Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[nomoresorrow]

There is speculation that Casey's defense team may go with an accident theory. Because Casey is charged with 1st degree murder, does that mean if a jury buys an accident theory they have to find Casey not guilty of anything (murder/death related to Caylee), or is there the option of finding her guilty of something else, such as aggravated manslaughter? And if not and she is found not guilty, can the state then file manslaughter charges following this trial or is this it? Murder 1 or nothing? Thank you!

 

[Oakley]

Forgive, I have not read this thread in a long time, but have a question ie this possible lawsuit against BC? Would filing this prevent CA and/or GA from testifying in this on-going case? Another question, would not the same type of action possibly be filed against MN as well? ie Breaking Attorney/Client priv. tia.

To piggyback on this, I would add LKB to the list.

 

[Noddy]

I don't watch enough legal shows to know so I was wondering do the alternates sit with the 12 jurors during trial and see the whole proceedings? Are they separated after each court day and not allowed to speak to each other or are they all allowed to deliberate. Thank you legal eagles.

 

[Marina2]

I believe aggravated child abuse is 15 years max and aggravated manslaughter of a child is 30 years max. The false information charges IIRC are for providing false info during a "missing persons" investigation, so max penalty should be one year.

She can't be given consecutive sentences for charges that apply to essentially the same act, but IMO could be given consecutive sentences for the false information charges as opposed to the abuse/manslaughter charges, and MAYBE for each of the false info charges separately.

Florida has a "point system" to figure out sentencing. I believe her felony convictions will count significantly toward the number of points, but I don't know exactly how much. I have no guess as to how she would actually be sentenced in the circumstances you describe. Perhaps rhornsby might have a guess, though.

bbm, respectfully snipped.
I'm so confused about the aggravated child abuse charge. Aggravated child abuse does carry 15 years max but it is a felony offense. If convicted of this wouldn't it be considered felony murder since Caylee died as a result? If I'm not mistaken, Florida is the only state in which felony murder is a capital offense so couldn't she get the DP if convicted on her Count 2 in the indictment? The way I see it is that there are two ways she could be sentenced to death and one doesn't even require premeditation. I just don't see how she could get only 15 years on an aggravated child abuse conviction if Caylee died as a result.

 

[Paintr]

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

Thank you kindly for this post! I have tried unsucessfully to explain to several people why ZFG is suing. You just gave me the perfect explanation in a nutshell. Well, you and Wm Shakespeare. .

Now a quick question...are their rules about what can/can't be said in a victim impact statement? I know the statement must be submitted to the court and the court must approve the statement before it is given. but can the court remove any wording they don't like?

ETA I assume that death threats and obscenities are a no no, obviously, but anything else?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

There is speculation that Casey's defense team may go with an accident theory. Because Casey is charged with 1st degree murder, does that mean if a jury buys an accident theory they have to find Casey not guilty of anything (murder/death related to Caylee), or is there the option of finding her guilty of something else, such as aggravated manslaughter? And if not and she is found not guilty, can the state then file manslaughter charges following this trial or is this it? Murder 1 or nothing? Thank you!

Would appreciate someone sending me a pm re how to quote multiple posts so I could answer all at once! KC was indicted for first degree murder and other lesser offenses. If the DT puts forth an accident theory that does not include any of the lesser included offenses (i.e. a true accident with no criminal culpability on KC's part) then yes, she could be acquitted of all charges. In order to find her guilty of any of the lesser offenses, such as manslaughter, the DT would have to put forth a theory that fit that charge. If KC is acquitted of all charges this is it. Double jeopardy attaches and she can't be tried for lesser offenses.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

To piggyback on this, I would add LKB to the list.

GA/CA's lawsuit against BC would have no bearing at all on this criminal trial, it would be an entirely different and separate civil matter. I don't see any culpability on BC's part for anything that he has said publicly--ditto MN. No liability on LKB's part either--make no mistake about this--LKB had KC's permission to make her statements. She's a seasoned lawyer who is well aware of her professional and fiduciary obligations to her client.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I don't watch enough legal shows to know so I was wondering do the alternates sit with the 12 jurors during trial and see the whole proceedings? Are they separated after each court day and not allowed to speak to each other or are they all allowed to deliberate. Thank you legal eagles.

The alternates sit with the jurors and take part in all of the trial proceedings because they may very well be asked to take the place of a seated juror. The alternates will be sequestered with the seated jurors. However, they are not allowed into the jury room to deliberate because they are not seated as jurors.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Thank you kindly for this post! I have tried unsucessfully to explain to several people why ZFG is suing. You just gave me the perfect explanation in a nutshell. Well, you and Wm Shakespeare. .

Now a quick question...are their rules about what can/can't be said in a victim impact statement? I know the statement must be submitted to the court and the court must approve the statement before it is given. but can the court remove any wording they don't like?

ETA I assume that death threats and obscenities are a no no, obviously, but anything else?

Judges are allowed to set reasonable limits on time, length and format, and of course death threats and obscenities would probably be excluded as well.

 

[AZlawyer]

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

LE must have "probable cause" to believe that the person committed a crime. A mother having no explanation for where her toddler is that can't quickly be proved false, together with the fact that no one has seen the baby for 31 days and the trunk smells like decomp, is certainly enough.

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.

Yes, I think the show would go on without her.

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?

The hearing was about whether or not Casey's statements to law enforcement would be thrown out due to failure to give Miranda warnings. One issue that was important to answering that question was whether Casey was "in custody" at various times.

