Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[mombomb]

Are the attorneys (and paralegal/defendant ICA) watching on their computer screens what the court reporter is reporting? I believe it was earlier noted that the text was scrolling. If so, do the attorneys (and ICA) sitting at the table see what is being said at sidebar?

 

[Kentjbkent]

At the time of this post, the trial is proceeding and Tony Lazarro is on the stand. A sidebar was just taken and during said sidebar, the live feed focused on George and Cindy Anthony sitting in the "audience".

The camera shot showed Cindy donning glasses, with ballpoint pen in hand as she studied something in her lap. She then made some kind of writing or notation on whatever is in her lap.

My question....

Cindy Anthony is a witness in this case who has NOT yet testified but has been given permission to sit in the courtroom prior to her testimony. Is she allowed to make any kind of notes, or even be in possession of writing materials BEFORE she testifies?

I am not suggesting that I believe she is making notes of TL testimony (or previous testimonies) but who is to say whether someone who also viewed this on the live feed will mention it to the defense team, and this eventually become an appealable issue?

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but if the jury does not find her guilty of 1st degree murder, can they still find her guilty of 2nd degree or manslaughter?

Yes.

Are the attorneys (and paralegal/defendant ICA) watching on their computer screens what the court reporter is reporting? I believe it was earlier noted that the text was scrolling. If so, do the attorneys (and ICA) sitting at the table see what is being said at sidebar?

Yes.

At the time of this post, the trial is proceeding and Tony Lazarro is on the stand. A sidebar was just taken and during said sidebar, the live feed focused on George and Cindy Anthony sitting in the "audience".

The camera shot showed Cindy donning glasses, with ballpoint pen in hand as she studied something in her lap. She then made some kind of writing or notation on whatever is in her lap.

My question....

Cindy Anthony is a witness in this case who has NOT yet testified but has been given permission to sit in the courtroom prior to her testimony. Is she allowed to make any kind of notes, or even be in possession of writing materials BEFORE she testifies?

I am not suggesting that I believe she is making notes of TL testimony (or previous testimonies) but who is to say whether someone who also viewed this on the live feed will mention it to the defense team, and this eventually become an appealable issue?

Yes, it is OK. She has been excused from the usual rules regarding witnesses in the courtroom, because she is "next of kin" to the victim. She can write down every word if she wants to.

 

[Azcrabcakes]

If the SA tests evidence (anything - for example, a carpet sample) for a substance such as body fluids or chemicals they "think" or "hope" is present, and the result comes back "negative", are the prosecutors required by law to provide they suspected said substance, and the results to the defense? As a laywoman, mostly ignorant of courtroom protocol, it would seem the SA are not obligated to make the defense aware of their findings (or lack of.)

 

[AZlawyer]

If the SA tests evidence (anything - for example, a carpet sample) for a substance such as body fluids or chemicals they "think" or "hope" is present, and the result comes back "negative", are the prosecutors required by law to provide they suspected said substance, and the results to the defense? As a laywoman, mostly ignorant of courtroom protocol, it would seem the SA are not obligated to make the defense aware of their findings (or lack of.)

Yes, the State is required to (and did) provide negative test results to the defense. In this case, unfortunately, there were a lot more negative than positive results.

 

[lauriej]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but if the jury does not find her guilty of 1st degree murder, can they still find her guilty of 2nd degree or manslaughter?

--i did notice that you responded "yes" to the above---------what would the sentencing be on either of those 2 guilty verdicts? thank you.

 

[racegirl72]

Will the grand jury testimony come out during the trial? And also, is the defense privy to any of the grand jury testimony that was given?
Thanks in advance :3d:

 

[Patty G]

Does the State pay for airfare, hotel and food for witnesses that have to come to Florida from another state?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Will the grand jury testimony come out during the trial? And also, is the defense privy to any of the grand jury testimony that was given?
Thanks in advance :3d:

No, the grand jury testimony cannot be used at trial; no, the defense is not privy to the grand jury testimony that was given.

