Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[AZlawyer]

It seems like many questions asked by the attorneys are often asked to get an opinion from the witness. They seem like fair questions, but are often objected to and overruled or sustained. Many question were asked about KC's demeanor and her mood after the month Caylee had disappeared. These questions were allowed usually. One question I believe asked by JB of CA was something to the effect of "Who do you believe the father of Caylee is?" was objected to and sustained. Why would it matter who CA believes is Caylee's father? An opinion is only a view and not a fact. Is it some opinions are going to prejudice the jury? Why are some opinion based questions allowed to be answered and others are not?

Testimony about someone's demeanor is testimony of a direct observation made by the witness--this is OK. Cindy's opinion about the father of Caylee is not OK because she would have no way of knowing the answer, and also because it is irrelevant who the father is, and also because it is irrelevant what Cindy thinks about who the father is.

There is a lot more that goes into determining whether a question is proper than whether it is an opinion question or not.

I believe I heard a meeting on Sat. between HHJP and the attys was cancelled. Was that on the subject of GA's medical records or the new nurse Ph.D. grief expert?

I think that one was about the new expert, and the hearing has been postponed until the expert writes a report and the SA takes her deposition.

Is there still a chance the SAs can get Cindy's Myspace post in front of the jury?

The only way I see it coming in at this point is perhaps on cross-examination if ICA takes the stand.

I was kind of expecting Lee to testify that he set up the page and added the photo, which IMO would have allowed the paper to come into evidence. But the SA didn't ask him about it. I suppose they still might recall him, since HHJP seems to be allowing witnesses to be recalled repeatedly. :waitasec:

Casey could testify about it too, as beachbumming said.

Also, didn't Cindy basically get to recite the entire thing on the stand? I don't think the jury is missing any crucial information about that MySpace page.

 

[beachbumming]

Popping in to thank all the lawyers for answering our questions and especially newcomer Beachbumming, hope we're not keeping you from the beach

I've taken a break from "beachbumming" to watch this trial

 

[gitana1]

It seems like many questions asked by the attorneys are often asked to get an opinion from the witness. They seem like fair questions, but are often objected to and overruled or sustained. Many question were asked about KC's demeanor and her mood after the month Caylee had disappeared. These questions were allowed usually. One question I believe asked by JB of CA was something to the effect of "Who do you believe the father of Caylee is?" was objected to and sustained. Why would it matter who CA believes is Caylee's father? An opinion is only a view and not a fact. Is it some opinions are going to prejudice the jury? Why are some opinion based questions allowed to be answered and others are not?

Lay opinions can be given as to things that are deemed relevant. casey's demeanor is very relevant to this case- goes to consciousness of guilt and could be used to support or refute the defense theory.

But HHJP felt who CA believes the father of Caylee is, is irrelevant to the case. So, it does not come in.

ETA: I see AZLawyer beat me to the punch and as always, is as succinct and clear as possible!

 

[TUSK]

az,
the sa did ask lee if he helped ca set up the page, he said no.
she wisely just let it go, rather than following up and possibly
impeaching lee and cindy or both. she knew from his earlier answers
he was in full cover-up for kc mode.

 

[AZlawyer]

az,
the sa did ask lee if he helped ca set up the page, he said no.
she wisely just let it go, rather than following up and possibly
impeaching lee and cindy or both. she knew from his earlier answers
he was in full cover-up for kc mode.

Oh, I didn't watch Lee's testimony, just read the tweets lol.

 

[ziggy]

Thank you lawyers...don't you think this is a great way to see the rules of evidence in action??? There's so much of it packed into this trial. I just passed my Evidence class and am loving the trial - I just wish I could hear the objections. Seems they are off mic many times. I practice objecting as it goes along. The SA's have to be present, listening and quick on the draw with Jose up there. Sheesh.

What do you expect to see in the defense's case-in-chief regarding the issue of molestation? Do the jail letters come in? They are hearsay; so what exception do they fall under? And who authenticates them?

Also, do you think the defense should have asked during voire dire if any PJs had tattoos used to memorialize an event? I think the tattoo is coming in and after all this showing of Casey the self-centered brat; a)it's not going to be well received by jurors who don't get why people even get tats and b)looked at like something she would do to record the date of her freedom, not memorialize the accidental death of her child...from those who have tattoos.