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?

I think they will get the number HHJP wants, yes. I am a little concerned that he is no longer trying for 8 alternates, though. This will be a long trial and some jurors are likely to "drop out" for illness, family emergencies, etc.

bbm, respectfully snipped.
I'm so confused about the aggravated child abuse charge. Aggravated child abuse does carry 15 years max but it is a felony offense. If convicted of this wouldn't it be considered felony murder since Caylee died as a result? If I'm not mistaken, Florida is the only state in which felony murder is a capital offense so couldn't she get the DP if convicted on her Count 2 in the indictment? The way I see it is that there are two ways she could be sentenced to death and one doesn't even require premeditation. I just don't see how she could get only 15 years on an aggravated child abuse conviction if Caylee died as a result.

Yes, Casey could get the death penalty for aggravated child abuse resulting in death.

I suppose it is theoretically possible for the jury to find Casey guilty of aggravated child abuse but not felony murder. But I can't, off the top of my head, think of a scenario that would make them come up with that verdict.

I believe about half the states have a capital felony-murder rule.

 

[Cher352]

I watched WFTV 11pm news tonight. KathiB during her coverage of the story mentioned that the DT could use up all their 10 strikes before the jury is sworn then ask the judge for 10 more. If he denies them it could been seen as grounds for appeal.

Can they really do that?

 

[AZlawyer]

I watched WFTV 11pm news tonight. KathiB during her coverage of the story mentioned that the DT could use up all their 10 strikes before the jury is sworn then ask the judge for 10 more. If he denies them it could been seen as grounds for appeal.

Can they really do that?

They can ask for as many strikes as they want. IMO he will give them a maximum of 10 plus as many alternates as they end up with. I don't think this will be a winning appeal issue. On the other hand, forcing the attorneys to use strikes before the entire jury panel has been questioned could be an appeal issue.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I couldn't locate the "thank you Lawyers" thread so, I want to say thank you to all of you that take the time to answer our questions...especially this past week. Thank You

 

[crucibelle]

They can ask for as many strikes as they want. IMO he will give them a maximum of 10 plus as many alternates as they end up with. I don't think this will be a winning appeal issue. On the other hand, forcing the attorneys to use strikes before the entire jury panel has been questioned could be an appeal issue.

If they use all their strikes, though... that means that when the 10 replacement pot. jurors are brought in for questioning, they won't be able to strike any of these new 10, right? If the state has not used all their strikes at that point, seems like that would give them an advantage over the DT.

 

[Skully]

Will the SA do an opening statement, then, try to call witness in the order of which the events took place to "tell the story"? If they start with the beginning of the events it starts with the 911 call CA placed to police about arresting ICA and then the next 2 calls. Everything we know about events before that were what CA and GA and LA told us about the car and Amy and what transpired before LE got involved. If that is the case CA and GA would be called first to testify, no?

 

[tracy87]

a question about the jury.

i inderstand the purpose of "alternates", and that they will hear all of the testimony/evidence as the "regular" jury members, but will they be allowed to participate in the deliberations? i can see the pros and cons of both scenarios.

if they are not present for the deliberations and at, oh say 5th day of deliberations, a jury member becomes ill and an alternate has to step up, then the deliberations have to start all over again.

but, if the alternates are present for the deliberations, and they participate, well that's not fair, is it?

so how does it work for the alternates? are they present for the deliberations?

 

[AZlawyer]

If they use all their strikes, though... that means that when the 10 replacement pot. jurors are brought in for questioning, they won't be able to strike any of these new 10, right? If the state has not used all their strikes at that point, seems like that would give them an advantage over the DT.

Yes.

Will the SA do an opening statement, then, try to call witness in the order of which the events took place to "tell the story"? If they start with the beginning of the events it starts with the 911 call CA placed to police about arresting ICA and then the next 2 calls. Everything we know about events before that were what CA and GA and LA told us about the car and Amy and what transpired before LE got involved. If that is the case CA and GA would be called first to testify, no?

This is just a strategy issue. Actually, the 911 calls come near the END in the timeline, but I agree that that would be a good place to start in this case.

a question about the jury.

i inderstand the purpose of "alternates", and that they will hear all of the testimony/evidence as the "regular" jury members, but will they be allowed to participate in the deliberations? i can see the pros and cons of both scenarios.

if they are not present for the deliberations and at, oh say 5th day of deliberations, a jury member becomes ill and an alternate has to step up, then the deliberations have to start all over again.

but, if the alternates are present for the deliberations, and they participate, well that's not fair, is it?

so how does it work for the alternates? are they present for the deliberations?

From what I've heard from Florida attorneys on the media links, it sounds like the alternates will not participate and the deliberations would have to restart if a juror is replaced.

 

[Turnadot]

My fine, fine fellow sleuthers have been a big help to me on this, but I'd like an answer from one of the kind lawyers who give their time in this thread: is the correct term preemtpive challenge, or peremptory challenge?

LOL, I'm, going to drive myself batty with legal terms, I swear.

 

[AZlawyer]

My fine, fine fellow sleuthers have been a big help to me on this, but I'd like an answer from one of the kind lawyers who give their time in this thread: is the correct term preemtpive challenge, or peremptory challenge?

LOL, I'm, going to drive myself batty with legal terms, I swear.

Peremptory.

 

[Turnadot]

Peremptory.

OMG, thank you so much for responding so fast. The not knowing was driving me insane!