Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

Thanks so much, AZ! Makes perfect sense.

So, we agree that the only way this could be actually be beneficial to the media at all is if the same situation were to arise in future cases? Because per your #4, in future instances, an evidentiary motion would be required.

If I'm understanding you correctly - considering the timing and no matter the outcome of the appeals court ruling, this is kinda all for naught as far as the Anthony case.

Yes, I agree.

To AZlawyer: Why do YOU think the Anthonys suddenly want to visit ICA??
What are they plotting? Give us your wise, analytical opinion, please.

My personal guess (which is worth nothing more than anyone else's personal guess ) is that they want to convince her to try to get a plea agreement and/or to find out what the secret defense plan is and whether it includes throwing daddy under the bus.

I don't recall where I saw him quoted but apparently yesterday Judge Eaton said that an appeal of this nature could be heard and settled within hours..
Do you think that is so? If it is not achieved in, say 24hrs,is it possible they are dragging their feet to delay it past the point where it even matters. Is there a time limit for these things? What can Ms Mercier do about it if she feels they are stalling?

Yes, it could be decided very very quickly if the appellate court really wanted it to be decided quickly. But a few days certainly could never be construed as foot-dragging, when the normal time period for deciding an appeal is more like 6 months to 2 years. There is no time limit AFAIK, and if there is one they are speeding ahead much faster than any time limit could require. Ms. Mercier can't do anything about it.

 

[nums24]

Will this ruling made yesterday in Seattle have any impact on the Fifth District Court's opinion? Can it be considered by the FL judges or must they wait out the Prosecutor's appeal? Thank you for your time!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014941611_overturned03m.html

On Monday, the court found Njonge had been denied his constitutional right to a public trial when King County Superior Court Judge Laura Middaugh closed the courtroom during a portion of jury selection because of limited space.

 

[AZlawyer]

Will this ruling made yesterday in Seattle have any impact on the Fifth District Court's opinion? Can it be considered by the FL judges or must they wait out the Prosecutor's appeal? Thank you for your time!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014941611_overturned03m.html

No, this ruling is in the state of Washington (and not even from the highest court in that state) and therefore will have no influence whatsoever over the Florida court.

Also, it looks like in that case the courtroom was closed for a period of time. HHJP does not plan to close the courtroom and has ensured that the media will know where jury selection will be held in time to attend.

 

[Joanner]

Is it correct that in closing arguments, the order is: prosecution, defense, and then the prosecution rebuttal (if they want to)? I ask this because I would love to see, in the rebuttal, the SA just hold up a picture of Caylee's skull with the duct tape on it as the last thing the jury sees.

 

[logicalgirl]

Hi AZLawyer - another oddball question that I am :waitasec: ...

George and Cindy recently had their lawyer file a motion asking that they be allowed to visit ICA before the trial begins (almost out of time here) plus to be able to visit her during the trial, and afterwards.

My question is - if CJBP orders the Anthony's sequestered during the trial or during the trial until they finish testifying, how could they possibly be allowed to visit ICA if they are sequestered. Isn't it part of the same sequestered motion because it is ICA who is on trial?

They also don't want the video's released but we know The Judge has already said His door is the wrong one to be knocking on to be asking that question.

I realize GA/CA are waiting for ICA's willingness to accept a visit but how could this be allowed even if she does say yes?

 

[strach304]

AZ,
I was wondering after reading an article about jury selection that said Palm Beach usually has 3,000 jurors ordered and 1/3 show up. That would be 1,000 correct? How do the strikes work? About how many do you estimate from the 1,000 would be left after immediate excusable jurors due to hardship, juror questionnaire, other, etc.? That seems like a lot of people to me. HHJP said if it was going well then they could continue into Saturday. Is that number a daily count or 3,000 for the week? If you know. I know you do this all the time. TIA. I'm hoping no delay due to jury selection.

