Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[ZsaZsa]

If Casey had any income while awaiting trial (and trial has already started BTW! :waitasec her "indigency" would have to be reassessed. Also, what would she say? "I take the 5th. The end." ??

I'm sure Casey is not interested in the slightest in paying ZG if ZG wins the defamation suit. If Casey has no money to pay ZG, this will not upset Casey.



I don't believe there is any provision in the law that would permit them to do that, and I don't think HHJP will want to test out a new crazy jury selection method on this case.

AZ- I just watched Bill Sheaffer being asked the same question- will they go to Orange County to find add'l jurors if they can't get enough in Pinellas- he said No, they will dismiss this panel completely and move on to another venue.

 

[atthelake]

Question for the lawyers.

1) I keep hearing DT ask each "Do you think you can divorce yourself from that".....being the victims (family) statements after guilty/conviction. They are saying that by law, they can't consider anything in those statements. My question is, why are victims statements even proffered if they can't be considered? Doesn't make sense to me.
2) Also, who is allowed to give such for Caylee? Anyone or is there a process to be "qualified" to give the victims statement? TIA for ALL YOUR TIME!

 

[AZlawyer]

Hope this isn't a really dumb question, but I've been wondering.

JP said Saturday when he gets to 15 he will swear them in. He originally said that he wanted 12 + 8 alternates.

Is it possible that he meant once he has the first 15 (maybe thinking he is allowing 3 strikes which would give him 12) he would swear in those so they could be sequestered to avoid tainting and continue the selection process for the remaining alternates?

Or is that a no-no?

TIA

It seemed to me like he was saying he had changed his mind and was only going to have 3 alternates.

AZ, how was the 6-8 weeks for the duration of the trial calculated? Is is based on the state saying we need x number of weeks to present our case and the same for the defense? Or is calculated on the number of witnesses being called? LOL, I have a hard time calculating how long it will take me to finish my spring cleaning...sometimes it lasts until fall.

The state and defense were asked a long time ago how long they needed to present their cases. The 6-8 weeks is based on the parties' estimates. These estimates are notoriously inaccurate.

Question for the lawyers.

1) I keep hearing DT ask each "Do you think you can divorce yourself from that".....being the victims (family) statements after guilty/conviction. They are saying that by law, they can't consider anything in those statements. My question is, why are victims statements even proffered if they can't be considered? Doesn't make sense to me.
2) Also, who is allowed to give such for Caylee? Anyone or is their a process to be "qualified" to give the victims statement? TIA for ALL YOUR TIME!

(1) It made the voters of Florida (and many other states) feel better to insist that the victims have a right to speak at trial. But there is no way the US Supreme Court will find that "feeling sorry for the victim's family" is an appropriate aggravating factor to trigger the death penalty.

(2) It seems that everyone (State, defense, and HHJP) agreed for purposes of CA and GA's motion to be allowed to stay in court that they were, indeed, "next of kin" of the victim for purposes of the relevant statute. Therefore, they can give a victim impact statement. I can't think of anyone else who would qualify, unless "next of kin" is interpreted broadly enough to include Lee or maybe the great-grandparents. (I'm assuming Caylee's dad will remain unknown and/or dead.)

 

[TakingALook]

Hello AZ, --- if ICA acts up more (RATHER NOTICEABLY) in the future of this trial, what will the Judge say and do about that? IE..(she would have a verbal outburst, tantrum fit etc).
Plus, will anymore of her correspondence received via postal mail be available to the public? (It would be interesting to see what others are saying to her about her DT -- if anything). The DT can't intercept her mail or keep her from getting it can they?
Wish we knew what has changed her attitude toward JB the last few days. TIA

 

[LawRig]

Something about this process triggered a question for me. As ICA sits through the jury selection process , is she privy to the same information that the lawyers are gleaning on each potential candidate? Not what is going to be asked but the background information her team is obviously culling from the internet.

