Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[Nikimama]

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?

This has worried me a LOT. Sometimes I feel that Baez is doing all his shenanigans just to cause this to happen!! He just seems way too inept to be in the position he is in in this case.

Niki in NC

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

I forget all the requirements in Florida, but certainly one of the requirements was to actually try some death penalty cases.

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...

No, the photos never belonged to Caylee at all, so they would be unaffected by that statute. The photos belonged to the person who took them.

 

[logicalgirl]

I forget all the requirements in Florida, but certainly one of the requirements was to actually try some death penalty cases.



No, the photos never belonged to Caylee at all, so they would be unaffected by that statute. The photos belonged to the person who took them.

Could that law not be read more broadly? Obviously the pictures of Caylee would not have been worth anything if she was still alive. Or is it based solely on the pictures belonging to ICA or CA? Because in real time, ICA did benefit from Caylee's death.

 

[AZlawyer]

Could that law not be read more broadly? Obviously the pictures of Caylee would not have been worth anything if she was still alive. Or is it based solely on the pictures belonging to ICA or CA? Because in real time, ICA did benefit from Caylee's death.

No, that particular statute is just about inheriting things from people you killed. Casey, if convicted, can't inherit anything of Caylee's, but I'm pretty sure, to the extent Caylee ever owned anything (the money in her piggy bank, for example), Casey had already stolen it.

 

[katydid23]

"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?

They could depose Laura's lawyer and what if her lawyer tell's them, with her approval, who paid her to alter the TES documents? I don't see how this can possibly help the defense. Unless, it was the Anthony's who paid her, then we may see Casey's defense team aiming the speeding bus right for the Anthony family.

 

[AZlawyer]

They could depose Laura's lawyer and what if her lawyer tell's them, with her approval, who paid her to alter the TES documents? I don't see how this can possibly help the defense. Unless, it was the Anthony's who paid her, then we may see Casey's defense team aiming the speeding bus right for the Anthony family.

Well, I doubt anyone paid her anything, and if they did, they didn't get their money's worth.

I wonder if they want him to testify that the SA threatened to prosecute LB for falsifying the documents if she did not "cooperate" with them?

 

[katydid23]

Well, I doubt anyone paid her anything, and if they did, they didn't get their money's worth.

I wonder if they want him to testify that the SA threatened to prosecute LB for falsifying the documents if she did not "cooperate" with them?

I just find it so odd that they want to bring her into the spotlight at all. Seems very risky. It must be something pretty important for them to take such a big risk , imo.

I just don't think she did all of the falsifying on her own or without the help of others. Isn't the DT afraid of being caught up in it?

 

[logicalgirl]

I just find it so odd that they want to bring her into the spotlight at all. Seems very risky. It must be something pretty important for them to take such a big risk , imo.

I just don't think she did all of the falsifying on her own or without the help of others. Isn't the DT afraid of being caught up in it?

And freeloading off of katydid23's question - since (if I remember right) Laura no longer lives in Florida, can she refuse to attend the trial because she is afraid of incriminating herself?

 

[AZlawyer]

I just find it so odd that they want to bring her into the spotlight at all. Seems very risky. It must be something pretty important for them to take such a big risk , imo.

I just don't think she did all of the falsifying on her own or without the help of others. Isn't the DT afraid of being caught up in it?

I agree. You would think the DT would want to drop the subject of LB like a hot potato.

And freeloading off of katydid23's question - since (if I remember right) Laura no longer lives in Florida, can she refuse to attend the trial because she is afraid of incriminating herself?

She can refuse to travel to Florida for trial. I suppose she could be subpoenaed, by initiating a petition in New Jersey or wherever she lives now attaching an order from HHJP, to appear someplace in New Jersey to testify via phone or video.

If she then decided to take the 5th, there might be arguments about whether she waived that right through prior testimony (same subject but different proceeding, so maybe not), or she might be granted immunity so that she could testify.

 

[uklaw]

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.

But could he ever handle a DP case on his own. I thought DP cases required the Defendant have at least two attorneys.

 

[AZlawyer]

But could he ever handle a DP case on his own. I thought DP cases required the Defendant have at least two attorneys.

But only one of the attorneys has to be DP-qualified. So if he could get DP-penalty qualified, he would be able to take such cases without needing to get DP-qualified co-counsel. It is a lot easier to find just any random co-counsel (e.g., your associates) rather than having to convince someone like Cheney Mason to hop on board your sinking ship.

