Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

I hunted for this question but can't find it, so here goes.... What happens if they can't select the jury in the time allotted to them? I heard on panel judge today on HLN state he doesn't think they will select the jury in just a week.

IIRC HHJP said if they are "making progress" they will keep going until they get a jury. If not they might go to another location or just give up on changing venue and go back to Orlando per HHJP. But I think he said that last part as a threat to JB: i.e., don't try to screw up the jury selection because you don't like the location I picked, because I'm not going to Miami like you wanted and you might just find yourself back in Orlando, Mr. Baezzzzzzzz.

 

[faefrost]

What if any impact would the filing of this article from the Virginia Law Review have on anything? What would be the purpose of the filing?

It appears that the article in question is;
Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions
by Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld
95 Va. L. Rev. 1 (2009)

Which seems to be some sort of scholarly opinion piece regarding the use of forensic testimony by prosecutors. Would a university law journal publication such as this carry any weight with the court without any supporting testimony or arguments?

kc docket

04/28/2011 Notice of Filing Virginia Law Review Article from March 2009

http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/default.aspx

Link to archive of Virginia Law Review for March, 09
http://www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?issue=51
(My guess it is this article: http://www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?article=254 )
(hint: If you click PDF link under title, you don't need to have a paid subscription to lexus, etc)

Mod's: Feel free to move if you want a thread for this, just trying to help!

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Thank you, AZlawyer, for answering all our questions. I know we're keeping you busy. You're helping us a great deal in understanding what's going on. :heartluv:

 

[AZlawyer]

What if any impact would the filing of this article from the Virginia Law Review have on anything? What would be the purpose of the filing?

It appears that the article in question is;
Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions
by Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld
95 Va. L. Rev. 1 (2009)

Which seems to be some sort of scholarly opinion piece regarding the use of forensic testimony by prosecutors. Would a university law journal publication such as this carry any weight with the court without any supporting testimony or arguments?

I bet it was cited as an attachment to some motion or other, but someone forgot to actually attach it. Otherwise, you would be exactly correct--you can't just file opinions or articles with the court.

 

[uklaw]

From what I can see, Jose Baez doesn't seem to be acting in Anthony's best interest nor providing effective representation. How does all this sit for a potential ineffective assistance of Counsel claim?

 

[AlwaysShocked]

What is the average time (ballpark estimate, of course) that it would take to pick a jury in a "normal" death penalty case?

 

[grammieto5]

If there is a plea deal made will KC still be allowed appeals?

 

[AZlawyer]

From what I can see, Jose Baez doesn't seem to be acting in Anthony's best interest nor providing effective representation. How does all this sit for a potential ineffective assistance of Counsel claim?

Well, Casey has several lawyers, and HHJP is going out of his way to make sure JB's incompetence doesn't ultimately harm her legal interests. In the end, we'll have to see whether JB did anything that actually made the outcome worse for Casey. If Casey gets the death penalty, there will likely be a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, because that's just one of those things that gets argued in death penalty cases, but it is an extremely tough claim to win.

What is the average time (ballpark estimate, of course) that it would take to pick a jury in a "normal" death penalty case?

A week seems about right to me.

If there is a plea deal made will KC still be allowed appeals?

Yes, but only on a very limited set of issues.

 

[Paintr]

Just a quick question if you please...

I know that, in a trial, the accused's rights are protected. Are any other parties considered to have rights? The victim has none but does the State of Florida who is bringing charges against KC have rights that must be protected by the court? Does the next of kin of the victim or of the accused (which ironically happens to be the same people in this case) have any guaranteed rights? :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

Just a quick question if you please...

I know that, in a trial, the accused's rights are protected. Are any other parties considered to have rights? The victim has none but does the State of Florida who is bringing charges against KC have rights that must be protected by the court? Does the next of kin of the victim or of the accused (which ironically happens to be the same people in this case) have any guaranteed rights? :waitasec:

Victims have rights, except if they're dead. The State has the right to have the rules followed. The next of kin of a homicide victim has rights in place of the victim--e.g., to attend hearings and trial, to make a statement to the court, etc. The next of kin of the accused has no rights that I know of.

 

[chefmom]

AZ, if HHJP allows Dr. Vass testimony about the testing for decomp, do you think that JB will be allowed to cross examine him in the same manner that he did during the hearing? Specifically, will he be able to bring up the Labrador machine and implications of a monetary gain for Dr. Vass by getting his testimony about it in this case? TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, if HHJP allows Dr. Vass testimony about the testing for decomp, do you think that JB will be allowed to cross examine him in the same manner that he did during the hearing? Specifically, will he be able to bring up the Labrador machine and implications of a monetary gain for Dr. Vass by getting his testimony about it in this case? TIA!

Probably. I don't think it will play too well with the jury, though.

 

[Numbers]

"CaseyAnthonyCh9 Casey Anthony WFTV

Defense wants to call lawyer representing EquuSearch volunteer Laura Buchanan, who admits she altered docs in a way that would help Casey"

AZ- Why on earth would the defense want to call LB's lawyer? What could he possibly tell that would be of any value?