If I were a potential juror I would be totally creeped out that a defendant had privelaged information regarding me whether I was selected to be a jury member or not. Such as my facebook page, or my address or my occupation or my marital status, etc. I realize anything posted on the web is publically accessible, and as part of the "public" the defendant is also able to find the information. However, until becoming the focus of the court for jury duty the information would have been of no interest to the defendant until it was brought to the attention of the defense and prosecution. Suddenly , there I am, exposed to her scrutiny, whether or not I make the jury. So for all those who have been excused, she now has their information and knows they considered her guilty? So if by some deviance in the fabric of karma she actually were to walk free, she would be at leisure to look me up again and commit any form of retaliation she desired?

This concerns me. Are defendants privy to the information gathered by the defense team about the jury interviewees?

 

[BigMomma]

Sorry if this was asked/answered prior, but if ICA were to profit any monies from any source ie media, book deals prior to conviction or serving time, would the State of FL. be able to file a lien against her possible assets while she is incarcerated? tia.

 

[lauriej]

..anneF was making a point of letting it be known that she was "coming down with a cold" or something on saturday. (IMO.)

..if she is in fact "sick" on monday, could the jury selection proceedings be delayed b/c the defense doesn't have her ---to do the mitigation questioning segment--- there? or b/c they have a number of attorneys, would it just proceed without her?

( and thankyou so much AZ, mr.H and all of the other legal-eagles-----much appreciated as you help us all through these legal aspects ! )

 

[AZlawyer]

Hello AZ, --- if ICA acts up more (RATHER NOTICEABLY) in the future of this trial, what will the Judge say and do about that? IE..(she would have a verbal outburst, tantrum fit etc).
Plus, will anymore of her correspondence received via postal mail be available to the public? (It would be interesting to see what others are saying to her about her DT -- if anything). The DT can't intercept her mail or keep her from getting it can they?
Wish we knew what has changed her attitude toward JB the last few days. TIA

HHJP would most likely call her and the attorneys into chambers--or send the jury out--and warn her about appropriate behavior.

I don't know if we'll see any more of her mail. The State won't be identifying any more of it as evidence, unless it's something really major, and I'm not sure if they would be released as "public records" any more based on that new Florida case about inmate phone calls.

Something about this process triggered a question for me. As ICA sits through the jury selection process , is she privy to the same information that the lawyers are gleaning on each potential candidate? Not what is going to be asked but the background information her team is obviously culling from the internet.

If I were a potential juror I would be totally creeped out that a defendant had privelaged information regarding me whether I was selected to be a jury member or not. Such as my facebook page, or my address or my occupation or my marital status, etc. I realize anything posted on the web is publically accessible, and as part of the "public" the defendant is also able to find the information. However, until becoming the focus of the court for jury duty the information would have been of no interest to the defendant until it was brought to the attention of the defense and prosecution. Suddenly , there I am, exposed to her scrutiny, whether or not I make the jury. So for all those who have been excused, she now has their information and knows they considered her guilty? So if by some deviance in the fabric of karma she actually were to walk free, she would be at leisure to look me up again and commit any form of retaliation she desired?

This concerns me. Are defendants privy to the information gathered by the defense team about the jury interviewees?

Yes, Casey is privy to all the information her defense team is gathering.

Sorry if this was asked/answered prior, but if ICA were to profit any monies from any source ie media, book deals prior to conviction or serving time, would the State of FL. be able to file a lien against her possible assets while she is incarcerated? tia.

I think they would first ask HHJP to reassess whether she is "indigent" and cut off the flow of state money for her costs. But I believe we did learn at some point that the State could recoup its costs if the inmate is convicted and gets money down the road.

..anneF was making a point of letting it be known that she was "coming down with a cold" or something on saturday. (IMO.)

..if she is in fact "sick" on monday, could the jury selection proceedings be delayed b/c the defense doesn't have her ---to do the mitigation questioning segment--- there? or b/c they have a number of attorneys, would it just proceed without her?

( and thankyou so much AZ, mr.H and all of the other legal-eagles-----much appreciated as you help us all through these legal aspects ! )

I think it would proceed without her. At this point, JB or CM ought to be able to ask her list of questions by heart.

 

[Snaz]

I'm a little confused about the victim impact statements in this particular case. In most cases, the family of the victim is not related to the defendant and wants justice for their loved one.