 

[Katprint]

They could depose Laura's lawyer and what if her lawyer tell's them, with her approval, who paid her to alter the TES documents? I don't see how this can possibly help the defense. Unless, it was the Anthony's who paid her, then we may see Casey's defense team aiming the speeding bus right for the Anthony family.

The crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client communication privilege basically removes the privilege from any attorney-client communications in furtherance of a crime. For example, if an attorney conspires with his/her client to commit witness tampering or jury tampering or bribery or suborning perjury or some other crime like obstruction of justice by falsifying documents/evidence, then those communications are not "privileged." Often someone will claim to have done something illegal because their attorney told them to (aka "advice of counsel"), and equally often the attorney will deny having given them any such advice to commit an illegal act.

Laura Buchanon is such a loose canon that I don't see either side making much of an effort to get her live testimony, nor do I anticipate the DA spending the time and money to get her extradited to Florida for prosecution on obstruction of justice charges.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[katydid23]

The crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client communication privilege basically removes the privilege from any attorney-client communications in furtherance of a crime. For example, if an attorney conspires with his/her client to commit witness tampering or jury tampering or bribery or suborning perjury or some other crime like obstruction of justice by falsifying documents/evidence, then those communications are not "privileged." Often someone will claim to have done something illegal because their attorney told them to (aka "advice of counsel"), and equally often the attorney will deny having given them any such advice to commit an illegal act.

Laura Buchanon is such a loose canon that I don't see either side making much of an effort to get her live testimony, nor do I anticipate the DA spending the time and money to get her extradited to Florida for prosecution on obstruction of justice charges.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

What do you think they want with her lawyer then? This really confuses me. He does not seem to have any connection to this case or to this crime of murder other than through his client's testimony in the deposition. What are they up to?

 

[Katprint]

As an aside, I hope that everyone notices that when AZlawyer and I (or any of the other lawyers posting here) have slight differences of opinion or even completely opposed opinions, we don't insult each other. We are respectful towards each other when we discuss legal issues. I don't take anything personally that AZlawyer says, and I certainly hope AZlawyer is not personally offended by anything that I say.

Courtroom proceedings are not supposed to be full of emotion and angst like on TV. I suspect that hospitals similarly do not resemble the TV shows based on them. (Sadly, my experiences working for large firms have resembled the TV show "The Office" as well as the Dilbert comic strip sometimes. However that is the exception rather than the rule.) It is extremely unusual for a witness testifying on the witness stand to begin chastising and questioning the attorney like George and Cindy have both done. It is extremely unusual for an attorney to insult the opposing counsel by saying they "screamed like a little girl" as Jose Baez said of DA Jeff Ashton. One of the major reasons this case continues to get so much attention is the "what will happen next?" aspect. The ongoing train wreck aspect. Are Baez/Mason stoned or drunk? What will come out of Baez/Mason's mouth next? Who else will the defense team blame for Caylee's death? Will the Anthonys start flinging poo like UC Berkeley tree sitters? http://clog.dailycal.org/2008/09/09/tree-sitters-ultimatum-when-all-else-fails-throw-****/ Every day is a cliffhanger!

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Katprint]

What do you think they want with her lawyer then? This really confuses me. He does not seem to have any connection to this case or to this crime of murder other than through his client's testimony in the deposition. What are they up to?

I really, truly do not understand the defense strategy in this case. It just seems like a put-out-the-latest-brushfire purely reactionary reflex rather than some big picture, unified golden-thread affirmative defensive strategy.

I was trained to use the "golden thread" technique. Basically, you come up with a story that makes sense, that has some firm evidence to support it and is not contradicted by irrefutable evidence. Frequently, initially adverse evidence can become favorable when looked at from a different point of view. For example, fingerprints of a robbery suspect who was ID'd by a store clerk can be negated by bank records showing that the suspect previously shopped at that store, maybe more than once, thus leaving behind his fingerprints and simultaneously being "familiar" when the store clerk is subsequently shown a line-up of possible suspects. Hard work often compensates a lot for bad facts. And, if you've still got absolutely nothing after you have thoroughly worked the case and your client is almost certainly going to be convicted, you make your best efforts to negotiate the best deal you can rather than risk all-or-nothing.