 

[uklaw]

With respect to the "Mental Health Expert Saga" a few weeks ago and the SA wanting it to be decided behind closed doors because the mere release of the info could "taint" the potential jury pool (which sounds kinda hipocritcal the Jury pool IS tainted already, heavily to the prosecution I suspect), what was to stop the defense simply releasing the mental health report to the media along with anything else inadmissable but favourable to the defense?

The prosecution would look really bad if they tried to make a big deal of this surely after all the info they have released (albeit a lot of it under the Public Records Act).

Just curious because it seems like an obvious strategy to try and correct any bias in the potential jury pool

 

[Aedrys]

Okay, because of the drama with the A's, and suspicion of what the DT is going to do, I have a question. Let's say the A's are successfully kept out, and the defense points out that her parents aren't there in the courtroom to support her as a way of making the jury wonder where they are and why they aren't there. Can the SA then rebut this with the real reason the A's aren't there? Or is the jury not privy to any pretrial motions? Is there anything the SA can do if the DT tries to make a big deal out of her parents not being there? I'm asking because several people have brought up that the DT can use her parents not being there as a way to convince the jury that they are abusive and don't love her, or make her story about abuse seem more plausible.

Just the thought of the DT using this to their advantage and the possibility of the SA not being able to do anything about it makes me worry.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Okay, because of the drama with the A's, and suspicion of what the DT is going to do, I have a question. Let's say the A's are successfully kept out, and the defense points out that her parents aren't there in the courtroom to support her as a way of making the jury wonder where they are and why they aren't there. Can the SA then rebut this with the real reason the A's aren't there? Or is the jury not privy to any pretrial motions? Is there anything the SA can do if the DT tries to make a big deal out of her parents not being there? I'm asking because several people have brought up that the DT can use her parents not being there as a way to convince the jury that they are abusive and don't love her, or make her story about abuse seem more plausible.

Just the thought of the DT using this to their advantage and the possibility of the SA not being able to do anything about it makes me worry.

Neither the DT nor the SA are allowed to simply address the jury outside of opening/closing statements. It could be done in opening or during a witness examination. In that case, the SA could counter it during their examination of the A's. I doubt the DT will bring it up.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it correct that in closing arguments, the order is: prosecution, defense, and then the prosecution rebuttal (if they want to)? I ask this because I would love to see, in the rebuttal, the SA just hold up a picture of Caylee's skull with the duct tape on it as the last thing the jury sees.

Yes, that's correct.

Hi AZLawyer - another oddball question that I am :waitasec: ...

George and Cindy recently had their lawyer file a motion asking that they be allowed to visit ICA before the trial begins (almost out of time here) plus to be able to visit her during the trial, and afterwards.

My question is - if CJBP orders the Anthony's sequestered during the trial or during the trial until they finish testifying, how could they possibly be allowed to visit ICA if they are sequestered. Isn't it part of the same sequestered motion because it is ICA who is on trial?

They also don't want the video's released but we know The Judge has already said His door is the wrong one to be knocking on to be asking that question.

I realize GA/CA are waiting for ICA's willingness to accept a visit but how could this be allowed even if she does say yes?

Being a sequestered witness doesn't mean you can't talk to anyone. However, they wouldn't be able to talk about what was being said by other witnesses on the stand. And how would anyone know if they were talking about other witnesses' testimony, considering that they don't speak in plain English? :waitasec:

AZ,
I was wondering after reading an article about jury selection that said Palm Beach usually has 3,000 jurors ordered and 1/3 show up. That would be 1,000 correct? How do the strikes work? About how many do you estimate from the 1,000 would be left after immediate excusable jurors due to hardship, juror questionnaire, other, etc.? That seems like a lot of people to me. HHJP said if it was going well then they could continue into Saturday. Is that number a daily count or 3,000 for the week? If you know. I know you do this all the time. TIA. I'm hoping no delay due to jury selection.

