Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[faefrost]

Given how JB seems to be constantly disregarding the rules of evidence and either by trying to ask questions or admit things that are not in evidence or even worse trying to sneak in the sexual abuse allegations via hearsay by trying to get witnesses to speak instead of his client, is there anything the judge can do to put an absolute stop to it? Is there a point where the judge forgoes any further "sustained"'s and such and simply fines the attorney or something?

 

[TakingALook]

So much testimony today my head is swimming.

Questions for our great Lawyers here --

1. What do you think of the the States' questioning of the witnesses so far?
2. Are they thorough enough with the witnesses or are they going to fast with each.
3. Have they been missing any Important points or other questions that could of been asked?

Please reference with whom and what from your opinion. TIA

 

[mydailyopinions]

If Casey were to take the stand, will prosecutors be restricted on their questioning that relates to a drowning? For example, can they ask her what Caylee's body looked like? Did they attempt CPR? Can they grill her on the morning surrounding the incident? What about her behavior afterwards?

Too, if Casey gets on the stand and is questioned by the prosecutors, if she answers yes or no to a question, must the prosecutors except her answers or can they dig deeper in questioning with her?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Is common or acceptable for a lawyer to be ACTIVELY seeking a mistrial? Seem like Mason has shown his intent pretty early on. Also, isn't he trying to intimidate the judge with this tactic...and isn't that unacceptable?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Could someone take a look back at post #470 for me? TIA

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Could someone take a look back at post #470 for me? TIA

Already asked and answered in posts #410, 414, 415, 420 & 421!

 

[mombomb]

So sorry if already asked and answered - I'm bleary eyed from reading.

This afternoon JB requested GA's grand jury testimony. JA agreed to provide a transcript in the morning so that HHJBP could do an in camera inspection. JB wants to know if GA contradicted himself for impeachment purposes. I thought that grand jury testimony was sacred so as to protect those testifying from retribution. It seems too easy for JB to ask for it and get it. Is this normal procedure?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Given how JB seems to be constantly disregarding the rules of evidence and either by trying to ask questions or admit things that are not in evidence or even worse trying to sneak in the sexual abuse allegations via hearsay by trying to get witnesses to speak instead of his client, is there anything the judge can do to put an absolute stop to it? Is there a point where the judge forgoes any further "sustained"'s and such and simply fines the attorney or something?

It's possible that if JP orders the defense not to entertain a certain line of questioning and JB does so anyway, JP could hold him in contempt. I have seen attorneys be held in contempt for the very thing that JB has been doing. However, I don't see that happening here. JP is bending over backwards to ensure there are no appellate issues that's why his big JB smackdowns are outside of the presence of the jury.

So much testimony today my head is swimming.

Questions for our great Lawyers here --

1. What do you think of the the States' questioning of the witnesses so far?
2. Are they thorough enough with the witnesses or are they going to fast with each.
3. Have they been missing any Important points or other questions that could of been asked?

Please reference with whom and what from your opinion. TIA

I'm going to defer to my esteemed cohorts on this one. I make it a practice not to comment on other attorney's performance at trial as it's quite easy to sit back and comment and an entirely different thing to be thinking on your feet in the thick of things. I make an exception for JB as I do not consider him to be a lawyer but a clown.

If Casey were to take the stand, will prosecutors be restricted on their questioning that relates to a drowning? For example, can they ask her what Caylee's body looked like? Did they attempt CPR? Can they grill her on the morning surrounding the incident? What about her behavior afterwards?

Too, if Casey gets on the stand and is questioned by the prosecutors, if she answers yes or no to a question, must the prosecutors except her answers or can they dig deeper in questioning with her?

They can ask her all of those questions and then some. No, the SA can dig deeper in their questioning of her.

Is common or acceptable for a lawyer to be ACTIVELY seeking a mistrial? Seem like Mason has shown his intent pretty early on. Also, isn't he trying to intimidate the judge with this tactic...and isn't that unacceptable?

Mason isn't actively seeking a mistrial--he is preserving his record for appeal which is his job. I don't think Mason thinks JP is intimidated by his asking for mistrials as it's part of Mason's job to protect the record and he knows JP knows that.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

So sorry if already asked and answered - I'm bleary eyed from reading.

This afternoon JB requested GA's grand jury testimony. JA agreed to provide a transcript in the morning so that HHJBP could do an in camera inspection. JB wants to know if GA contradicted himself for impeachment purposes. I thought that grand jury testimony was sacred so as to protect those testifying from retribution. It seems too easy for JB to ask for it and get it. Is this normal procedure?

