Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[Brattigirle]

Since the State showed the videos about ICA using Amy's money Can't Amy testify to the theft? Especially the video the State showed of ICA at the bank, seems like if they don't explain it....it is just kinda hanging there. If I was a Juror I would wonder what is odd about ICA at a bank...maybe she was simply there for her mom....KWIM??? As I think about it (as a Juror) maybe she was doing the family grocery shopping at the stores as well.

 

[beachbumming]

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

Jurors cannot discuss the case among themselves until deliberations start following the close of the case. Some jurors will inevitably talk some during the trial, however, if that is brought to the Judge's attention, that could be cause for removal. It really is quite an ordeal to have a sequestered jury. It is sort of like camp. There are usually a couple of people either from LE or court appointed to stay with the jurors pretty much the whole time (like camp counselors). They may also be provided some sort of entertainment at times. There are also pre-approved DVDs, books, etc. There are also the unexpected things that occur, i.e. someone forgot to bring their medicine, some have particular diets, so those things have to be taken care of. Alternates are excused prior to deliberations, however, in this case the judge may admonish them not to discuss the case until a verdict has been reached in case they needed to replace a juror. I don't know if the alternates would be asked to stay in the area or just be available if needed.

 

[niaa]

Why is the steak knife testimony kept out ? It was in the car.

 

[ijam]

since casey admitted she lied and gave false info to the police during investigation..does that go straight to sentencing or does the jury have to say guilty to those charges? what would the sentencing be?

 

[beachbumming]

since casey admitted she lied and gave false info to the police during investigation..does that go straight to sentencing or does the jury have to say guilty to those charges? what would the sentencing be?

The lying and false info given to police might possibly be introduced at trial to show "consciousness of guilt" by ICA. I don't know all of the additional charges filed against her, but lying and giving false info is obstructing justice. The state is only trying the murder case, so separate trials would be necessary. As far as sentencing, I'm not sure of FL's sentencing guidelines. Where I am, obstructing justice carries a sentence of 1-10 years.

 

[AZlawyer]

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

I think it was an incredibly stupid move and it could make the difference between convincing one or more jurors that there is "reasonable doubt" and not convincing any of them.

Since the State showed the videos about ICA using Amy's money Can't Amy testify to the theft? Especially the video the State showed of ICA at the bank, seems like if they don't explain it....it is just kinda hanging there. If I was a Juror I would wonder what is odd about ICA at a bank...maybe she was simply there for her mom....KWIM??? As I think about it (as a Juror) maybe she was doing the family grocery shopping at the stores as well.

The theft can come in only if it is deemed relevant to the charges pending against Casey. Evidence does not come in just to satisfy jurors' curiosity. The thefts from Amy might come in to rebut Casey's prior statement that she was stealing "to find Caylee," but now that Casey's defense team has admitted she was not trying to find Caylee at all, the thefts might be deemed irrelevant.

Why is the steak knife testimony kept out ? It was in the car.

Because there is not the slightest indication that the steak knife was in any way related to Caylee's demise. The fibers on the knife did not match the duct tape fibers.

since casey admitted she lied and gave false info to the police during investigation..does that go straight to sentencing or does the jury have to say guilty to those charges? what would the sentencing be?

Casey is charged with 4 counts of providing false info to a LE officer searching for a missing person. Max sentence 1 year per charge, but IMO the sentences would likely be imposed concurrently (all at once), meaning a max sentence of 1 year total for all 4 charges.

The jury does have to actually deliberate and find her guilty on those charges before a sentence will be imposed, but it shouldn't be too hard for them to figure that one out.

Casey has already served about 2.5 years, so I'm sure she is not too worried about sentencing on those charges.

 

[mombomb]

What are our legal experts thoughts on what the press is reporting as Baez's major blunder this afternoon which is causing the state to want to get in her felony convictions. Apparently they are referencing a case that HHJBP tried earlier that was held up on appeal? Your expertise would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Frigga]

I don't understand how Jose can bring up money made off of pictures etc. for everyone and their brother. Why is it not allowed to come out that the defendant is funding her defense the same way?

How can Jose accuse everyone else of wanting fame or fortune but no one on the jury will know that those are actually his motivations? TIA... I am not even sure I'm making sense, but hope someone understands my question!

 

[LolaMoon08]

Now that we are into week two of Casey's trial... how do you think things are going for the defense? The State? What has been the biggest mistake for either side? What has been the shining moment for either side?

IF the jury has already started to look down on the defense, how hard is it for the defense to win them back? Is it even possible? The same question for the State?