They won't go through the whole 1,000 at one time. (Plus there are other trials I assume!) They will probably take one batch of jurors at a time, excuse those who can't stay for the whole thing, then go through several more batches until they have a large group who can make it through the whole trial. Then they will start on the jury questionnaires and specific questions about issues that will arise during trial, excuse people "for cause," including people who just can't deal with the idea of recommending death, then each side gets (IIRC) 12 "free" strikes. They are going to need a big group even after they get done excusing people for scheduling issues--maybe 120 would do it. So I would say they will need 500 or so prospective jurors to be called.

With respect to the "Mental Health Expert Saga" a few weeks ago and the SA wanting it to be decided behind closed doors because the mere release of the info could "taint" the potential jury pool (which sounds kinda hipocritcal the Jury pool IS tainted already, heavily to the prosecution I suspect), what was to stop the defense simply releasing the mental health report to the media along with anything else inadmissable but favourable to the defense?

The prosecution would look really bad if they tried to make a big deal of this surely after all the info they have released (albeit a lot of it under the Public Records Act).

Just curious because it seems like an obvious strategy to try and correct any bias in the potential jury pool

There are ethics rules, at least in AZ, that would prevent taking action designed to taint the jury pool with inadmissible information.

Also, the defense might be hoping to keep this information secret from George & Cindy until after they testify lol.

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay, because of the drama with the A's, and suspicion of what the DT is going to do, I have a question. Let's say the A's are successfully kept out, and the defense points out that her parents aren't there in the courtroom to support her as a way of making the jury wonder where they are and why they aren't there. Can the SA then rebut this with the real reason the A's aren't there? Or is the jury not privy to any pretrial motions? Is there anything the SA can do if the DT tries to make a big deal out of her parents not being there? I'm asking because several people have brought up that the DT can use her parents not being there as a way to convince the jury that they are abusive and don't love her, or make her story about abuse seem more plausible.

Just the thought of the DT using this to their advantage and the possibility of the SA not being able to do anything about it makes me worry.

Neither the DT nor the SA are allowed to simply address the jury outside of opening/closing statements. It could be done in opening or during a witness examination. In that case, the SA could counter it during their examination of the A's. I doubt the DT will bring it up.

Oh, I don't think the SA would have to do anything if the DT flat-out lies to the jury about the judge's orders. HHJP will blow a gasket.

 

[logicalgirl]

You are the joker AZLawyer and you gave me quite the tongue in cheek answer when I asked about her parents visiting ICA before or especially during the trial.
You said:
"Being a sequestered witness doesn't mean you can't talk to anyone. However, they wouldn't be able to talk about what was being said by other witnesses on the stand. And how would anyone know if they were talking about other witnesses' testimony, considering that they don't speak in plain English? :waitasec: "

And I understand that if ICA was "anyone", but she is the one on trial, and we don't know if she will be a witness or not do we? So how can one witness meet with other witnesses before they testify, particularly if they are under sequestration orders? I don't get it.

 

[AZlawyer]

You are the joker AZLawyer and you gave me quite the tongue in cheek answer when I asked about her parents visiting ICA before or especially during the trial.
You said:
"Being a sequestered witness doesn't mean you can't talk to anyone. However, they wouldn't be able to talk about what was being said by other witnesses on the stand. And how would anyone know if they were talking about other witnesses' testimony, considering that they don't speak in plain English? :waitasec: "

And I understand that if ICA was "anyone", but she is the one on trial, and we don't know if she will be a witness or not do we? So how can one witness meet with other witnesses before they testify, particularly if they are under sequestration orders? I don't get it.

OK, well being a sequestered witness doesn't mean you can't talk to other witnesses, either. You just can't watch them testify or talk about what anyone said on the stand.

 

[Sammiejam]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but something is driving me crazy. There is a lot of talk about this so called "accident theory". What I want to know is this - since Perp Anth has plead NOT GUILTY, that means she is saying SHE DID NOT DO IT. She had NADA, ZIPPO, ZILCH to do with Caylee's death. I was under the impression that there was no room any admission of guilt when pleading "not guilty"?

