Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[beachbumming]

Question for the Legal Eagles:

Will the jury have a choice of lesser offenses to choose from if they don't want to find her guilty of 1st degree murder but they don't want to acquit either? That is if they want to choose something like manslaughter, aggravated child neglect, or whatever there is...................? Or is it all or nothing?

Lesser included offenses will be an option.

 

[beachbumming]

If a defendant wants anti anxiety medication ,or his/her defense team believes medication would be helpful ,how does that work during a trial?
I'm curious about the steps that must be taken and also if the judge needs to be notified or has to agree,since they can affect your thinking .

ETA : assuming also that the defendant is currently residing in jail.

Defense would have to go through the jail house Dr. No one would need to be notified.

 

[mombomb]

From AZ:
"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?"

THANK YOU AZ! This is why I love WS so much. You guys are right on point. Does this now mean that the State now "has Huggins in our pocket", or was it just a threat to JB to be careful to not do it again? I think in Huggins the State waited until after the Defense was thru before they brought it up.

 

[mombomb]

From AZ:
"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?"

THANK YOU AZ! This is why I love WS so much. You guys are right on point. Does this now mean that the State now "has Huggins in our pocket", or was it just a threat to JB to be careful to not do it again? I think in Huggins the State waited until after the Defense was thru before they brought it up.

Bumped by me. Sorry I didn't quote properly above, don't know why it worked that way.

Any way, I have a new question. Did Baez almost do it again today? It was either when Hosey or YM were on the stand. He asked a question about what ICA said to them about CA and LDB objected, saying that it was outside the scope of direct examination and that JB was trying to elicit hearsay statements of the defendant. HHBP sustained the objection and at the same time, JB withdrew the question.

 

[I Din Doot]

Az - This is more a history question than a legal question (but I know you know).

I lurked then joined WS while YM was posting here. I never heard that he was reprimanded. Did you ? I thought it was more of a "Now that your leg is healing, give up your hobby" from the boss. Do you remember?

 

[erinleigh]

What are the legal ramifications of the defense not admitting that Caylee died on June 16th prior to opening statements? They distracted a police investigation, cost the state of Florida numerous amounts of money, allowed searches for a live Caylee, withheld crucial information, allowed many people to have their time and privacy invaded with depositions and accusations ect.

 

[larryphx]

Is there any way Casey will come to court and change her plea to Guilty. I mean she has to know it's pretty much over.

 

[I Din Doot]

Az - This is more a history question than a legal question (but I know you know).

I lurked then joined WS while YM was posting here. I never heard that he was reprimanded. Did you ? I thought it was more of a "Now that your leg is healing, give up your hobby" from the boss. Do you remember?

Trish says Yuri was not reprimanded but asked not to chat anymore. I think thats a win !!!!!

 

[AZlawyer]

From AZ:
"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?"

THANK YOU AZ! This is why I love WS so much. You guys are right on point. Does this now mean that the State now "has Huggins in our pocket", or was it just a threat to JB to be careful to not do it again? I think in Huggins the State waited until after the Defense was thru before they brought it up.

I think the SA should not bring up the Huggins issue again with respect to the particular questions Jose asked Cindy about Casey's statements regarding Caylee's paternity. If Jose does it again, obviously the same analysis would apply--did he elicit important statements that he suggested were true? If so, the SA should be allowed to bring in the felony convictions at that time.

Bumped by me. Sorry I didn't quote properly above, don't know why it worked that way.

Any way, I have a new question. Did Baez almost do it again today? It was either when Hosey or YM were on the stand. He asked a question about what ICA said to them about CA and LDB objected, saying that it was outside the scope of direct examination and that JB was trying to elicit hearsay statements of the defendant. HHBP sustained the objection and at the same time, JB withdrew the question.

I haven't seen any of the tapes for today yet, but it sounds like he almost did it again, yes!

Az - This is more a history question than a legal question (but I know you know).

I lurked then joined WS while YM was posting here. I never heard that he was reprimanded. Did you ? I thought it was more of a "Now that your leg is healing, give up your hobby" from the boss. Do you remember?

I thought he had been gently reprimanded, but not in any official sense of the word.

What are the legal ramifications of the defense not admitting that Caylee died on June 16th prior to opening statements? They distracted a police investigation, cost the state of Florida numerous amounts of money, allowed searches for a live Caylee, withheld crucial information, allowed many people to have their time and privacy invaded with depositions and accusations ect.

