Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[SoCalSleuth]

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?

I wasn't privy to the side bar from which this emanated but I think that the Judge excluded questions specifically about the sexual abuse--hence the "did she tell you a secret" questions and testimony. If that's what happened JB may have asked the court if he could make an offer of proof (although I doubt this because he knew of TL's depo testimony). If a party wants to appeal a trial court's exclusion of evidence, the party needs to tell the trial court what the evidence would be if admitted. This serves two purposes. First, it gives the trial court an opportunity to change its ruling. Second, it provides the appellate court with a record it can use to determine whether the exclusion of evidence was proper. Or, more likely, it could be that the SA told JP that there was no deposition testimony that KC told anyone that GA sexually abused her and forced JB to make an offer of proof of what the testimony would be before JB could continue with this line of questioning. So it wasn't a fishing expedition. JB did know that TL never testified at deposition that KC told him that GA sexually abused her. Basically, JB got called on his BS line of questioning which was very prejudicial since it left the jury with the impression that KC told TL before she was arrested that GA sexually abused her.

The judge never made a ruling after the offer of proof so not sure how it's going to play out.

 

[thumbtack]

Thanks again to the attorneys that take the time out to answer our questions! Very much appreciated!

 

[Trapshooter]

What is JB trying to do when he moves to have a "mistrial"? Does he seriously think he can have a mistrial declared when he says his client has been portrayed unfairly? Will he bring up this "mistrial" each week hoping the Judge will eventually grant it?

Thanks so much!

 

[Black Magic Woman]

I heard yesterday that the defense asked for transcripts from the grand jury. Can they get them and use them to discredit George in court? I thought that was secret and could never be revealed. Could you explain this to us please? This tread is so long that I can't read it all to see if this has been addressed.

 

[LetJusticePrevail]

Can the prosecution bring up the fact that JB filed a motion requesting he and KC be able to search for Caylee away from the prying eyes of the media and law enforcement - effectively in private? Obviously we're all clear that she died accidentally because of drowning in the pool so maybe they were meaning this search would be to reincarnate her.

 

[AZlawyer]

I heard yesterday that the defense asked for transcripts from the grand jury. Can they get them and use them to discredit George in court? I thought that was secret and could never be revealed. Could you explain this to us please? This tread is so long that I can't read it all to see if this has been addressed.

I think this was answered again in the last couple of pages. The short answer is that GJ transcripts can very rarely be used. If the judge looks at the transcript and finds that there is a really clear conflict of testimony he might let the defense see and use that portion of the transcript.

What is JB trying to do when he moves to have a "mistrial"? Does he seriously think he can have a mistrial declared when he says his client has been portrayed unfairly? Will he bring up this "mistrial" each week hoping the Judge will eventually grant it?

Thanks so much!

Mostly he is just trying to preserve the record for appeal. If he doesn't ask for a mistrial, how can the appellate lawyers say that HHJP should have declared a mistrial when XYZ happened? You have to ask, or you can't complain about it down the road.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can the prosecution bring up the fact that JB filed a motion requesting he and KC be able to search for Caylee away from the prying eyes of the media and law enforcement - effectively in private? Obviously we're all clear that she died accidentally because of drowning in the pool so maybe they were meaning this search would be to reincarnate her.

No, I don't think that would be relevant. They've already admitted that Casey lied about what happened. Besides, JB would just say that they wanted to try to find out where George had hidden Caylee's body so she could get a decent burial.

 

[MissJames]

Is the phone conversation with Christina coming in? The one where Christina starts crying and ICA says "calling you guys? Waste , a huge waste"

Mallory crying on the stand reminded me of it ,since she was more emotional than ICA.

