AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
GA and CA have counsel representing them in some capacity.
If the defense appears to be going in the direction of accusing GA of sexual abuse and/or complicit in Caylee's death, what would his counsel advise him to do on the stand and would they advise him to get separate counsel from CA to avoid conflict of interest?
Would it be his counsel's job to protect him from these accusations and advise him to be honest with the court and not cooperate in lying or taking the 5th for the defense?
Would his counsel be required to tell the court if they knew he was lying on the stand or would they resign if they knew he would agree to do this for the defense?
If the defense seems to be going in this direction, if I were joint counsel for CA and GA I would advise him to obtain separate counsel.
The advice ultimately given to him would depend upon a number of things, including his goal(s) as stated to his attorneys and whether or not he has any reason to be concerned about actual criminal prosecution. His attorneys might advise him to take the 5th but could not advise him to lie. If they knew he was going to lie, they should probably withdraw, citing ethical concerns.
This might be a bit premature considering we haven't seen the recently filed motions but why would they be filing the motion in reference to Karen Lowe? She testified about the hair banding. Isn't the purpose of Frye to determine whether it is admissable or not? And then in reference to a hearing for Dr Hall's testimony....didn't HHJP already rule that it was going to be admissible? So are they going to request that it not be allowed? Isn't that basically requesting him to reconsider his initial ruling? Hope all that makes sense.
There hasn't been a ruling on the hair banding motion yet, so I guess the defense team feels that it isn't too late to influence HHJP's thinking on this issue.
My understanding is that HHJP has not made any ruling on Dr. Hall's testimony except that his opinions do not need to meet the Frye standard. There might be any number of other objections to his opinions.
I think they have already requested that HHJP reconsider his ruling about Dr. Hall's opinions, and I think HHJP already denied that request. So if this new filing is just another disguised motion for reconsideration, HHJP may rock his chair right into orbit. :HHJP:
BBM...Could you expand on your reasoning? Because I would have to respectfully disagree. If that was the case, anyone in any murder case could do the same and cause a mistrial all the time could they not?
Would he not be simply ejected from the gallery and/or charged with OGA? Be banned from any future court appearence. An investigation into a claim of that nature would only result in no evidence to support his claim and reaffirm the evidence against KC. I just dont understand the mistrial possibility. Seems too easy of an tactic here or in any other trial.
Thank you for your time.
I don't like these hypothetical questions, because I think the chances of this actually happening are pretty tiny, but IF if if if in crazy-land George were actually to stand up in the gallery and shout, "I did it! I killed Caylee and framed Casey! Arrest me and let her go! I'm sorry Casey!" then I think that would create an indelible impression in the minds of the jurors that would directly impact their decision, was not subject to cross-examination, and could not be corrected by any instruction from the court to "ignore the outburst." Without looking at the case law, and certainly without having researched any Florida cases specifically, it seems to me that a mistrial would be the appropriate response to that situation.
AZ, I have a question regading the autopsy report. The report states "The posterior half of the sagittal suture appears to be in the beginning stages of premature synostosis". From everything I've read Caylee was not born with this defect and the information I have read strongly suggest premature synostosis can be evidence of child abuse. In your opinion will this be brought up during the trial?
I don't think so. I suspect that we are all misunderstanding this issue, as no one involved in the case seems the tiniest bit interested in it. I would like to read Dr. G's deposition, however, to see if there were any questions asked about it.