IMO there will be no ramifications at all.

Is there any way Casey will come to court and change her plea to Guilty. I mean she has to know it's pretty much over.

She hasn't given up so far, and at this point I think she still has a decent chance of getting Agg Manslaughter of a Child rather than murder. (13-30 years based on my calculations, 85% of sentence must actually be served.)

Changing her plea to guilty on 1st degree murder would be taking a huge chance, as she could still get the death penalty! I don't think she will ever change her plea except as part of a plea deal with the State.

 

[barrysgirl]

AZ, could you explain heresay more please? I don't understand the different types. TIA!

 

[Friptzap]

I would need to review to find where this piece of information was stated however would this statement be important to the prosecution?

"Why would she park the car where she knows I would see it every day on my to and from work?" - Cindy

It is slightly paraphrased because I have not had time to find it. I "think" it was in her 911 call while she was in the background talking loudly at GA BUT it certainly sounds like she saw the car on a daily basis WHILE it sat in the parking lot at Amway for those days.

Did she inspect it? Did either of them inspect it? I'm sure she must have told GA if she saw it during that period? Why would she wait for it to get towed? It certainly did not sound like they were surprised about the towing either imho.

Obviously I would like one of you legal beagles to deal with only the question in bold. The others are just hypothetical thoughts on motives.

 

[mombomb]

I think the SA should not bring up the Huggins issue again with respect to the particular questions Jose asked Cindy about Casey's statements regarding Caylee's paternity. If Jose does it again, obviously the same analysis would apply--did he elicit important statements that he suggested were true? If so, the SA should be allowed to bring in the felony convictions at that time.



I haven't seen any of the tapes for today yet, but it sounds like he almost did it again, yes!


Snipped by me (hope that's allowed). Here's the link to the comment I was asking about where it sounds like JB almost did it again. It starts a little after the 2 minute mark.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28100954/index.html

The way I understand what you said earlier, the SA wouldn't need to use Huggins if ICA takes the stand because then on cross they can bring in the convictions? If she doesn't testify, then when would they bring up Huggins?

Thank you so much for all you do.

 

[Trapshooter]

AZlawyer, et al,

Today when JB tried to impeach YM with the "Dick Tracy Orlando" thing, what exactly was HHBP saying about this? I know the Judge said that YM's posts showed no bias and he could not be impeached on this subject. Did the Judge say the Defense may use this information at a later date? I'm confused on this???

Thanks!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Hypothetical scenario... at 9a.m. on june 16th, KC said to GA, I'm going to jump in the shower, can you keep an eye on Caylee, but GA was watching the intro to his favorite cooking show and didn't hear her, Caylee slipped out unnoticed and climbed into the pool and drowned.

Would GA be charged with aggravated manslaughter and child neglect? Or in that scenario would KC still be charged with aggravated manslaughter and child neglect even though she had asked GA to keep an eye on Caylee?

 

[beachbumming]

AZlawyer, et al,

Today when JB tried to impeach YM with the "Dick Tracy Orlando" thing, what exactly was HHBP saying about this? I know the Judge said that YM's posts showed no bias and he could not be impeached on this subject. Did the Judge say the Defense may use this information at a later date? I'm confused on this???

Thanks!

Because JB couldn't point to specific references that showed bias on the part of YM, JB could not use it at all.

 

[beachbumming]

Hypothetical scenario... at 9a.m. on june 16th, KC said to GA, I'm going to jump in the shower, can you keep an eye on Caylee, but GA was watching the intro to his favorite cooking show and didn't hear her, Caylee slipped out unnoticed and climbed into the pool and drowned.

Would GA be charged with aggravated manslaughter and child neglect? Or in that scenario would KC still be charged with aggravated manslaughter and child neglect even though she had asked GA to keep an eye on Caylee?

Accident. GA and or KC would have to show a careless disregard for Caylee's safety, and I don't think this scenario does that.

 

[Starshine28]

Hi there I'm a newbie poster and I haven't been able to read this whole thread yet, so I apologize if this has already been asked. I am curious to know two things:

1. Are defense laywers required to tell ALL of the story/explanation the defendant tells them? I am just trying to wrap my head around why the defense opening statements were so detailed when they could have been A LOT more vague about the supposed accident.

