Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

I feel like the citizens of Oz when they state "lets ask the Wizard (insert AZLawyer), he'll (she'll) have the answers".
What do you think the chances are of this ah..motion being granted??

"To prohibit any reference to photographs and social behavior of Ms. Anthony that occured within the "31 days", as such conduct is irrelevant and inadmissable as to consciousness of guilt......"

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27662775/detail.html

There is approximately a zero percent chance that the motion will be granted. Maybe the SA shouldn't be calling the pictures evidence of "consciousness of guilt"--maybe they should be calling them evidence of "state of mind inconsistent with innocence"--but there is no question in my mind that they ARE admissible.

ETA: Worst possible scenario, I think HHJP will say that the evidence may come in, but not until rebuttal, and IF AND ONLY IF the defense theory is inconsistent with the happy, partying behavior for 31 days. But there is no defense theory I can think of that would be consistent with such behavior... :waitasec:

I have a strange question if I may.
Casey stated that Caylee had been missing for 31 days. It seems to me that she was well aware of how many days Caylee had been dead. Can the state use that in some fashion to help convict her? Gosh I hope you can make heads or tails of my question.
Thank you.

Yes, IMO if the jury does not "buy" the story that Caylee was merely "missing" for 31 days, they will attribute Casey's statements about Caylee being "missing" for that time period as indicative of when Casey knew Caylee was dead. I know that's what happened here on WS! That's why I said that the only defense strategy that has any reasonable hope of success is to admit up front that Casey knew Caylee had been dead for 31 days and try to somehow explain Casey's behavior after that time.

Go to YouTube and search Casey Anthony Jail Video August 14 2008. It is referred as "the missing video" by many. I listened to all four parts but did not hear the quote. I was multi-tasking at the time and may have missed it.

Yes, it was released by itself long after the other jail videos, and some of the media outlets only released a "short" version instead of the full version.

Aren't there several items of discovery that are sealed, that we hopefully will learn about at trial?:dunno:

We will know if anything is sealed, because there will be a motion and court order. Thus far, IIRC the following items have been sealed: (1) the autopsy photos and photos of the remains as found at the scene, which will certainly be used at trial, and (2) the video of Casey at the jail when she learned of the discovery of Caylee's remains. The SA has announced that it will not use that video at trial, and did not object to the defense's motion to exclude the video from evidence.

In this latest motion asking for the photos to be kept out isn't Mason confirming for us when exactly Caylee died when he states that the photos were taken "subsequent to the alleged crime".... as we do know the date when the Fusian photos were taken...?

No, he's saying that the photos were taken after the ALLEGED crime. The State ALLEGES that the crime took place June 15/16, 2008. Mason is not admitting this is true.

 

[Macushla]

If the defense stipulates that they acknowledge that Caylee is dead and are not disputing those facts, does that mean the State can not have Dr. G Testify, the investigators at the scene testify and can not introduce the crime scene and autopsy photos into evidence? I guess the DT would have to do this before testimony starts. I am wondering if our legal analysts would recommend going this route. Not arguing the fact that Caylee is dead and was murdered, but arguing that KC had nothing to do with it. Am I correct in thinking that if the DT stipulates to those facts, all the testimony to those facts would not be heard?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the defense stipulates that they acknowledge that Caylee is dead and are not disputing those facts, does that mean the State can not have Dr. G Testify, the investigators at the scene testify and can not introduce the crime scene and autopsy photos into evidence? I guess the DT would have to do this before testimony starts. I am wondering if our legal analysts would recommend going this route. Not arguing the fact that Caylee is dead and was murdered, but arguing that KC had nothing to do with it. Am I correct in thinking that if the DT stipulates to those facts, all the testimony to those facts would not be heard?

The State will still need Dr. G, the investigators and the autopsy/crime scene photos. These witnesses and exhibits will be proving more than just Caylee's death--they will also be proving potential manner of death (duct tape) and manner of disposal (blanket, laundry bag, etc.).

 

[LolaMoon08]

I am really confused why we have not seen quite a few depositions. Most notably to me are the depositions of Mallory and DC. We know the depositions were done, but I was wondering if it is possible that both the State and Defense have agreed not to request transcripts of the depositions so that they are not released under the Sunshine Laws?

Is that even possible?

 

[AZlawyer]

I am really confused why we have not seen quite a few depositions. Most notably to me are the depositions of Mallory and DC. We know the depositions were done, but I was wondering if it is possible that both the State and Defense have agreed not to request transcripts of the depositions so that they are not released under the Sunshine Laws?

Is that even possible?

I can't think why both sides would ever agree to such a thing. If, indeed, their depositions were taken (I haven't memorized the lists) and if, indeed, the depositions were not released (dozens of depositions were released but no media entity has paid for copies so we have not seen them), then there are a couple of possibilities. Perhaps the State didn't order a transcript, so it has nothing to disclose under the Sunshine Laws. Perhaps the State ordered a transcript, but didn't disclose it under the Sunshine Laws because the media only requested items disclosed to the defense, and the State had no need to disclose its transcript to the defense as the defense could order its own transcript.

