us to believe that SA complained to HHJP.

He was in the middle of instructing the potential jurors as a group when JA and LDB interrupted and asked to approach the bench. They spoke to HHJP for several minutes then returned to their seats. HHJP then launched into the "no emotion instruction" and then continued where he left off before interruption by SA....