 

[Macushla]

I wasn't privy to the side bar from which this emanated but I think that the Judge excluded questions specifically about the sexual abuse--hence the "did she tell you a secret" questions and testimony. If that's what happened JB may have asked the court if he could make an offer of proof (although I doubt this because he knew of TL's depo testimony). If a party wants to appeal a trial court's exclusion of evidence, the party needs to tell the trial court what the evidence would be if admitted. This serves two purposes. First, it gives the trial court an opportunity to change its ruling. Second, it provides the appellate court with a record it can use to determine whether the exclusion of evidence was proper. Or, more likely, it could be that the SA told JP that there was no deposition testimony that KC told anyone that GA sexually abused her and forced JB to make an offer of proof of what the testimony would be before JB could continue with this line of questioning. So it wasn't a fishing expedition. JB did know that TL never testified at deposition that KC told him that GA sexually abused her. Basically, JB got called on his BS line of questioning which was very prejudicial since it left the jury with the impression that KC told TL before she was arrested that GA sexually abused her.

The judge never made a ruling after the offer of proof so not sure how it's going to play out.

is that why the Jude was asking TL questions himself? Is that unusual for the trial judge to ask a witness questions?

 

[Cher352]

I am so ticked that every time GA is on the stand it appears as if JB is putting him on trial. His arrogant tone and constant accusations today during JB's cross about the tow yard is like it is GA on trial not ICA. Is it not possible for a judge to stop this type of thing in a trial?

Another question along the same lines...

In JB questioning GA about dates both yesterday and today JB seemingly is getting off directing GA to step down and mark the calendar as JB tells him to. Could a witness refuse to do that and just tell him that "I gave you the date, you mark it down"

Both these types actions seem so wrong, witnesses should be able to testify without fear of crucifiction in the courtroom. I could see these type things if it was the defendant being questioned but not witnesses. Could the judge stop if he felt like it?

 

[ZsaZsa]

ICA claims this was an accident. At the point when this was revealed to JB what are his ethical responsibilities? Should he have not gone to LE on her behalf and explained right then? If her story was true crazy is he not negligent in letting her sit in jail for a further almost 3 years?

 

[ThinkTank]

George and Cindy's attorney Mark Lippman, has said several times on national TV that he has had access to the Inmate's psychological reports (which are sealed to the public).
How is it possible that this attorney who does not represent the Inmate has access to sealed documents?
And how does he have the right to speak about these sealed documents in public?
Wouldn't HIPPA laws protect this confidential mental health information?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-crime-anthony-idUSTRE74Q03H20110527
Lippman said: ...."No they were not planning on moving out, and I have no idea about Casey's plans other than her psychological report demonstrates she is deeply disturbed," Mark Lippman said."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed:
excerpt:
Lippman said they have known the defense was going to "go down this road."
"What Jose said is even more fantastic than the details I've been made aware of," Lippman said, adding that he had access to the psychological evaluations of Casey Anthony that were sealed from the public.

NBC TODAY SHOW video
May 26, 2011
excerpt:
(3:49) ML - we knew about this defense approx 6 weeks ago, and we've dealt with those issues since then, it wasn't a surprise. The only surprise was the detail that was added by Mr. Baez.

(6:03) ... raises concerns for me about her mental stability, not necessarily whether she is able to sit for trial, but the issues that have been raised by the defense are at this point nothing but conjecture, and ah, and if it's supported by their client, then it does raise concerns for her mental stability.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Since Defense admitted that Caylee before Tim Miller came and searched, can Tim Miller sue ICA/Defense for return of the donated money that was spent searching for Caylee?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

is that why the Jude was asking TL questions himself? Is that unusual for the trial judge to ask a witness questions?

I think the Judge was asking the questions he felt pertinent in deciding the issue before him--as JB didn't ask them. It's not unusual for a judge to ask a witness questions--although OT, I will say I have never seen a trial conducted in the manner as this one has been --with calling the same witnesses over and over again. In my experience, you get one bite of the apple in the case in chief and then possibly during the defense, absent something unanticipated arising after the witness steps down.

I am so ticked that every time GA is on the stand it appears as if JB is putting him on trial. His arrogant tone and constant accusations today during JB's cross about the tow yard is like it is GA on trial not ICA. Is it not possible for a judge to stop this type of thing in a trial?

Another question along the same lines...