I was not trained to throw mud at a wall in hopes that something will stick. Certainly I would not bet my client's life on it. Quite frankly, if I had a client like Casey who insisted on going with an obviously false alibi like the Zenaida/Zanny/Zany/Zani story, I would have withdrawn a long time ago. $90K or even $200K would not be enough to entice me.

I have seen nothing to change my opinion that some clients choose to hire attorneys like themselves just like some dog owners choose to own dogs that physically resemble them. Casey, the Anthonys and Baez = peas in a pod.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[katydid23]

I really, truly do not understand the defense strategy in this case. It just seems like a put-out-the-latest-brushfire purely reactionary reflex rather than some big picture, unified golden-thread affirmative defensive strategy.

I was trained to use the "golden thread" technique. Basically, you come up with a story that makes sense, that has some firm evidence to support it and is not contradicted by irrefutable evidence. Frequently, initially adverse evidence can become favorable when looked at from a different point of view. For example, fingerprints of a robbery suspect who was ID'd by a store clerk can be negated by bank records showing that the suspect previously shopped at that store, maybe more than once, thus leaving behind his fingerprints and simultaneously being "familiar" when the store clerk is subsequently shown a line-up of possible suspects. Hard work often compensates a lot for bad facts. And, if you've still got absolutely nothing after you have thoroughly worked the case and your client is almost certainly going to be convicted, you make your best efforts to negotiate the best deal you can rather than risk all-or-nothing.

I was not trained to throw mud at a wall in hopes that something will stick. Certainly I would not bet my client's life on it. Quite frankly, if I had a client like Casey who insisted on going with an obviously false alibi like the Zenaida/Zanny/Zany/Zani story, I would have withdrawn a long time ago. $90K or even $200K would not be enough to entice me.

I have seen nothing to change my opinion that some clients choose to hire attorneys like themselves just like some dog owners choose to own dogs that physically resemble them. Casey, the Anthonys and Baez = peas in a pod.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

:goodpost: The THANKS button was just not enough.

 

[AZlawyer]

What do you think they want with her lawyer then? This really confuses me. He does not seem to have any connection to this case or to this crime of murder other than through his client's testimony in the deposition. What are they up to?

Like I said, the only thing that comes to mind is that they want him to testify that the SA told him they would prosecute LB unless she "cooperated." That could be used to impeach LB's testimony if she testifies in favor of the State. But seriously, is anyone really going to call this girl as a witness in the first place? Her testimony is useless to the defense now, and she has nothing to say that helps the State ("I wasn't there so I didn't see anything" doesn't seem like relevant testimony to me).

 

[AZlawyer]

I really, truly do not understand the defense strategy in this case. It just seems like a put-out-the-latest-brushfire purely reactionary reflex rather than some big picture, unified golden-thread affirmative defensive strategy.

I was trained to use the "golden thread" technique. Basically, you come up with a story that makes sense, that has some firm evidence to support it and is not contradicted by irrefutable evidence. Frequently, initially adverse evidence can become favorable when looked at from a different point of view. For example, fingerprints of a robbery suspect who was ID'd by a store clerk can be negated by bank records showing that the suspect previously shopped at that store, maybe more than once, thus leaving behind his fingerprints and simultaneously being "familiar" when the store clerk is subsequently shown a line-up of possible suspects. Hard work often compensates a lot for bad facts. And, if you've still got absolutely nothing after you have thoroughly worked the case and your client is almost certainly going to be convicted, you make your best efforts to negotiate the best deal you can rather than risk all-or-nothing.

I was not trained to throw mud at a wall in hopes that something will stick. Certainly I would not bet my client's life on it. Quite frankly, if I had a client like Casey who insisted on going with an obviously false alibi like the Zenaida/Zanny/Zany/Zani story, I would have withdrawn a long time ago. $90K or even $200K would not be enough to entice me.

I have seen nothing to change my opinion that some clients choose to hire attorneys like themselves just like some dog owners choose to own dogs that physically resemble them. Casey, the Anthonys and Baez = peas in a pod.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

The only possible reason for this haphazard-seeming activity from the defense team (besides incompetence) would be to hide the "real defense strategy" by confusing the SA with all this other garbage.

 

[Joanner]

Would there be anything that Baez might say or ask that would open the door for the SA to call Casey to the witness stand?

 

[AZlawyer]

Would there be anything that Baez might say or ask that would open the door for the SA to call Casey to the witness stand?

No, I can't think of any way that would happen. Did you have something specific in mind?