2. I know very little about the Sunshine Law, although I'm a Florida resident. There have been rumors that the State may have a "bombshell" up their sleeve (quotes to peeve off JB , but wouldn't the Sunshine Law prevent the state from having any bombshell evidence? I was curious if they actually did have a man contact them regarding Caylee's paternity, and if they would have been able to keep this from leaking until the trial.

Thanks!

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, could you explain heresay more please? I don't understand the different types. TIA!

There is only 1 kind of hearsay: out-of-court statements offered to show the truth of the matter asserted.

But there are about 30 exclusions and exceptions.

I would need to review to find where this piece of information was stated however would this statement be important to the prosecution?

"Why would she park the car where she knows I would see it every day on my to and from work?" - Cindy

It is slightly paraphrased because I have not had time to find it. I "think" it was in her 911 call while she was in the background talking loudly at GA BUT it certainly sounds like she saw the car on a daily basis WHILE it sat in the parking lot at Amway for those days.

Did she inspect it? Did either of them inspect it? I'm sure she must have told GA if she saw it during that period? Why would she wait for it to get towed? It certainly did not sound like they were surprised about the towing either imho.

Obviously I would like one of you legal beagles to deal with only the question in bold. The others are just hypothetical thoughts on motives.

She was not saying that she saw it. She was saying that Casey would have to have been stupid to leave the car where she COULD HAVE seen it.

I haven't seen any of the tapes for today yet, but it sounds like he almost did it again, yes!


Snipped by me (hope that's allowed). Here's the link to the comment I was asking about where it sounds like JB almost did it again. It starts a little after the 2 minute mark.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28100954/index.html

The way I understand what you said earlier, the SA wouldn't need to use Huggins if ICA takes the stand because then on cross they can bring in the convictions? If she doesn't testify, then when would they bring up Huggins?

Thank you so much for all you do.

If Casey testifies, it is an easy question--the SA gets to cross-examine her with the convictions. If she doesn't testify, the SA can bring up Huggins if JB has actually managed to sneak in some more hearsay from Casey that is important to the case.

Hi there I'm a newbie poster and I haven't been able to read this whole thread yet, so I apologize if this has already been asked. I am curious to know two things:

1. Are defense laywers required to tell ALL of the story/explanation the defendant tells them? I am just trying to wrap my head around why the defense opening statements were so detailed when they could have been A LOT more vague about the supposed accident.

2. I know very little about the Sunshine Law, although I'm a Florida resident. There have been rumors that the State may have a "bombshell" up their sleeve (quotes to peeve off JB , but wouldn't the Sunshine Law prevent the state from having any bombshell evidence? I was curious if they actually did have a man contact them regarding Caylee's paternity, and if they would have been able to keep this from leaking until the trial.

Thanks!

1. No. And obviously, if the story were true :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: (hold on sorry just picking myself up off the floor)--if the story were TRUE then Casey could not possibly have told the silly details about Kronk, for example, because she would not have known those details.

2. The State does not have any bombshells. Trust me on this.

 

[Aedrys]

I don't know if this has been asked, but can the jury complain about the defense? Would that do anything? And I'm talking about the defense confusing them, or wasting their time, or putting them to sleep, serious complaints. And if they can, would those complaints do anything, like maybe have HHJP lecture the defense? I know sometimes HHJP does things to make the jury feel more convenienced, but I didn't know if the jury itself could complain about how the defense is dragging out this trial or being so inept with questioning or trial procedures. Or is that just something they ultimately can hold against the defense in deliberations?

 

[beachbumming]

I don't know if this has been asked, but can the jury complain about the defense? Would that do anything? And I'm talking about the defense confusing them, or wasting their time, or putting them to sleep, serious complaints. And if they can, would those complaints do anything, like maybe have HHJP lecture the defense? I know sometimes HHJP does things to make the jury feel more convenienced, but I didn't know if the jury itself could complain about how the defense is dragging out this trial or being so inept with questioning or trial procedures. Or is that just something they ultimately can hold against the defense in deliberations?

No. It is the job of the jury to shift through all of the evidence presented and determine the truth. The jurors may not like JB at all, but they will ultimately make their decision based on the evidence. You don't want JB looking too incompetent, because the jury could begin to feel sorry for the defendant.