I am just curious if our lawyers feel Casey is in as much trouble as I think she is and if there is anything that could bring the jury back around to her side because they have got to hate her at this moment?

 

[AZlawyer]

What are our legal experts thoughts on what the press is reporting as Baez's major blunder this afternoon which is causing the state to want to get in her felony convictions. Apparently they are referencing a case that HHJBP tried earlier that was held up on appeal? Your expertise would be greatly appreciated.

In the Huggins case, the defense asked a witness about something the defendant had said (that he shaved his pubic area to get rid of lice, not to avoid giving a pubic hair sample to LE). It was improper hearsay, but it got in. Because the defense had introduced testimony of the defendant in this way, the State was then allowed to impeach that testimony, just as if the defendant had actually testified, by bringing in the defendant's felony convictions.

Here, JB asked a witness (Cindy) about statements Casey had made about the paternity of Caylee (I think), and now the State wants to bring in Casey's felony convictions to impeach that "testimony" of Casey.

I would love to see a transcript, but I doubt that the statements of Casey that JB elicited from Cindy were (1) presented by JB as having been truthful statements by Casey or (2) relevant at all to Casey's defense. If the statements were not presented as having been truthful and/or were not particularly relevant to the defense, then IMO HHJP should not allow the felony conviction information into evidence.

If the statements of Casey that JB elicited from Cindy WERE presented as JB as having been truthful statements by Casey and had something to do with the actual case, then HHJP should allow the felony conviction information into evidence BUT the whole situation will raise the question of ineffective assistance of counsel down the road.

IMO the SA ought to think about it overnight and come in tomorrow morning and say, "You know what, your honor? Never mind about those felony convictions for now," thus either saving JB from his own incompetence or saving HHJP from being overturned on appeal. Chances are, Casey is going to have to testify in this case, because her defense set up a crazy story in the opening statement that only she can support. Why not save the felonies to impeach her then?

I don't understand how Jose can bring up money made off of pictures etc. for everyone and their brother. Why is it not allowed to come out that the defendant is funding her defense the same way?

How can Jose accuse everyone else of wanting fame or fortune but no one on the jury will know that those are actually his motivations? TIA... I am not even sure I'm making sense, but hope someone understands my question!

It is relevant if a witness makes money off the case, because it shows that they might have other motives than simply telling the truth. It is not relevant if the defendant makes money off the case, unless the SA is going to suggest that Casey killed Caylee for the purpose of selling pictures of Caylee so she could pay her lawyer for defending her on a murder charge.

The motivations of the defense counsel are totally irrelevant.

Now that we are into week two of Casey's trial... how do you think things are going for the defense? The State? What has been the biggest mistake for either side? What has been the shining moment for either side?

IF the jury has already started to look down on the defense, how hard is it for the defense to win them back? Is it even possible? The same question for the State?

I am just curious if our lawyers feel Casey is in as much trouble as I think she is and if there is anything that could bring the jury back around to her side because they have got to hate her at this moment?

I think things are going well for the State so far. The biggest mistake by the defense was taking the perfectly good "accident plus stupid cover-up" soup and ruining it by dumping in the potent spices "molestation" and "body-snatching." Nothing jumps out for me with respect to SA mistakes or shining moments, but other lawyers I'm sure will have their opinions to share.

The defense will not win back this jury unless they can present some evidence in support of the story told in opening. I don't think the State is having any trouble with the jury at this point.

I do think Casey is in trouble. That jail call home, in particular ("waste, huge waste"), must have hit the jurors like a ton of bricks.

 

[beachbumming]

Now that we are into week two of Casey's trial... how do you think things are going for the defense? The State? What has been the biggest mistake for either side? What has been the shining moment for either side?

IF the jury has already started to look down on the defense, how hard is it for the defense to win them back? Is it even possible? The same question for the State?

I am just curious if our lawyers feel Casey is in as much trouble as I think she is and if there is anything that could bring the jury back around to her side because they have got to hate her at this moment?

I think it all depends on forensics and what the testimony is as to when the duct tape was placed on Caylee's nose and mouth. If the duct tape was placed premortem the defense will not recover. It won't matter if ICA was molested, psycho or anything else.

 

[Americka]

What is a collateral crime?

 

[ZsaZsa]

In the Huggins case, the defense asked a witness about something the defendant had said (that he shaved his pubic area to get rid of lice, not to avoid giving a pubic hair sample to LE). It was improper hearsay, but it got in. Because the defense had introduced testimony of the defendant in this way, the State was then allowed to impeach that testimony, just as if the defendant had actually testified, by bringing in the defendant's felony convictions.