Does the State pay for airfare, hotel and food for witnesses that have to come to Florida from another state?

The state pays travel expenses and a per diem. How much that is I don't know although there is a statute on it.

 

[Meemom]

I am really confused by the whole DT doesn't have yo prove anything, but if they present a theory with statements of fact, they have to prove them.....sorta, kinda...???

If ICA does not get on the stand and the words "I was sexually abused by my father and brother for years and was made to lie about it" never come out of HER mouth under oath, does that mean there is no foundation for the defense theory and the jury will be instructed to ignore those allegations when deliberating? Could the SA emphasize that the defense has provided no proof/foundation for the DT theory in their closing statements? If the DT has not provided any testimony under oath to support their allegations, can they still re-present their scerario?

TIA for all you do here, and please pardon my thickheadedness!

MOO-ing away:crazy:

 

[allycat1208]

I assume since the pool accident has been stated, that JB is trying to maintain that Casey is not guilty of anything except for lying to Law Enforcement, which she already served time for. I believe AZlawyer said the cover-up would be considered obstruction of justice, yet she is not being charged with obstruction of justice. I don't recall anything in JB's opening statement that implied or stated how he is going to explain why the police was not called right after the alleged accident or where Caylee was put after the accident....yet both of these elements would be considered obstruction of justice, right? The pool accident theory might add a bit of reasonable doubt to get the jury to find her not guilty of murder, but can they vote her guilty for obstruction of justice if she has not been charged with it? I would think if the jury buys the pool story they would want to go with at least obstruction of justice. How come she isn't being charged with obstruction of justice, anyway?

 

[Wescott]

If the cover up is obstruction of justice can baez be charged? He knows about it, he knows George put tape on Caylee, he knows George hid the body etc. baez is not and never was George's lawyer so there is no privelege. If he knows a crime has been committed doesn't he as an officer of the court have to report it? Or is he just allowed to get up in court and say whatever his client told him even if she is lying and IMO he knows she is lying?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I am really confused by the whole DT doesn't have yo prove anything, but if they present a theory with statements of fact, they have to prove them.....sorta, kinda...???

If ICA does not get on the stand and the words "I was sexually abused by my father and brother for years and was made to lie about it" never come out of HER mouth under oath, does that mean there is no foundation for the defense theory and the jury will be instructed to ignore those allegations when deliberating? Could the SA emphasize that the defense has provided no proof/foundation for the DT theory in their closing statements? If the DT has not provided any testimony under oath to support their allegations, can they still re-present their scerario?

TIA for all you do here, and please pardon my thickheadedness!

MOO-ing away:crazy:

You're not thickheaded! These are legitimate questions and concerns--and a little tricky to explain in full in a post (and may be complicated by JA asking GA about the abuse)--so this post will not be all inclusive. But if no one testifies to the abuse--especially to the highly inflammatory statement concerning the penis in the mouth--the SA could ask for a mistrial, could ask for a cautionary instruction-could really make a big deal about it in closing-or all of the above or none of the above. Much would depend on SA strategy, and if raised as an objection, the DT's response as to the reason for the lack of evidence. It's one of those things we'll have to see how it all plays out. That said, if there was no evidence introduced of the abuse, the DT should not be able to argue it happened in closing arguments as a closing argument refers to evidence that has been introduced.

I assume since the pool accident has been stated, that JB is trying to maintain that Casey is not guilty of anything except for lying to Law Enforcement, which she already served time for. I believe AZlawyer said the cover-up would be considered obstruction of justice, yet she is not being charged with obstruction of justice. I don't recall anything in JB's opening statement that implied or stated how he is going to explain why the police was not called right after the alleged accident or where Caylee was put after the accident....yet both of these elements would be considered obstruction of justice, right? The pool accident theory might add a bit of reasonable doubt to get the jury to find her not guilty of murder, but can they vote her guilty for obstruction of justice if she has not been charged with it? I would think if the jury buys the pool story they would want to go with at least obstruction of justice. How come she isn't being charged with obstruction of justice, anyway?