For example, if she was going to mount a defense for an accident, would she not have had to plead "Guilty" but to manslaughter charge? Wouldn't she have had to tell the cops - yes, I did it but it was accidental, and then go into the details of the (fabrication) accident?

And if she does try to present this ridiculous scenario at trial, can they use the fact that she turned down the plea bargain for manslaughter/accident against her?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Future Juror]

Good Morning!

Does the delay in HHJP's ruling on the Air samples cause any reason for appeals by either side? I realize they've had 2.5yrs to put together a case, but could they legally complain that the ruling made on the eve of the trial has created a hardship for putting together a case? Could the DT ask for a delay because of this late ruling?

Also, in mid-April, HHJP requested that both sides get together and submit a Statement of Facts (I think that's what it's called) to be read to the Jury. Could that have been part of the housekeeping meeting the other day? Is this something that should already have been worked out (behind the scenes) and we just haven't heard about it? Same with the Voir Dire (sp?) questionnaire. Would they have submitted that to him already for clearance?

Thank You!

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but something is driving me crazy. There is a lot of talk about this so called "accident theory". What I want to know is this - since Perp Anth has plead NOT GUILTY, that means she is saying SHE DID NOT DO IT. She had NADA, ZIPPO, ZILCH to do with Caylee's death. I was under the impression that there was no room any admission of guilt when pleading "not guilty"?

For example, if she was going to mount a defense for an accident, would she not have had to plead "Guilty" but to manslaughter charge? Wouldn't she have had to tell the cops - yes, I did it but it was accidental, and then go into the details of the (fabrication) accident?

And if she does try to present this ridiculous scenario at trial, can they use the fact that she turned down the plea bargain for manslaughter/accident against her?

Thanks in advance.

ICA pleaded not guilty to the charges for which she was indicted. Manslaughter doesn't equate with an "accident". If it were truly an "accident" --i.e. no neglect or other criminal behavior by ICA causing the "accident"--then it would not be a criminal matter. I know she was arrested for lying to LE --not sure if she was indicted for that as well. No, her turning down a plea bargain cannot be used against her.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Good Morning!

Does the delay in HHJP's ruling on the Air samples cause any reason for appeals by either side? I realize they've had 2.5yrs to put together a case, but could they legally complain that the ruling made on the eve of the trial has created a hardship for putting together a case? Could the DT ask for a delay because of this late ruling?

Also, in mid-April, HHJP requested that both sides get together and submit a Statement of Facts (I think that's what it's called) to be read to the Jury. Could that have been part of the housekeeping meeting the other day? Is this something that should already have been worked out (behind the scenes) and we just haven't heard about it? Same with the Voir Dire (sp?) questionnaire. Would they have submitted that to him already for clearance?

Thank You!

Judges make crucial evidentiary rulings during trial! The DT could ask for a continuance if they could establish prejudice and the other factors necessary for gaining a continuance at this stage of the proceedings but I can't imagine they could establish the grounds for a continuance. I don't recall the dates the court gave for submitting the statement of facts or voire dire questionaire but normally both would be submitted by now and discussed with the judge.

 

[Solace]

AZ:

Are the Anthony's allowed in during OPENING STATEMENTS. PLEASE, IF YOU KNOW. Been trying to get this answered foreva.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ:

Are the Anthony's allowed in during OPENING STATEMENTS. PLEASE, IF YOU KNOW. Been trying to get this answered foreva.

Kind of a moot point now lol. IMO the Anthonys would have been entitled to watch opening statements even if they were sequestered, but now HHJP has ruled they can watch the whole trial--until they get kicked out for making faces at least!

 

[magnolia]

Bill Sheaffer seems to think the actions of the DT are a precursor to asking for a delay in the trial. If they file a motion for a continuance at the last minute, do you think they have a chance of being successful.

I'm curious why JB withdrew his motion to challenge the jury selection location ???? Did Judge Perry reconsider his choice of location???