Here, JB asked a witness (Cindy) about statements Casey had made about the paternity of Caylee (I think), and now the State wants to bring in Casey's felony convictions to impeach that "testimony" of Casey.

I would love to see a transcript, but I doubt that the statements of Casey that JB elicited from Cindy were (1) presented by JB as having been truthful statements by Casey or (2) relevant at all to Casey's defense. If the statements were not presented as having been truthful and/or were not particularly relevant to the defense, then IMO HHJP should not allow the felony conviction information into evidence.

If the statements of Casey that JB elicited from Cindy WERE presented as JB as having been truthful statements by Casey and had something to do with the actual case, then HHJP should allow the felony conviction information into evidence BUT the whole situation will raise the question of ineffective assistance of counsel down the road.

IMO the SA ought to think about it overnight and come in tomorrow morning and say, "You know what, your honor? Never mind about those felony convictions for now," thus either saving JB from his own incompetence or saving HHJP from being overturned on appeal. Chances are, Casey is going to have to testify in this case, because her defense set up a crazy story in the opening statement that only she can support. Why not save the felonies to impeach her then?



It is relevant if a witness makes money off the case, because it shows that they might have other motives than simply telling the truth. It is not relevant if the defendant makes money off the case, unless the SA is going to suggest that Casey killed Caylee for the purpose of selling pictures of Caylee so she could pay her lawyer for defending her on a murder charge.

The motivations of the defense counsel are totally irrelevant.



I think things are going well for the State so far. The biggest mistake by the defense was taking the perfectly good "accident plus stupid cover-up" soup and ruining it by dumping in the potent spices "molestation" and "body-snatching." Nothing jumps out for me with respect to SA mistakes or shining moments, but other lawyers I'm sure will have their opinions to share.

The defense will not win back this jury unless they can present some evidence in support of the story told in opening. I don't think the State is having any trouble with the jury at this point.

I do think Casey is in trouble. That jail call home, in particular ("waste, huge waste"), must have hit the jurors like a ton of bricks.

What is CM doing while JB makes all these catastrophic mistakes?

 

[beachbumming]

What is a collateral crime?

Not central to the crime for which the defendant is being tried. In this case ICA is being tried for murder and the thefts are collateral crimes or crimes for which she is not presently being tried.

 

[shelbar53]

What is the significance of "impeaching Casey's trstimony"? What does that mean? And why is it bad for her? I googled "impeaching testimony" and I got more confused.

What effect will impeaching have on Casey or the trial?

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Did anyone else notice that on the recording of the 911 call the prosecution played (?enhanced?) that GA could be heard in the background. Cindy says: (paraphrased) I am on the phone with them right now. As if someone said to her "call the police." it couldn't have been Lee, since he already knew the police had been called. In the recording that the defense played GA could not be heard.

If the recording that the prosecution played was the original 911 and the one that was entered into evidence by the prosecution, and instead of being enhanced the prosecution, it was adjusted by the defense to obscure the background noise ie:George wouldn't that be evidence tampering??

I don't have the links but could someone verify so I know I'm not crazy.

 

[ami]

I have a question about 'hearsay'.

We keep hearing multiple witnesses testify about KC telling them that Caylee was with the nanny or that KC said CA was crazy, etc - how come it is objected to as "hearsay" sometimes and not others?

 

[rhornsby]

What is the significance of "impeaching Casey's trstimony"? What does that mean? And why is it bad for her? I googled "impeaching testimony" and I got more confused.

What effect will impeaching have on Casey or the trial?

Who would you believe more, an accused killer with no prior criminal record or an accused killer with six prior felony convictions.

Remember, the question isn't who you would believe, just who you would believe more.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Mr. Hornsby, do you think that Caseys' felonies will come in?

ETA: Could you please expound on how you feel this case is going?

Thanks

 

[krkrjx]

My question is about ineffective counsel. Baez not only opened the door for potentially devastating testimony to come in, but he forgot to bring an important file to court. This is not the first time he has done this, and it seems he is either totally incompetent or is doing these things deliberately to cause delays.

Since Casey has not just an attorney but a team of attorneys, how might an appeal for ineffective counsel be decided by the appeals court? Since CM is there, and he is a seasoned attorney who knows the ins and outs of court proceedings, would an appeals court have to base their decision on Baez's incompetence or on the defense team as a whole? Could it be that Mason is purposely not jumping in to assist in their client's defense when it must be obvious to him that Baez is faltering?

Is it ethical for a defense attorney to deliberately be ineffective, to purposely act in a manner that could result in a verdict being overturned on appeal for ineffective counsel?