The grand jury did not return an indictment for obstruction of justice so KC was not charged with it and the jury cannot return a verdict on it. KC was not charged with obstruction of justice re the pool accident cover-up because this story only came to light recently and there really isn't any evidence that it happened--GA denied it and KC hasn't testified to it.

If the cover up is obstruction of justice can baez be charged? He knows about it, he knows George put tape on Caylee, he knows George hid the body etc. baez is not and never was George's lawyer so there is no privelege. If he knows a crime has been committed doesn't he as an officer of the court have to report it? Or is he just allowed to get up in court and say whatever his client told him even if she is lying and IMO he knows she is lying?

JB could not be charged for knowing about a crime that was committed by GA that was disclosed to him in confidence by his client. An attorney must keep his client's secrets confidential. An attorney is not under an obligation to report a crime any more than you are under an obligation to report a crime. JB can repeat what KC told him--it's the jury's job to determine her credibility not JB's.

 

[allycat1208]

Originally posted by: SoCalSleuth


The grand jury did not return an indictment for obstruction of justice so KC was not charged with it and the jury cannot return a verdict on it. KC was not charged with obstruction of justice re the pool accident cover-up because this story only came to light recently and there really isn't any evidence that it happened--GA denied it and KC hasn't testified to it.

In response to SoCalSleuth:


Ok, but now since JB is claiming that there was a pool accident which resulted in death, yet no phone call was made to police about the alleged accident and the death of her child. shouldn't Casey be charged with obstruction of justice if she's not found guilty of murder? In other words if there's no indictment for it, can she be charged with obstruction of justice, if this is found to be true during the trial, or do they need another trial to determine this, just because she was not charged with it initially?

 

[passionflower]

Does GA have any way to clear his name after trial?
Can JB be sued for the things he has said about GA?

 

[tragco]

Everyone talks about the lawyers, the witnesses, the jury. It seems to me that one person also could have an influence on the verdict, and that is the Judge. Yes the Judge is fair and impartial. Still, HHJP has got to be beloved by this jury- he's gone out of his way for them and he's just naturally charming. I was thinking that the jury would not want to disappoint him. Can he pick his choice of case law if the jurors ask for answers on things? I think he could be of great assistance in preventing a hung jury too because of the trust and the "get the job done" that HHJP is an expert in instilling.

So here is my question: How much influence can a Judge have over a verdict if any?

 

[MissJames]

Everyone talks about the lawyers, the witnesses, the jury. It seems to me that one person also could have an influence on the verdict, and that is the Judge. Yes the Judge is fair and impartial. Still, HHJP has got to be beloved by this jury- he's gone out of his way for them and he's just naturally charming. I was thinking that the jury would not want to disappoint him. Can he pick his choice of case law if the jurors ask for answers on things? I think he could be of great assistance in preventing a hung jury too because of the trust and the "get the job done" that HHJP is an expert in instilling.

So here is my question: How much influence can a Judge have over a verdict if any?

Excellent observation!

 

[rhornsby]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but if the jury does not find her guilty of 1st degree murder, can they still find her guilty of 2nd degree or manslaughter?

For each count, the jury must return a verdict on the highest crime they can all agree upon.

So the could come back guilty on all counts, with count 1 being Murder and count 3 being agg manslaughter.

But they could not say guilty on count 1 as to 1st and 2nd degree murder (as the 2nd is subsumed anyway as a lesser offense.)

 

[Trapshooter]

Richard I see you online.....quick question. What did you think of JB's opening statements? Thanks!

 

[ynotdivein]

I know that opening statements are not to be considered evidence, but are closing statements? Are jurors asked to disregard both in weighing the evidence?