Since George and Cindy have made it very clear they support ICA, even to the point of saying she is not guilty, what could they possibly say as next of kin of the victim that would serve any purpose?

I understand the jury is not supposed to take into consideration victim impact statements, but I have heard many jurors say they were strongly affected by something said by the next of kin. And as we all know, you can't unring a bell.

TIA!

 

[aafromaa]

My apologies if this has been asked and answered as I am behind reading this thread...

I'm leaning towards the DT presenting Caylee's death as some type of accident, but can't imagine trying to convince a jury that it was an accident without ever having told that story to LE or SAO. I realize that LE or SAO may not have believed it and insisted on taking it to trial to let the jury decide, but it seems to me that it would be "normal" at least attempt to get SAO to drop the murder charge if one is going to try to say it was an accident.

So my questions are...

1) Is it unusual to claim it was an accident in court after denying any knowledge of the death before trial?
2) Is it possible that DT went to SAO & said it was an accident & here's what happened and we never heard of that conversation?
3) Is the DT required to present any "evidence" that it was an accident (including testimony) or are they allowed to simply state in their opening or closing that it was?
3) If the DT presents any "evidence" that it was an accident - are they required to present that evidence to SAO prior to trial? What if the only "evidence" would be the testimony of the defendant?
4) Is the jury allowed to take into consideration that for 3 yrs the defendant sat in jail without even suggesting the possibility of an accident to LE or SAO?
5) If the jury concludes this was an accident, but that KC was responsible for it, will they have the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter instead of murder?

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm a little confused about the victim impact statements in this particular case. In most cases, the family of the victim is not related to the defendant and wants justice for their loved one.

Since George and Cindy have made it very clear they support ICA, even to the point of saying she is not guilty, what could they possibly say as next of kin of the victim that would serve any purpose?

I understand the jury is not supposed to take into consideration victim impact statements, but I have heard many jurors say they were strongly affected by something said by the next of kin. And as we all know, you can't unring a bell.

TIA!

They COULD say a lot of things. I think you mean what are they LIKELY to say --and the answer is, I have no idea. Maybe they will say that, as hard as it has been to lose Caylee, it would be so much worse to lose both of their "girls."

My apologies if this has been asked and answered as I am behind reading this thread...

I'm leaning towards the DT presenting Caylee's death as some type of accident, but can't imagine trying to convince a jury that it was an accident without ever having told that story to LE or SAO. I realize that LE or SAO may not have believed it and insisted on taking it to trial to let the jury decide, but it seems to me that it would be "normal" at least attempt to get SAO to drop the murder charge if one is going to try to say it was an accident.

So my questions are...

1) Is it unusual to claim it was an accident in court after denying any knowledge of the death before trial?
2) Is it possible that DT went to SAO & said it was an accident & here's what happened and we never heard of that conversation?
3) Is the DT required to present any "evidence" that it was an accident (including testimony) or are they allowed to simply state in their opening or closing that it was?
3) If the DT presents any "evidence" that it was an accident - are they required to present that evidence to SAO prior to trial? What if the only "evidence" would be the testimony of the defendant?
4) Is the jury allowed to take into consideration that for 3 yrs the defendant sat in jail without even suggesting the possibility of an accident to LE or SAO?
5) If the jury concludes this was an accident, but that KC was responsible for it, will they have the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter instead of murder?

(1) It is unusual really to change the defendant's "story" at trial at all, because normally either (a) they have the sense not to give a whole "story" that can easily be proved false, or (b) their attorneys convince them to accept a plea deal if they have told a ridiculous story to LE.

(2) I think that was what the one attorney was trying to do--I forget his name--when he wrote to the state and suggested it might have been an accidental overdose of a sedative (or something like that).

(3) The defense is at least required to explain how the existing evidence supports the accident theory. E.g., the defense could say that the chloroform is consistent with a drowning accident. (Yes I know this is not a good argument lol. ) If the defendant testifies that there was an accident, this solves the whole problem--the testimony of the defendant is not "evidence" in quotes but real actual evidence.