 

[octobermoon]

Thanks Numbers

Can a lawyer be forced to testify? Oh gosh, I hope you understand what I am trying to ask.

 

[Katprint]

Victims have rights, except if they're dead. The State has the right to have the rules followed. The next of kin of a homicide victim has rights in place of the victim--e.g., to attend hearings and trial, to make a statement to the court, etc. The next of kin of the accused has no rights that I know of.

Well, the next of kin of an accused who is in custody have some rights which stem from the accused's First Amendment rights, i.e. to write to the accused and to receive correspondence from the accused. These familial communications are not privileged like attorney-client confidential communications; the jail/prison is entitled to monitor these communications.

Also, the next of kin of a homicide victim may be excluded from being present for trial testimony IF THEY WILL BE TESTIFYING AS GUILT PHASE WITNESSES same as guilt phase witnesses who happen to be the next of kin of the accused can be excluded. The judge has wide discretion about this, and I expect Judge Perry will exclude "what happened next?" percipient eyewitnesses during each other's testimony but will allow them to be present during forensic testimony as well as the remainder of the trial after they have been excused from further testimony.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

"CaseyAnthonyCh9 Casey Anthony WFTV

Defense wants to call lawyer representing EquuSearch volunteer Laura Buchanan, who admits she altered docs in a way that would help Casey"

AZ- Why on earth would the defense want to call LB's lawyer? What could he possibly tell that would be of any value?

Who knows? :waitasec:

Thanks Numbers

Can a lawyer be forced to testify? Oh gosh, I hope you understand what I am trying to ask.

Yes, as long as they aren't being asked to reveal attorney-client privileged information.

Well, the next of kin of an accused who is in custody have some rights which stem from the accused's First Amendment rights, i.e. to write to the accused and to receive correspondence from the accused. These familial communications are not privileged like attorney-client confidential communications; the jail/prison is entitled to monitor these communications.

Also, the next of kin of a homicide victim may be excluded from being present for trial testimony IF THEY WILL BE TESTIFYING AS GUILT PHASE WITNESSES same as guilt phase witnesses who happen to be the next of kin of the accused can be excluded. The judge has wide discretion about this, and I expect Judge Perry will exclude "what happened next?" percipient eyewitnesses during each other's testimony but will allow them to be present during forensic testimony as well as the remainder of the trial after they have been excused from further testimony.Katprint
Always only my own opinions

That would be a good compromise.

In Florida, at least, the rights of "next of kin of a homicide victim" to attend the trial are constitutional, so IMO HHJP will either need to decide that they are not next of kin or that Casey's constitutional right to a fair trial would be in jeopardy in order to "trump" the "next of kin" constitutional rights.

But I think it would be fairly easy to determine that Casey's rights to avoid a mistrial, to have untainted witnesses, etc., would be in jeopardy if the As were present throughout the trial, in light of the fact that they are unable to comply with court rules of decorum and are critical fact witnesses who cannot keep their stories straight from one proceeding to the next.

 

[Katprint]

That would be a good compromise.

In Florida, at least, the rights of "next of kin of a homicide victim" to attend the trial are constitutional, so IMO HHJP will either need to decide that they are not next of kin or that Casey's constitutional right to a fair trial would be in jeopardy in order to "trump" the "next of kin" constitutional rights.

But I think it would be fairly easy to determine that Casey's rights to avoid a mistrial, to have untainted witnesses, etc., would be in jeopardy if the As were present throughout the trial, in light of the fact that they are unable to comply with court rules of decorum and are critical fact witnesses who cannot keep their stories straight from one proceeding to the next.

Per intestate succession under Florida inheritance law, Caylee's next of kin are equally 1) Caylee's mother Casey and 2) Caylee's father or Caylee's paternal grandparents if Caylee's father is dead. Florida Statute Section 732.103(2) and (4)(a) http://www.floridaprobatetrustlaw.com/2009/12/articles/probate/florida-inheritance-laws-no-will/

George and Cindy can only claim rights as Caylee's legal next of kin if Casey murdered Caylee and Casey's next of kin status passes to them as if Casey had predeceased Caylee per Florida Statute Section 732.802(1) http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2010/TitleXLII/chapter732/732_802.html

"732.802 Killer not entitled to receive property or other benefits by reason of victim’s death.

(1) A surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under the Florida Probate Code, and the estate of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Property appointed by the will of the decedent to or for the benefit of the killer passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent.
...
(5) A final judgment of conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional for purposes of this section."

To enforce their next-of-kin rights at Casey's criminal trial prior to Casey being convicted of murdering Caylee, the Anthonys would have to obtain a court determination "by the greater weight of the evidence" that Casey's killing of Caylee was "unlawful and intentional." It would be pretty astonishing for the Anthonys to do this if their purpose in attending Casey's criminal trial is to show their support for Casey's innocence. OTOH these are very unpredictable people. Who knows what they might do?