 

[Aedrys]

It seems the motion by the Anthony's lawyers is no longer on the docket. According to HHJP's ruling, only attorneys of record can do motions in this case. Are the Anthony's lawyers considered attorneys of record? If not, would that be why their motion was removed from the docket? (I did figure out how to look at the court docket for Casey's case and verified their motion is gone).

 

[Cher352]

I can't think why both sides would ever agree to such a thing. If, indeed, their depositions were taken (I haven't memorized the lists) and if, indeed, the depositions were not released (dozens of depositions were released but no media entity has paid for copies so we have not seen them), then there are a couple of possibilities. Perhaps the State didn't order a transcript, so it has nothing to disclose under the Sunshine Laws. Perhaps the State ordered a transcript, but didn't disclose it under the Sunshine Laws because the media only requested items disclosed to the defense, and the State had no need to disclose its transcript to the defense as the defense could order its own transcript.

Is is normal to depose all of the witnesses in a trial??

Could it just be that either side decides that certain witnesses don't need to be deposed?

 

[AZlawyer]

It seems the motion by the Anthony's lawyers is no longer on the docket. According to HHJP's ruling, only attorneys of record can do motions in this case. Are the Anthony's lawyers considered attorneys of record? If not, would that be why their motion was removed from the docket? (I did figure out how to look at the court docket for Casey's case and verified their motion is gone).

It's possible that the Anthonys' new attorneys have not yet filed a notice of appearance. I'm sure they will get that figured out ASAP.

Is is normal to depose all of the witnesses in a trial??

Could it just be that either side decides that certain witnesses don't need to be deposed?

It depends on the type of case you're talking about, but no, it is not normal for as many witnesses to be deposed as have been deposed in this case. Certainly there is no requirement that the witnesses be deposed.

 

[2goldfish]

is it very unusual to televise jury selection even in a high profile case? I've read here and there that it will be televised/filmed/streamed whatever on 9th of may + but I've never heard of this before.

 

[AZlawyer]

is it very unusual to televise jury selection even in a high profile case? I've read here and there that it will be televised/filmed/streamed whatever on 9th of may + but I've never heard of this before.

I'm not sure. I guess I've never been interested enough to try to watch a jury selection before. I suspect even if it is televised live, the jurors' faces will be blurred out at the very least.

 

[Aedrys]

Azlawyer, they did file notices of appearance on 8/25/2010. Is there any other reason a motion would just be pulled from the docket?

 

[AZlawyer]

Azlawyer, they did file notices of appearance on 8/25/2010. Is there any other reason a motion would just be pulled from the docket?

Doesn't make any sense to me. But what you see on the web site is just what a clerk is typing in. I suppose there could be human or computer error affecting what the docket says online.

 

[strawberry]

Is it usual to keep asking the same thing over and over in different ways like the Dteam is doing? EG the stain being reconsidered, the pictures being tossed, the mention of her social life?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it usual to keep asking the same thing over and over in different ways like the Dteam is doing? EG the stain being reconsidered, the pictures being tossed, the mention of her social life?

The number of "reworked" motions and motions for reconsideration is definitely above average in this case. I think it is a sign of desperation.

 

[Shadow5618]

I am asking this question in all seriousness - how on earth is the DT going to defend ICA? With the new evidence admitted today (the canine hits, the hair banding, the heart sticker which ties Caylee to Casey) and the stain in the trunk from yesterday (a decomposing body was in Casey's car), what do they have left? Maybe they should have left the mental health experts on the docket. Seriously - I have never seen a more compelling case of circumstantial evidence. What do you think Jose can use to defend her? Other than simply fighting all of the above, I just don't see an 'alibi'. I think the jury will be back in less than 2 hrs and that includes a nice lunch.

And here is question 2 &3- Did LKB put the "kiss of death" on this case by admitting that everyone knows Casey lied about the nanny? Can the DT admit that Casey was lying without putting ICA on the stand and having her admit it?

 

[Uicipher]

Can you settle a hypothetical that is being argued on a different thread?
If Casey had plead guilty to child abuse before she was charged with murder, is the state prevented from charging Casey for the murder of Caylee via Double Jeopardy? IMO it seems like the same act.

 

[BChand]

AZLawyer - Did you notice yet that the State has added Dr. Jeffrey Danziger
& Dr. William Weitz to their witness list?


This isn't going to make the defense happy is it?

 

[AZlawyer]

I am asking this question in all seriousness - how on earth is the DT going to defend ICA? With the new evidence admitted today (the canine hits, the hair banding, the heart sticker which ties Caylee to Casey) and the stain in the trunk from yesterday (a decomposing body was in Casey's car), what do they have left? Maybe they should have left the mental health experts on the docket. Seriously - I have never seen a more compelling case of circumstantial evidence. What do you think Jose can use to defend her? Other than simply fighting all of the above, I just don't see an 'alibi'. I think the jury will be back in less than 2 hrs and that includes a nice lunch.

