Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[TiaM]

No. BUT but but but what do you mean by "lie"? Saying, e.g., that George molested Casey is not "knowingly lying" unless Casey told Jose, "Look. My father did not molest me, but I want you to say that he did as part of my defense."

Just for umm, "Splits & Giggles"....

After all, he HAS demonstrated that he straddles the ethical line very precariously.

Let's say she did. Or let's say Jose thinks that's the ticket to an acquittal. Let's say it's somehow "proven".

Then what?

 

[LolaMoon08]

My only question would be... WHAT was THAT??? Please tell me that the jury is NOT going to buy the Kronk story or that George pretty much framed Casey for murder??

 

[AZlawyer]

Bet you folks are on overtime today. My question is...what's up with the head shaking and head nodding - as if ICA is contradicting a person's testimony? Isn't that forbidden? I was not happy seeing her doing that. Isn't that testifying in a backwards sort of way?

Yes, it is testifying in a backwards sort of way, it is forbidden, and someone (cough cough HHJP cough cough) ought to put a stop to it. Outside the hearing of the jury.

Just for umm, "Splits & Giggles"....

After all, he HAS demonstrated that he straddles the ethical line very precariously.

Let's say she did. Or let's say Jose thinks that's the ticket to an acquittal. Let's say it's somehow "proven".

Then what?

Oh. Then he could be disbarred, yes.

My only question would be... WHAT was THAT??? Please tell me that the jury is NOT going to buy the Kronk story or that George pretty much framed Casey for murder??

THAT was a mess IMO. Jose took the best possible defense (accident plus cover-up plus ugly coping due to being messed up in childhood) and screwed it up by adding in a bunch of other carp that the jury probably won't buy. :banghead:

 

[ZsaZsa]

The prosecution has the burden of proof--the defense doesn't even have to put on a defense. Here, I think it may be referring to the fact that the prosecution has a strong case and the defense, well, not so much.



I don't see how KC cannot testify now that GA denied the pool accident and the abuse. JB's allegations in opening statement are not evidence. JB's questions to GA are not evidence. The DT has to be consistent WITH THE EVIDENCE. Since, according to the DT, there were only 2 people present when Caylee allegedly drowned, GA & KC, and since GA denied it happened, that leaves KC as the only person who could testify to it.



Because KC has the right to remain silent and her silence cannot be commented upon at trial.

Thanks AZ - but isn't that in the realm of science fiction that a Jury will believe that someone involved in an an accident would sit by for three years and then 'reveal' the accident during the trial?
If she does decide to testify can they still not ask her to explain that?

 

[Blue Jackets fan]

Are defense lawyer allow to knowenly to during trial to accuse a witness to things like child molestation that isn't true such as today regarding Jose Beaz?
And if it is, how hard would it be to prove that Jose commited a violation like that?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

OK. Thanks for your answer SoCal. I just have a few follow up questions because I am kind of in disbelieve.

1.) How could her DT (which includes JB and two experienced DP-qualified attorneys one of which, AF, seems very skilled) gone with such a theory if they knew she would have testify. Surely they would know that she would crucify herself on the stand.

You're assuming the DT knew she would have to testify. IIRC, per a question by Baez, GA testified at a pre-trial hearing that he would do anything to help his daughter. They may very well have believed he would let them throw him under the bus. Further, when you really have no defense and the evidence against you is overwhelming, you have nothing to lose by having the defendant testify and you might have something to gain. Or, this could have simply been a Hail Mary Pass. Lawyers take gambles at trial all the time, you win some, you lose some.

2.) Equally, and assuming ICA did not push to be able to testify, does this set up ineffective assistance for counsel as (a) they have clearly not visisted her in jail to prepare her well enough for cross-examination, and (b) it was such a foolish move to have her testify and be subject to cross.