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Edited to add: I think the trial will be MUCH more entertaining whenever the Anthonys are there. It would be interesting to see how George, Cindy and Lee react during testimony accusing George of abusing Casey, Lee molesting Casey and Cindy blaming Casey when Casey goes to her for help. I would not be surprised to see more hand-raising, making faces and shouting back at witnesses on the stand, too. Hopefully George won't be able to smuggle a baseball bat through security nor will Cindy be allowed to bring her hammer.

 

[AZlawyer]

Per intestate succession under Florida inheritance law, Caylee's next of kin are equally 1) Caylee's mother Casey and 2) Caylee's father or Caylee's paternal grandparents if Caylee's father is dead. Florida Statute Section 732.103(2) and (4)(a) http://www.floridaprobatetrustlaw.com/2009/12/articles/probate/florida-inheritance-laws-no-will/

George and Cindy can only claim rights as Caylee's legal next of kin if Casey murdered Caylee and Casey's next of kin status passes to them as if Casey had predeceased Caylee per Florida Statute Section 732.802(1) http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2010/TitleXLII/chapter732/732_802.html

"732.802 Killer not entitled to receive property or other benefits by reason of victim’s death.

(1) A surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under the Florida Probate Code, and the estate of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Property appointed by the will of the decedent to or for the benefit of the killer passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent.
...
(5) A final judgment of conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional for purposes of this section."

To enforce their next-of-kin rights at Casey's criminal trial prior to Casey being convicted of murdering Caylee, the Anthonys would have to obtain a court determination "by the greater weight of the evidence" that Casey's killing of Caylee was "unlawful and intentional." It would be pretty astonishing for the Anthonys to do this if their purpose in attending Casey's criminal trial is to show their support for Casey's innocence. OTOH these are very unpredictable people. Who knows what they might do?

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Edited to add: I think the trial will be MUCH more entertaining whenever the Anthonys are there. It would be interesting to see how George, Cindy and Lee react during testimony accusing George of abusing Casey, Lee molesting Casey and Cindy blaming Casey when Casey goes to her for help. I would not be surprised to see more hand-raising, making faces and shouting back at witnesses on the stand, too. Hopefully George won't be able to smuggle a baseball bat through security nor will Cindy be allowed to bring her hammer.

There is an old 1950s Florida case (don't have time to find it again right now) pointing out that "next of kin" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing for all purposes. However, I agree that it would be reasonable for HHJP to use the inheritance statutes as one guide to determining the meaning of "next of kin" for purposes of the victims' rights provision in the Fla. Const.

 

[mombomb]

How does a lawyer become qualified to handle death penalty cases? I vaguely recall someone suggesting that a plea could jeopardize JB's counting this case toward him being qualified to handle future death penalty cases on his own.

I hope this makes sense. Forgive me if this has been asked and answered previously; and thanks again for all you experts do to help us to understand.

 

[logicalgirl]

Per intestate succession under Florida inheritance law, Caylee's next of kin are equally 1) Caylee's mother Casey and 2) Caylee's father or Caylee's paternal grandparents if Caylee's father is dead. Florida Statute Section 732.103(2) and (4)(a) http://www.floridaprobatetrustlaw.com/2009/12/articles/probate/florida-inheritance-laws-no-will/

George and Cindy can only claim rights as Caylee's legal next of kin if Casey murdered Caylee and Casey's next of kin status passes to them as if Casey had predeceased Caylee per Florida Statute Section 732.802(1) http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2010/TitleXLII/chapter732/732_802.html

"732.802 Killer not entitled to receive property or other benefits by reason of victim’s death.

(1) A surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under the Florida Probate Code, and the estate of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Property appointed by the will of the decedent to or for the benefit of the killer passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent.
...
(5) A final judgment of conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional for purposes of this section."

To enforce their next-of-kin rights at Casey's criminal trial prior to Casey being convicted of murdering Caylee, the Anthonys would have to obtain a court determination "by the greater weight of the evidence" that Casey's killing of Caylee was "unlawful and intentional." It would be pretty astonishing for the Anthonys to do this if their purpose in attending Casey's criminal trial is to show their support for Casey's innocence. OTOH these are very unpredictable people. Who knows what they might do?

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Edited to add: I think the trial will be MUCH more entertaining whenever the Anthonys are there. It would be interesting to see how George, Cindy and Lee react during testimony accusing George of abusing Casey, Lee molesting Casey and Cindy blaming Casey when Casey goes to her for help. I would not be surprised to see more hand-raising, making faces and shouting back at witnesses on the stand, too. Hopefully George won't be able to smuggle a baseball bat through security nor will Cindy be allowed to bring her hammer.

BBM

So is this the reason why Baez appears to have presented his costs on the Caylee pictures fund on ICA's defense costs on the fraud charges re Amy's money?
Because he knew this or was advised this and if she was found guilty on her current charges he/she may have to forfeit that money?

Hope my question has been clear enough...