Grand jury testimony is considered sacred for a number of reasons. In Florida, under very limited circumstances, it can be released to the defense--to ascertain whether the testimony is consistent with the testimony given at trial. However, to protect the grand jury process, the court will first review that testimony to see if it is inconsistent with the testimony given at trial. Only if it is, will JP allow the defense to see it.

 

[mombomb]

Grand jury testimony is considered sacred for a number of reasons. In Florida, under very limited circumstances, it can be released to the defense--to ascertain whether the testimony is consistent with the testimony given at trial. However, to protect the grand jury process, the court will first review that testimony to see if it is inconsistent with the testimony given at trial. Only if it is, will JP allow the defense to see it.

Thank you so much for your answer. Piggy backing on that - if GA gave an answer in the grand jury testimony that caused HHJBP to allow JB to see the testimony, will he be able to see all the testimony, or just the inconsistency. I always thought it took a lot for GA to give that testimony and it kills me to think that ICA will get to read what he said.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

I believe the reason for the testimony was to lay the foundation so that he could testify that GA DID abuse her sexually. However, he testified that KC never told him that GA did so. JB brought out that at his second deposition TL testified that he couldn't remember if it was physical abuse or sexual abuse. Not sufficient IMHO to support the questions JB has been asking him about the "big secrets". The judge didn't make a ruling but I'm pretty sure he will not let JB ask him if KC told him that GA sexually abused her. Been sitting here scratching my head as to why the SA didn't ask for this beforehand.

Snipped for space...

Thanks for this Q&A. So, if HHJP does NOT allow this testimony, how will "the secret" be explained to the jury?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is this...considering the jury has already heard about "the secret" that ICA shared with TL, IF there is no further testimony allowed to elaborate / explain "the secret"; how will that be addressed / explained to the jury? TIA

 

[RR473]

She has an attorney in the civil case because it is pretty much impossible to defend yourself in a civil case from jail. IIRC the Anthonys paid the attorney.

Wow! Does it mean Baez is hired by GA?

 

[costalpilot]

would you say the state ought to let the "secret" comment alone, and not try to refute it with the testimony TL proffered? Because I DO NOT understand why they would not seek to offer his testimony in order to refute the inference that JB clearly left hanging in the air: the SECRET, which turns out to be bad for ICA and good for the SA.

Such a question would open the door for the SA to ask her any question to prove that she did kill her daughter.



I believe the reason for the testimony was to lay the foundation so that he could testify that GA DID abuse her sexually. However, he testified that KC never told him that GA did so. JB brought out that at his second deposition TL testified that he couldn't remember if it was physical abuse or sexual abuse. Not sufficient IMHO to support the questions JB has been asking him about the "big secrets". The judge didn't make a ruling but I'm pretty sure he will not let JB ask him if KC told him that GA sexually abused her. Been sitting here scratching my head as to why the SA didn't ask for this beforehand.



KC would have to testify.

 

[txelaine1]

Why wouldn't (or couldn't) Baez enter the picture of the gas can with duct tape into evidence?

 

[AZlawyer]

Wow! Does it mean Baez is hired by GA?

No, I was talking about Casey's attorney for the civil lawsuit (ZFG vs. Casey for defamation). Baez is not her attorney for that lawsuit.

 

[Amil]

When the judge addresses the jury in-between GA testimony May 26 morning, he tells the jury the trial may not last as long as we think and he'll know by next week. What do you think he meant?

 

[Pink Panther]

Are the DA and KC allowed to pass notes to one another?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I have a question for the lawyers myself: I've been at a loss since the inception of trial as to why the SA has not asked to take the witnesses on voir dire before they answer certain of JB's questions (in order to establish a lack of foundation or personal knowledge.) This morning, 3 days after the "damage" has been done, the SA brought a MIL on this very issue which was granted. Is there a rule in Florida which prevented the SA from taking the witness on voir dire? TIA.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

When the judge addresses the jury in-between GA testimony May 26 morning, he tells the jury the trial may not last as long as we think and he'll know by next week. What do you think he meant?

The parties are going through the witnesses quicker than the court anticipated.

Are the DA and KC allowed to pass notes to one another?

If by DA you mean SA then no.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Please explain this proffer business that went on yesterday. It looks like fishing without the jury. Shouldn't JB have KNOWN what the witness would say BEFORE trial? Will the jury get to hear it or just that cloud of some big SECRET?