(4) It would certainly be pointed out (now that Casey's statements to LE are coming in) that this is a brand-new story being told for the first time at trial. The jury will take that into consideration.

(5) Yes, if the "accident" was caused by culpable negligence.

 

[lowens1975]

I'm sure you're aware that Baez tried to have the change of venue moved to the Miami-Dade area which is primarily made up of Hispanic people. That didn't happen, but since jury selection has started, Baez has made it known that he is not happy with racial makeup of potential jurors. He then argues about the SA wanting to disqualify a juror, saying it was based on her race, when in fact, it was probably based on her strong religious beliefs and possibly a lack of intellect that would allow her to understand some of the more technical testimony.

Why does he keep on insisting on making race an issue? What do you think his reasoning is behind it?

My only guess has been that he feels that minorities are accused of and brought to trial for more crimes than not and they would be more inclined to sympathize with ICA.

:tyou:

 

[Snaz]

Why is the defense allowed to make such a big deal if a PJ says they cannot consider age? I have listened very carefully to HHJP's instruction about this, and he says " you MAY consider..." He does not say "you MUST consider..."

So how can Baez even use that as an excuse to strike for cause?

TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm sure you're aware that Baez tried to have the change of venue moved to the Miami-Dade area which is primarily made up of Hispanic people. That didn't happen, but since jury selection has started, Baez has made it known that he is not happy with racial makeup of potential jurors. He then argues about the SA wanting to disqualify a juror, saying it was based on her race, when in fact, it was probably based on her strong religious beliefs and possibly a lack of intellect that would allow her to understand some of the more technical testimony.

Why does he keep on insisting on making race an issue? What do you think his reasoning is behind it?

My only guess has been that he feels that minorities are accused of and brought to trial for more crimes than not and they would be more inclined to sympathize with ICA.

:tyou:

The conventional wisdom among defense attorneys is that minorities do not trust LE and are more willing to believe a story of being "framed" or of a "rush to judgment" by LE.

Why is the defense allowed to make such a big deal if a PJ says they cannot consider age? I have listened very carefully to HHJP's instruction about this, and he says " you MAY consider..." He does not say "you MUST consider..."

So how can Baez even use that as an excuse to strike for cause?

TIA!

I agree, but I assume there is some Florida appellate case that says that potential jurors must be willing to at least consider it, because no one in the courtroom is objecting to that idea.

 

[allycat1208]

How much evidence and certainty does law enforcement have to have in order to arrest a suspect or a crime?

 

[whiteangora]

Ann Finnell seems quite ill today, so I am wondering.....
What if she ends up hospitalized? Would the trial continue without her?
BTW, even tho I don't ask many questions on this thread, I really
appreciate the answers and the time you take to post here for us.

 

[allycat1208]

In a court hearing when Yuri Melich testifies, he is asked many questions by JB regarding reading ICA her miranda rights and if he told her she can leave or speak to a lawyer. He also asked if any of the other officers had handcuffed Casey before she was in their car. The questions seemed to be about procedures generally taken by police officers. He seemed to be implying that Melich arrested ICA before it was necessary and that he might have done something else wrong in the initial stage of the investigation. I don't think it was ever established that the officers did anything wrong. Is Baez just trying to imply that Melich and the other law officers possibly are not very competent and damage their credibility? Why do they have a hearing just for this?

 

[Cabin girl]

Hi AZ, I have been catching some of the jury selection process. For the most part I find it painful to watch:banghead:
So my question it is not legally technical, it is simply a request for your opinion.
How long do you think this will go on? Do you think they will get the number of jurors they need in this part of FL or do you think they will end up starting all over again?

 

[2goldfish]

hello AZ and others :loveyou: who can be called esquire, and why?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I don't see why Zenaida Gonzales is suing KC. Is clearing her name so important? It does seems frivious. Do you believe her attorneys talked her into suing. I would think they will just get publicity from the case, so they have almost more of a vested interest than Zenaida herself, unless the allegations regarding Zenaida by KC have really brought her so much harm...somehow I doubt it. But I maybe be wrong.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed. -Bill Shakespeare