Ultimately, it is KC's decision whether or not she testifies. An attorney can recommend a course of action to a client but the client ultimately decides. I doubt the DT didn't discuss the pros and cons of this gamble with KC. As far as not visiting her in jail to prepare her for cross--they have another month to prepare her for cross--so I don't see a problem there. I'm not sure that they were certain she would be testifying--they had to have known she might have to testify if the testimony didn't go their way--they had to have discussed it with her. Also, if she does testify and she lies--that's not the fault of the DT. I see no ineffective assistance of counsel problem here at all.

3.) Am I right in thinking there is a split of opinion amongst attorneys on this matter? I realise that RHornsby has blogged this morning that he expects an accidental death theory but does not expect ICA to testify and has said previously that he would just leave it open as a theory for the prosecution to disprove as they carry the burden of prove. That would make more sense if that is what the DT is planning.

I don't know what the other attorneys think on this issue. However, you left out a significant part of Rhornsby's post which makes the part you posted a bit misleading. In the post quoted, Rhornsby was referring to specific evidence that would be admitted by the state--the duct tape --and his post referred to an alternate theory involving that evidence. Here, where is the evidence that Caylee accidentally drowned, GA found the body, and covered up the death? Where is the evidence that GA sneaked into KC's room and molested her? Only 2 witnesses to both alleged occurrences-GA and KC. GA denied both. JB's statements and questions are not evidence. Therefore, that leaves KC as the only individual who could testify to both. If they want to prove these things, KC will have to testify to them.

 

[LoisDenominator]

If JB can reference Roy Kronk's snake photo "licensing" fee at trial, can the SA then reference ICA's sale of photos/videos from way back when?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Are defense lawyer allow to knowenly to during trial to accuse a witness to things like child molestation that isn't true such as today regarding Jose Beaz?
And if it is, how hard would it be to prove that Jose commited a violation like that?

Attorneys are not permitted to knowingly accuse a witness of anything they know is not true. You are assuming that JB knows that GA did not molest KC or knows he did not cover up Caylee's alleged drowning. If KC told him these things, he's good to go. It is not JB's job to determine whether or not KC is lying or whether or not she is guilty of the crimes charged--that is strictly the province of the jury.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Thanks for your post. I was actually referring to that post in the context of the other three posts/comment he made on that Blog Posting and also the blog post he made this morning. Sorry about that, I just didn't want to quote the whole load of posts/comments.

My answer is still the same. The Defense theory has to be consistent with the EVIDENCE. An attorney's statements are not evidence. An attorney's questions are not evidence.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

If JB can reference Roy Kronk's snake photo "licensing" fee at trial, can the SA then reference ICA's sale of photos/videos from way back when?

If they disclosed it in discovery and if it is relevant to an issue in the case, yes.

 

[Joanner]

Casey was clearly seen shaking her head "no" during the testimony of George. I would assume that the jury could see it, too. Is that usually allowed? George and Cindy were admonished not to show any kind of expressions and I am not sure why it would be allowed with Casey. In my view, she is commenting without having to take the stand.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Casey was clearly seen shaking her head "no" during the testimony of George. I would assume that the jury could see it, too. Is that usually allowed? George and Cindy were admonished not to show any kind of expressions and I am not sure why it would be allowed with Casey. In my view, she is commenting without having to take the stand.

You are absolutely correct. It is testifying. I never allowed it, I am not aware of any judges that allow it, and I can only think that for some reason JP didn't see it.

 

[rhornsby]

You are absolutely correct. It is testifying. I never allowed it, I am not aware of any judges that allow it, and I can only think that for some reason JP didn't see it.

Casey's reaction was extremely typical and while it clearly leaves an impression, is not unusual conduct.

And unless the State objects, Perry is not going to take any action on his own. Moreover, I think it is more likely that the State wants the jury to see Casey Anthony react. Because while it may be possible to keep up a grieving victim charade for a day or even a week, she will let her guard down the closer they get to the end and it will probably benefit the state.

 

[rhornsby]

If they disclosed it in discovery and if it is relevant to an issue in the case, yes.

If she took the stand, yes they could bring out the fact she profited on the case. Especially if Baez made the profiting an issue of other witnesses.