In JB questioning GA about dates both yesterday and today JB seemingly is getting off directing GA to step down and mark the calendar as JB tells him to. Could a witness refuse to do that and just tell him that "I gave you the date, you mark it down"

Both these types actions seem so wrong, witnesses should be able to testify without fear of crucifiction in the courtroom. I could see these type things if it was the defendant being questioned but not witnesses. Could the judge stop if he felt like it?

No, as long as JB is not badgering or being argumentative with the witness he can use an accusatory tone, although I'm not sure how it's going over with the jury. No, the witness couldn't refuse to mark the calendar unless there was some physical problem in their doing it.

ICA claims this was an accident. At the point when this was revealed to JB what are his ethical responsibilities? Should he have not gone to LE on her behalf and explained right then? If her story was true crazy is he not negligent in letting her sit in jail for a further almost 3 years?

JB's ethical obligations are to KC --an attorney is required to maintain his client's confidences. It may be that JB, with KC's authorization, did broach the subject with the SA, although I doubt it because the story is so preposterous.

George and Cindy's attorney Mark Lippman, has said several times on national TV that he has had access to the Inmate's psychological reports (which are sealed to the public).
How is it possible that this attorney who does not represent the Inmate has access to sealed documents?
And how does he have the right to speak about these sealed documents in public?
Wouldn't HIPPA laws protect this confidential mental health information?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-crime-anthony-idUSTRE74Q03H20110527
Lippman said: ...."No they were not planning on moving out, and I have no idea about Casey's plans other than her psychological report demonstrates she is deeply disturbed," Mark Lippman said."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed:
excerpt:
Lippman said they have known the defense was going to "go down this road."
"What Jose said is even more fantastic than the details I've been made aware of," Lippman said, adding that he had access to the psychological evaluations of Casey Anthony that were sealed from the public.

NBC TODAY SHOW video
May 26, 2011
excerpt:
(3:49) ML - we knew about this defense approx 6 weeks ago, and we've dealt with those issues since then, it wasn't a surprise. The only surprise was the detail that was added by Mr. Baez.

(6:03) ... raises concerns for me about her mental stability, not necessarily whether she is able to sit for trial, but the issues that have been raised by the defense are at this point nothing but conjecture, and ah, and if it's supported by their client, then it does raise concerns for her mental stability.

When the DT revealed these evaluations and JP sealed them--the SA requested permission to disclose them to third parties for investigative purposes which JP allowed. It's the SA's obligation to investigate the information that is revealed to them during the matter--therefore, they needed to ivestigate the allegations of sex abuse etc. with GA, LA, CA, etc.--that is why the Anthony's attorney was permitted to see the evaluations.

I haven't looked at HIPPA in awhile so I'll have to defer to my cohorts on that one.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Since Defense admitted that Caylee before Tim Miller came and searched, can Tim Miller sue ICA/Defense for return of the donated money that was spent searching for Caylee?

No, KC/DT aren't the ones that requested EquiSearch's involvement.

 

[TxLady2]

This is not really a legal question, but I'm curious. I've watched a lot of trials and even been on a jury once. This is the first time I have ever seen a judge stand while the jury is led into the courtroom. Most of them remain seated. When I was on a jury, I recall that everybody else was standing while we were being led into the courtroom, except the judge. Is this common, or is he just being extra courteous? Whatever, he is making me respect him more, the more I watch this trial.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Why weren't the Jurors asked during the voir dire questioning IF the juror, or any family member or friend close to them, was ever "sexually abused" ?

During JB's "opening statement", he said that ICA was sexually abused/molested by her father when she was younger -- blah blah blah (I do NOT believe that -- MOO MOO).

Just SUPPOSE -- that there IS someone on the Jury who had been abused -- and say they "believe" JB's BS and ICA ... This could easily be believed by them.

The Jurors were "grilled" over and over about their views on the Death Penalty ... So WHY wasn't "sexual abuse" questions asked by the DT to the Jurors during the questioning ? I understand that the defense did not want to give away their "AHA Moment" ... but really ... I think it's "sneaky" .....

Thanks !! ... and sorry to re-post twice but I did not see an answer ...

 

[coastal]

...respectfully snipped...

When the DT revealed these evaluations and JP sealed them--the SA requested permission to disclose them to third parties for investigative purposes which JP allowed. It's the SA's obligation to investigate the information that is revealed to them during the matter--therefore, they needed to ivestigate the allegations of sex abuse etc. with GA, LA, CA, etc.--that is why the Anthony's attorney was permitted to see the evaluations.

I haven't looked at HIPPA in awhile so I'll have to defer to my cohorts on that one.

Thank you for explaining this. If, as per Mark Lippman, Casey's "psychological report demonstrates she is deeply disturbed", and her defense team and the SA are all aware of this fact, how can she be tried (and defended) as if she were mentally sound? Isn't this crossing an ethical line?

 

[Mariah]

The psychological report is interesting..in that it has been sealed. As a Psychiatric RN I woked with NGRI mental health institute clients on a daily basis and their psychological reports were used by DT to get the NGRI. In 30 years I never saw records sealed, mostly because it was in the clients best interests for the report to be a part of the court record. Is this a common practice and if so, whose best interest is being served? If KC is so deeply disturbed wouldn't it help her DT?

 

[AZlawyer]

I haven't looked at HIPPA in awhile so I'll have to defer to my cohorts on that one.

HIPAA doesn't apply to psychiatrists doing court evaluations, expert reports, etc. because the defendant is not their patient.

This is not really a legal question, but I'm curious. I've watched a lot of trials and even been on a jury once. This is the first time I have ever seen a judge stand while the jury is led into the courtroom. Most of them remain seated. When I was on a jury, I recall that everybody else was standing while we were being led into the courtroom, except the judge. Is this common, or is he just being extra courteous? Whatever, he is making me respect him more, the more I watch this trial.

I have never seen a judge stand for the jury either, but if I am ever a judge I'm going to do it.

Why weren't the Jurors asked during the voir dire questioning IF the juror, or any family member or friend close to them, was ever "sexually abused" ?

During JB's "opening statement", he said that ICA was sexually abused/molested by her father when she was younger -- blah blah blah (I do NOT believe that -- MOO MOO).

Just SUPPOSE -- that there IS someone on the Jury who had been abused -- and say they "believe" JB's BS and ICA ... This could easily be believed by them.

The Jurors were "grilled" over and over about their views on the Death Penalty ... So WHY wasn't "sexual abuse" questions asked by the DT to the Jurors during the questioning ? I understand that the defense did not want to give away their "AHA Moment" ... but really ... I think it's "sneaky" .....

Thanks !! ... and sorry to re-post twice but I did not see an answer ...

The DT would not have wanted to ask this question, as the SA would then have known which potential jurors to strike.

The SA might not have wanted to ask this question because it would offend the potential jurors (too private) and also would plant in their minds the idea that there was actual sexual abuse involved in the case.

Thank you for explaining this. If, as per Mark Lippman, Casey's "psychological report demonstrates she is deeply disturbed", and her defense team and the SA are all aware of this fact, how can she be tried (and defended) as if she were mentally sound? Isn't this crossing an ethical line?

No. A defendant can be "deeply disturbed" and still very clearly competent to stand trial. I think Casey is very clearly both.

The psychological report is interesting..in that it has been sealed. As a Psychiatric RN I woked with NGRI mental health institute clients on a daily basis and their psychological reports were used by DT to get the NGRI. In 30 years I never saw records sealed, mostly because it was in the clients best interests for the report to be a part of the court record. Is this a common practice and if so, whose best interest is being served? If KC is so deeply disturbed wouldn't it help her DT?

I think court evaluations are normally sealed in AZ. :waitasec: But if anyone knows better about Florida I will defer to them. A document being sealed doesn't mean it can't also be part of the court record--it just would not be available to the public.

In Casey's case, it sounds like her type of "disturbance" was insufficient to indicate that she was incompetent to stand trial, and also insufficient to support an insanity defense, and also for some reason not usable by the defense to explain her behavior during the "31 days" (because the defense withdrew the doctor who did the eval as a guilt phase witness IIRC).