And here is question 2 &3- Did LKB put the "kiss of death" on this case by admitting that everyone knows Casey lied about the nanny? Can the DT admit that Casey was lying without putting ICA on the stand and having her admit it?

I still think an "accidental death and stupid attempt to cover up" theory is the best way to go, because IMO the jury will find without too much trouble that Caylee was dead and that Casey disposed of the body. Now the questions become, WHAT/WHO killed Caylee, HOW was Casey so sure Caylee was dead that she knew there was no point in getting help (must have been a very clear death--i.e., not drowning unless she was left in the water for a very long time), WHY did Casey feel she could not tell anyone (if it was not her fault), WHY did Casey dispose of the body the way she did (duct tape??), and WHY THE HECK did Casey then skip off to watch movies, have sex, pole dance, get tattoos, drink beer and watch fireworks for 31 days?

At this point, the defense team is going to have a tough time answering those questions. I would be looking for a plea deal if I were on the defense team, but no one has asked me lol.

IMO Linda B's "admission" that the nanny story is a lie is not an "admission" so much as a leaking of defense strategy. The DT would have to be a bunch of idiots to go with the nanny story. (I know what you guys are thinking....) Anyway, the DT can certainly admit that the nanny story was a lie without having Casey testify. The SA will present plenty of evidence that the nanny story was a lie--the defense team will not have to lift a finger. Then the DT can say, "well duh. Everyone knew that was a lie. " And then JB will give us his "ah-hah!" argument and we will all understand...:waitasec:

Can you settle a hypothetical that is being argued on a different thread?
If Casey had plead guilty to child abuse before she was charged with murder, is the state prevented from charging Casey for the murder of Caylee via Double Jeopardy? IMO it seems like the same act.

Casey wasn't charged with child abuse before she was charged with murder AFAIK--she was charged with child neglect. And the child neglect charge was not for killing Caylee--it was for losing track of her somehow. So it was not for the same act. Plus a guilty plea wouldn't trigger double jeopardy protection in any event. New charges could still be added at that point IMO.

AZLawyer - Did you notice yet that the State has added Dr. Jeffrey Danziger
& Dr. William Weitz to their witness list?


This isn't going to make the defense happy is it?

Probably not. I wonder what the heck they said at their depositions??

 

[LolaMoon08]

I'm confused (again). The State added the doctors that the defense just removed to their witness list? For their case in chief? Ummm... so they are now State witnesses? How did that happen?

I'm intrigued!

 

[Katprint]

We had some long discussions about this way back in 2008. The short answer is that Casey can be convicted of Felony Murder (782.04(1)(a)(2)) if the jury determines that the death of Caylee occurred in connection with Casey's commission of a felony, such as Aggravated Child Abuse. And as long as the indictment charges both the underlying felony (Aggravated Child Abuse) and also First Degree Murder by Premeditated Design (782.04(1)(a)(1)), then the jury may be instructed on Felony Murder even though it is not specifically included in the indictment, according to a decision by the Florida Supreme Court.

Casey can be convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse if she intentionally used a "deadly weapon" against Caylee, which IMO would include a cloth soaked in chloroform or anything similar, or "unlawfully caged" Caylee, which IMO would include leaving her in the trunk, or knowingly "abused" Caylee in an act that caused her great bodily harm (chloroform or leaving in the trunk would definitely constitute "abuse", and death is "great bodily harm").

This situation raises issues of "juror unanimity" and "verdict specificity" i.e. whether jurors can issue guilty verdicts without having to agree on the same acts by the defendant. In Shad v. Arizona, a plurality of the United States Supreme court examined a case where the defendant had been charged with 1) felony murder and 2) premeditated murder, and the jury was not required to specify the theory on which it convicted Shad and thus it was possible that some of the jurors might have believed he was guilty of felony murder but not premeditated murder while other jurors might have believed he was guilty of premeditated murder but not felony murder. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, concluding that felony murder and premeditated murder may be considered alternate means of establishing the crime of to First Degree Murder and the jury need not agree on only one alternative.

So, if two jurors believe Casey premeditated Caylee's murder (by whatever means) based on the computer searches, and two other jurors believe Casey "accidentally" overdosed Caylee with chloroform, and three jurors believe Casey suffocated Caylee with duct tape, and two jurors believe Caylee died of heat/dehydration/lack of oxygen while locked in Casey's car trunk, and another juror believes Casey drowned Caylee in the bathtub or swimming pool, the lack of unanimity concerning the exact mechanism of Caylee's death will not invalidate a First Degree Murder conviction so long as each juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of either felony murder or premeditated murder (or both.)

Katprint
Always only my own opinions