If she does not testify, no they could not bring it out.

 

[TakingALook]

If JB can reference Roy Kronk's snake photo "licensing" fee at trial, can the SA then reference ICA's sale of photos/videos from way back when?

If they disclosed it in discovery and if it is relevant to an issue in the case, yes.

If she took the stand, yes they could bring out the fact she profited on the case. Especially if Baez made the profiting an issue of other witnesses.

If she does not testify, no they could not bring it out.

Please explain further w/example. Don't understand the reasoning here. I just find it so appaulling that JB is allowed to Boast to the jurors about any rewards/profits that were or might have been available from this case -( ie. to RK or Dr.Vass etc) -- and he sold those pictures of Caylee and gained $300,000 plus and things have turned out the way they have - with the state footing the bill, and the jurors shouldn't know this. CRAZY. TIA

 

[RANCH]

My question is during opening statements Baez made some claims about GA. He said that we would never know why he did not call 911 after finding Caylee in the pool. Also he said we would never know where Roy Kronk found Caylee's body.Do you think that the jury will take no answer for an answer.

 

[allycat1208]

The attorney questioning the witness gets to ask "leading" questions, as if on cross examination.

For example, if on "direct examination" the attorney would say, "What color was the traffic light? Answer: "Red."

If hostile or on cross examination, the attorney would say, "The traffic light was red, wasn't it? Just answer yes or no."

In short, with a hostile witness or on cross examination the attorney can ask questions where the answer itself is suggested in the question. The attorney is "leading" the witness to the answer.

Thanks for the explanation...I asked "What happens if a witness is declared hostile? I am really asking if a witness is punished in some way by the court if he or she is "declared hostile"? Are they found to be in contempt of court and fined or something?

 

[mitzi]

If she took the stand, yes they could bring out the fact she profited on the case. Especially if Baez made the profiting an issue of other witnesses.If she does not testify, no they could not bring it out.

Well, Baez certainly did that in opening...how much did he say Dr. Vass stood to make-millions?

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is during opening statements Baez made some claims about GA. He said that we would never know why he did not call 911 after finding Caylee in the pool. Also he said we would never know where Roy Kronk found Caylee's body.Do you think that the jury will take no answer for an answer.

I don't. I think JB made lots and lots of statements in his opening that were unnecessary to the central theme of his defense and should have been left out.

Thanks for the explanation...I asked "What happens if a witness is declared hostile? I am really asking if a witness is punished in some way by the court if he or she is "declared hostile"? Are they found to be in contempt of court and fined or something?

No. Absolutely the only thing that happens is that the attorney gets to ask leading questions.

 

[AZlawyer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoisDenominator
If JB can reference Roy Kronk's snake photo "licensing" fee at trial, can the SA then reference ICA's sale of photos/videos from way back when?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalSleuth
If they disclosed it in discovery and if it is relevant to an issue in the case, yes.




Quote:
Originally Posted by rhornsby
If she took the stand, yes they could bring out the fact she profited on the case. Especially if Baez made the profiting an issue of other witnesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhornsby
If she does not testify, no they could not bring it out.


U]Please explain further w/example.[/U] Don't understand the reasoning here. I just find it so appaulling that JB is allowed to Boast to the jurors about any rewards/profits that were or might have been available from this case -( ie. to RK or Dr.Vass etc) -- and he sold those pictures of Caylee and gained $300,000 plus and things have turned out the way they have - with the state footing the bill, and the jurors shouldn't know this. CRAZY. TIA[/FONT][/COLOR]

Can I help by giving a completely different third answer lol?

IMO the relevance of "profiting off the case" is that it shows the person's motive for being involved in the case or for acting the way they did. IMO there is no relevant purpose for asking Casey about the money she got for Caylee's pictures to pay for her defense, unless the SA intends to argue that she killed Caylee with the motive of obtaining money to pay for a lawyer to defend her for killing Caylee. :waitasec: