Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[beachbumming]

Wouldn't the DT want testimony about the fight for the penalty phase to try to justify her actions ?

Depends. During the penalty phase the state presents its aggravating factors(AF) for the DP and the DT presents its mitigating factors(MF)against DP. DT wants jury to find that MF outweigh the AF. Example,
AF=ex. include
1. murder committed during aggravated child abuse
2. victim under age of 12
3. heinous, atrocious, cruel
4. premeditation
5. defendant in custodial authority over child

MF= ex.
1. age of ICA
2. lack of maturity
3. sexual abuse
4. lack of impulse control
5. verbal and emotional abuse
lists goes on and on.

The state will put on witnesses to prove their AF, then the DT puts on evidence to show their mitigating factors. If the DT believes that CA/ICA argument is important to show a mitigating factor they could illicit testimony through CA, if she testified in the DP phase, or through ICA if she testified.

The jury will then have to:
1. Find if any AF exists (we know a couple do i.e. age of child, ICA is custodial parent)
2. Then determine if the MF outweigh AF. If so no DP.

 

[AZlawyer]

There are a few videos that I have seen, depicting little Caylee being videotaped by someone who has absolutely no interaction with this child, at all. You can see that Caylee is trying to engage whomever is holding the camera in conversation, or she is seeking a response of some sort, but there is total silence from the videographer. They were obviously taped in the Anthony home.

Can these videos be brought in to rebut the defense team's continuous questioning about ICA being a good mother? Could the SA's question each member of the Anthony family to ask them if they were the one taping in order to rule out each of them, until the only person left is ICA?

If they can be brought in, whem during the trial would be the most strategic point to do so?

Those videos are so utterly chilling in their silence and in the looks on that precious baby's face--she just looks so confused, and then sad, and then just resigned to this non-responsive person behind the camera.

I don't think the SA will even try to get this information in, and I don't think HHJP would allow it anyway. The relevance is too questionable.

Hi AZ, I am wondering about this as well. Casey last statement to LE is that the nanny kidnapped her and Casey was looking for her. Although JB's OS is not evidence is it then in some way a new statement from Casey? Guess I'm thinking SA has prepared accordingly for trial and it doesn't seem right that now certain items will not be brought in when JB did not enter any discovery to it nor did ICA sign a new statement. I'm confused?

thank you

SO RESPECTFULLY "snipped" :truce: but I'm struggling with the BBM part SINCE opening statements are not to be considered as FACT. Does the defense gang and the SA team have to stipulate to the "newer" story/excuse/fantasy :crazy: of the felon's "actions"? HOW does the opening statement CHANGE the documents & interviews that felon-inmate gave & SIGNED to LE?:banghead::banghead:

The opening statement didn't change the evidence, but it might have changed the "relevance-prejudice" balancing for some evidence. For example, if the SA says, "we need to get this evidence in to prove that Casey lied to LE about why she was stealing," and the defense says,"we aren't going to deny that Casey lied to LE," then what's the point of the evidence, really? Especially on a minor point like whether or not Casey was stealing for some purpose relating to finding Caylee or stealing for some other (irrelevant) purpose. At most the SA might be able to insist that the jury be read a stipulation that the defense has admitted certain things.

Let's say a weird thing happens and she's found not guilty on the murder/manslaughter charges...would you say by the nature of their defense - admitting she lied to investigators (Caylee drowned, therefore the Universal Studios Zanny story HAS to be false) is she definitely sunk on the providing false info charges? I can't imagine she has any way around those...

Yes. But she's already served 2.5 years, and the maximum sentence for those charges--even if imposed consecutively, which I doubt they would be--is 4 years. If imposed concurrently, the sentence would be a maximum of 1 year.

Did Baez have the responsibility to inform the Court this was an accident and not murder?

You mean before the opening statement? No.

Marcia Clark, the prosecuting attorney in the OJ case, said on InSession a couple days ago, that they knew several weeks before the OJ trial started that they were going to lose the case. Is that possible? How could she know they were going to lose? Or was she just doing what talking heads do and talking through both sides of her mouth?

So in this case, could the prosecution already have known they are going to lose this case several weeks ago?

Prior to trial, you generally have a pretty good idea of the other side's strategy, the witnesses, the evidence, etc. I think she meant she "knew" she would lose in the sense that she thought it was very likely she would lose given what she knew about the case.

I don't know if this is a legal question or not but, what the heck is CM and the rest of the team there for ? We know JB and ICA don't have a clue. They are a train wreck waiting to happen but shouldn't all the years of practice from the rest of the team be able to put together a better story then this one ?

I agree--there are attorneys with more experience on that team who should have said, "This defense theory is idiotic. Let's omit 50% of this silliness and cut it down to a theory that the jurors might potentially believe."

Now that CA and GA seem to have seen the light, if they have additional information regarding Caylee's death that they did not reveal prior, will the prosecution be allowed to introduce it? Or is the prosecution bound to the information that is in the depositions and LE interviews?

They can introduce it. They are not limited to information contained in prior statements. Of course, the defense will ask why CA and GA did not mention such important facts in the half-dozen or so recorded and sworn statements they gave.

Who will give the closing statements for the Prosecution?

Please say Jeff Ashton....

TY

Who knows??

IF there was a fight on the 15th and Cindy confronted KC because of things that Caylee may have babbled about on the ride back from visiting Cindy's father and mother, would that be a reason not to allow the fight into evidence? Since Caylee can not testify, it is hearsay - is that correct?

No, that would not be a reason not to let the fight into evidence, although it might be a reason not to let the statements from Caylee into evidence (assuming none of the exceptions to the hearsay rule apply). But I think the reason the fight is not coming into evidence is because Cindy does not admit that it happened. And maybe it didn't.

 

[goldleaf]

Do you think it is very likely that ICA will turn on her DT at one point? How much damage can she do to them? Could it go beyond a claim of ineffective counsel?

 

[beachbumming]

Do you think it is very likely that ICA will turn on her DT at one point? How much damage can she do to them? Could it go beyond a claim of ineffective counsel?

I don't know if ICA will turn on her DT, but right now they are all she has. All defendants who have been convicted at trial file claims for post-conviction relief, i.e. motions for new trials, appeals, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, etc. ICA could also file complaints with the Fl bar. I'm not sure if ICA could cause any more trouble for the DT than any other defendant could. The reason you see all of the side bars and objections by DT is not only for the purpose of representing ICA but also to make a "clean" record that can withstand appeals and ineffectiveness of counsel claims.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

BK (the tattoo guy) has been tweeting about the case and trial. He goes so far as to tell when he's scheduled - he said he's not scheduled until Friday. Can he be doing this?

If the SA or DT (or both) get ahold of this - what happens? I think the tattoo is a very big piece of evidence and if this guy now blows it - oh my.........


ETA: forgot to put link:

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...st6580585&txt=http://twitter.com/#!/DKnight68

 

[Sea Witch]

More questions for the lawyers:

IIRC ICA has been charged with a lot of crimes aside from the capital murder trial she's in right now. And if I understand correctly, she'll be going to prison one way or another. Wouldn't/shouldn't her DT be encouraging her to accept some kind of plea deal for a reduced sentence? Does ICA and her DT really think she's going to walk out scot-free?

Thank you

 

[realdeal]

Here is something which has seriously been bothering me. I am hoping someone in the legal field can help me understand. If this has already been addressed, please forgive me.

Is there a limit to what sort of wild accusation can be made in an opening statement? I know that the OS is not considered evidence, but aren't there any paramaters at all? I mean, theoretically could JB have stood up and announced that HHJP himself had put Caylee's body in the woods and that there is a huge conspiracy by the State to frame poor Casey for this terrible tragedy?

It is just mind-boggling to me that so many people have been slandered in one fell swoop. Can charges be pressed later, when (not if, but when) JB fails to prove these accusations?

 

[beachbumming]

More questions for the lawyers:

IIRC ICA has been charged with a lot of crimes aside from the capital murder trial she's in right now. And if I understand correctly, she'll be going to prison one way or another. Wouldn't/shouldn't her DT be encouraging her to accept some kind of plea deal for a reduced sentence? Does ICA and her DT really think she's going to walk out scot-free?

Thank you

Plea deals are tricky things. You have to remember that the State Attorney is an elected position, therefore politics can play a role. The strength of evidence and likelihood of conviction also play a role. Possible scenarios could includeI don't know all of the sentencing guidelines in Fl)
1. Plead to First Degree Murder and LWOP (& maybe 1 or 2 of other charges)
2. Plead to Second Degree Murder (whatever that sentence range is & 1 or 2 of the other charges.

Since the state is seeking the DP its hard to imagine they would offer manslaughter, but they might.

State would then probably have ICA plead to one or two of the other charges and ask the court to run the sentences at the same time. That provides a bit of insurance. If for some reason the murder conviction is overturned, she would still be serving a prison sentence while awaiting retrial.

If a plea deal is or was offered, JB then has an ethically duty to present the details of the offer and the potential ramifications if the deal is not accepted.

 

[AZlawyer]

BK (the tattoo guy) has been tweeting about the case and trial. He goes so far as to tell when he's scheduled - he said he's not scheduled until Friday. Can he be doing this?

If the SA or DT (or both) get ahold of this - what happens? I think the tattoo is a very big piece of evidence and if this guy now blows it - oh my.........


ETA: forgot to put link:

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...st6580585&txt=http://twitter.com/#!/DKnight68

I don't see anything wrong with him telling when he's scheduled.

Here is something which has seriously been bothering me. I am hoping someone in the legal field can help me understand. If this has already been addressed, please forgive me.

Is there a limit to what sort of wild accusation can be made in an opening statement? I know that the OS is not considered evidence, but aren't there any paramaters at all? I mean, theoretically could JB have stood up and announced that HHJP himself had put Caylee's body in the woods and that there is a huge conspiracy by the State to frame poor Casey for this terrible tragedy?

It is just mind-boggling to me that so many people have been slandered in one fell swoop. Can charges be pressed later, when (not if, but when) JB fails to prove these accusations?

The limit is that you have to reasonably believe that you will be able to introduce evidence during trial to support your story, or to support facts from which your story could be inferred.

 

[Bobbarita]

Forgive me if this has been asked before...Can a member of the jury request a televised replay of witness testimony or must they confine their evaluations to written testimony or having it read back to them?

 

[Wise Old Owl]

I don't see anything wrong with him telling when he's scheduled.



The limit is that you have to reasonably believe that you will be able to introduce evidence during trial to support your story, or to support facts from which your story could be inferred.

Hey thankx AZ - did you read the rest of his tweets? One of his latest ones states that he hopes ICA will stand up and say she did it. There is another one talking about how GA and CA probably wouldn't let her move back in - if she gets off.

IOW - he's talking about the case, the trial, etc. - that's ok from a subpeonaed (sp?) witness?

 

[beachbumming]

Forgive me if this has been asked before...Can a member of the jury request a televised replay of witness testimony or must they confine their evaluations to written testimony or having it read back to them?

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410:

After the jurors have retired to consider their verdict, if they request additional instructions or to have any testimony read to them they shall be conducted into the courtroom by the officer who has them in charge and the court may give them the additional instructions or may order the testimony read to them. The instructions shall be given and the testimony read only after notice to the prosecuting attorney and to the counsel for the defendant.

*Just the read back if the judge orders.

 

[Quiche]

Can the SA now ask Amy H. about KC's theft since JB asked William W. if KC stole a laptop from his house? tia

 

[dani]

It appears to me that many times the "good stuff" is not allowed to be used in a trial because it is "too prejudicial". What does that actually mean in the legal sense and why should the jury not be allowed to hear something that could influence them one way or the other as long as it is factual?

 

[Meemom]

From Ca's testimony about not looking for ZFG anymore since 6 weeks ago, it seems obvious she was informed by the DT that they were admitting Caylee was dead as of 6/16/08 (I believe she and her attorney had a meeting with JB, sans GA, I'll try to find a link) .

My question is - was the DT or even the SA required to let her know about the new scenario and accusations that would be made at trial, since she and GA were being thrown under the bus, or could they have kept it from them and really ambushed GA at the trial? Do you think they made a mistake in letting them in on ICA's new story, since it gave CA and GA time to calm down and control themselves on the stand? Or did the DT have to let the SA in on it, to avoid the no trial by ambush rule?

TIA for this and all you legal eagles do here!:rocker:

ETA- add link- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/24/ng.01.html

"MARK LIPPMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE ANTHONY FAMILY: Nancy, this whole theory started, as far as we`re concerned, probably back in February where they started creating this, when the psych evals came out. And from there we`ve known approximately about six weeks ago that the defense was going to go down this road. And that came directly from Jose`s mouth where we found out about six weeks ago"

 

[beachbumming]

Plea deals are tricky things. You have to remember that the State Attorney is an elected position, therefore politics can play a role. The strength of evidence and likelihood of conviction also play a role. Possible scenarios could includeI don't know all of the sentencing guidelines in Fl)
1. Plead to First Degree Murder and LWOP (& maybe 1 or 2 of other charges)
2. Plead to Second Degree Murder (whatever that sentence range is & 1 or 2 of the other charges.

Since the state is seeking the DP its hard to imagine they would offer manslaughter, but they might.

State would then probably have ICA plead to one or two of the other charges and ask the court to run the sentences at the same time. That provides a bit of insurance. If for some reason the murder conviction is overturned, she would still be serving a prison sentence while awaiting retrial.

If a plea deal is or was offered, JB then has an ethically duty to present the details of the offer and the potential ramifications if the deal is not accepted.

Let me correct myself: if ICA pleaded guilty to murder then she would not be allowed to appeal the conviction. Appeals are only allowed if defendant is convicted in either a jury trial or a bench trial(judge only). The state could offer to drop any additional charges if ICA pleaded guilty to murder. SORRY about that

 

[Katprint]

It appears to me that many times the "good stuff" is not allowed to be used in a trial because it is "too prejudicial". What does that actually mean in the legal sense and why should the jury not be allowed to hear something that could influence them one way or the other as long as it is factual?

One frequent example is injury photos BEFORE the injury has been treated showing open gaping wounds, blood splashed everywhere, etc. vs. injury photos AFTER the injury has been treated showing rows of sutures, healed scars, etc. The BEFORE photos are technically relevant to prove the nature and extent of the injury but their probative value is substantially outweighed by their likely emotional impact ("undue prejudice.")

Similarly, pictures of a murder defendant peeing in a parking lot, or vomiting in a toilet, or partying at a nightclub, or stealing, those photos don't help to prove whether the defendant committed murder. They are only "prejudicial" i.e. the jury would see the defendant doing bad things and conclude that the defendant was a bad person who deserved to be punished regardless whether they were guilty of the specific crimes charged.

So, the bloody accident photos/videos are shown to high school Drivers Ed students and the "good stuff" about how the defendant was generally a bad person is shown on true crime shows. People who aren't jurors deciding the guilt of that defendant don't have to remain unprejudiced.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

Hey thankx AZ - did you read the rest of his tweets? One of his latest ones states that he hopes ICA will stand up and say she did it. There is another one talking about how GA and CA probably wouldn't let her move back in - if she gets off.

IOW - he's talking about the case, the trial, etc. - that's ok from a subpeonaed (sp?) witness?

A subpoenaed witness can talk about the trial, yes. The judge did exclude witnesses from attending trial prior to testifying (which is normal), the purpose of which is to prevent them from watching other witnesses' testimony. However, the judge did not order the witnesses not to follow trial coverage. The witness could be cross-examined as to whether his testimony was affected in any way by trial coverage or by his apparent belief that she is guilty.

Can the SA now ask Amy H. about KC's theft since JB asked William W. if KC stole a laptop from his house? tia

No, I don't see the connection.

From Ca's testimony about not looking for ZFG anymore since 6 weeks ago, it seems obvious she was informed by the DT that they were admitting Caylee was dead as of 6/16/08 (I believe she and her attorney had a meeting with JB, sans GA, I'll try to find a link) .

My question is - was the DT or even the SA required to let her know about the new scenario and accusations that would be made at trial, since she and GA were being thrown under the bus, or could they have kept it from them and really ambushed GA at the trial? Do you think they made a mistake in letting them in on ICA's new story, since it gave CA and GA time to calm down and control themselves on the stand? Or did the DT have to let the SA in on it, to avoid the no trial by ambush rule?

TIA for this and all you legal eagles do here!:rocker:

ETA- add link- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/24/ng.01.html

"MARK LIPPMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE ANTHONY FAMILY: Nancy, this whole theory started, as far as we`re concerned, probably back in February where they started creating this, when the psych evals came out. And from there we`ve known approximately about six weeks ago that the defense was going to go down this road. And that came directly from Jose`s mouth where we found out about six weeks ago"

The defense was not required to let the As or the SA know about its strategy. "No trial by ambush" means that both sides get to know the identity of the witnesses and have copies of exhibits prior to trial. It does not mean that the defense has to reveal its interpretation of the evidence.

An ambush at trial might have worked better, in that GA would probably have turned red and blown up on the stand. However, the As thwarted that strategy in any event by getting permission to sit in on the trial (including the opening arguments).

It appears to me that many times the "good stuff" is not allowed to be used in a trial because it is "too prejudicial". What does that actually mean in the legal sense and why should the jury not be allowed to hear something that could influence them one way or the other as long as it is factual?

To add to what Katprint said, the really important, relevant "good stuff" will NOT be kept out due to prejudice.

 

[Melanie]

Hi AZLawyer,

What are your thoughts on dragging Kronk into this? In the DT's opening JB said Roy was holding the body somewhere, and then disposed of it at a later date in order to collect the reward and pay his car bill (roll eyes).

Wouldn't the opening have been much more effective if they just left it to the drowning story and George disposing the body in the woods? I still can't see the relevence in mentioning Kronk at all. Do you think this will be the demise of the DT's case?

Thanks.

Melanie

 

[Sea Witch]

I'd like to ask some questions about a sequestered jury:

Are the jurors allowed to discuss the case between themselves before the end of the trial?

When the jury deliberates at the end of the trial are the "alternates" excluded from the deliberation but still kept on hand?

If I understand correctly, while sequestered the jury can't watch TV or read newspapers. What can they do? I mean I can't imagine being isolated in a hotel room for weeks without being able to turn on the TV. Can they read a book? Does the book have to be "approved"? Knit a sweater?

thanks