Thanks again you all.

 

[beachbumming]

Thank you lawyers...don't you think this is a great way to see the rules of evidence in action??? There's so much of it packed into this trial. I just passed my Evidence class and am loving the trial - I just wish I could hear the objections. Seems they are off mic many times. I practice objecting as it goes along. The SA's have to be present, listening and quick on the draw with Jose up there. Sheesh.

What do you expect to see in the defense's case-in-chief regarding the issue of molestation? Do the jail letters come in? They are hearsay; so what exception do they fall under? And who authenticates them?

Also, do you think the defense should have asked during voire dire if any PJs had tattoos used to memorialize an event? I think the tattoo is coming in and after all this showing of Casey the self-centered brat; a)it's not going to be well received by jurors who don't get why people even get tats and b)looked at like something she would do to record the date of her freedom, not memorialize the accidental death of her child...from those who have tattoos.

Thanks again you all.

Congrats on the Evidence exam! I think the only way molestation comes in is through the defendant if she takes the stand. I don't see the letters coming in. During pre-trial hearings JJHP denied JB's motion to exclude testimony about the tattoo. I don't know what questions were or were not asked about tattoos, but if I were the defense I may have asked about tattoos, but I wouldn't have asked about "memorializing" because that plays into the prosecution's theory.

 

[TallyHo]

Good morning everyone!

I have a question that is a little different than the legal ones above, and I'm sure that this will call strictly for opinion, but I highly value your opinions! :rocker:

One of the more interesting things we here at Websleuths looked at/dissected through the discovery were the cell phone pings that tracked Casey's movements during the critical period. So far that has not been discussed at trial (unless I missed something - which is entirely possible, by the way!). Do you think that this is coming in later, given the way the prosecutors have structured their case? The incident that immediately comes to mind is the night on which she had the long phone conversation with Ryan Pasley while she was pinging very close to the remains site in the middle of the night. I was just wondering if they would be able to get this in, or does it call for too much speculation??

And on a related note - I had pegged Ryan as a very, very important witness, and yet we have not heard from him. He seemed to have the most detailed information about the nature of Cindy and Casey's relationship. Just curious if you think that will come in at some point, or if not, why not??

Thanks in advance for all you do for us here at WS!!

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Forgive my ignorance. In the tapes that were shown the past couple of days, Casey states that she stole from Cindy and Amy both. Does this present an opportunity for the SAO to bring this information to light via questioning Cindy or Amy (or someone else) despite the stipulation to "prior bad acts?" Many thanks.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

We're wondering why JB is doing the cross of Karen Lowe of the FBI this morning. As lead counsel, can JB tell DS that *plan has changed. I'm doing the cross on forensic SA witnesses.*? It appears that DS is functioning more as a handler for KC.

I think it's a mistake for the DT, but wonder why it's going on. Thoughts?

 

[nells]

To a non-lawyer, it appears that Baez is overwhelmed and needs more assistance to help him prepare. I recall that Johnnie Cochran did not do most of the qestioning in the OJ trial. To a real lawyer, how is Baez's performance?

 

[beachbumming]

To a non-lawyer, it appears that Baez is overwhelmed and needs more assistance to help him prepare. I recall that Johnnie Cochran did not do most of the qestioning in the OJ trial. To a real lawyer, how is Baez's performance?

Forensic evidence can be very complicated. It takes quite a bit of practice to be effective on cross-examination of experts.

 

[beachbumming]

We're wondering why JB is doing the cross of Karen Lowe of the FBI this morning. As lead counsel, can JB tell DS that *plan has changed. I'm doing the cross on forensic SA witnesses.*? It appears that DS is functioning more as a handler for KC.

I think it's a mistake for the DT, but wonder why it's going on. Thoughts?

You are exactly right, this is JB's case and he makes the call as to who does what.

 

[beachbumming]

Forgive my ignorance. In the tapes that were shown the past couple of days, Casey states that she stole from Cindy and Amy both. Does this present an opportunity for the SAO to bring this information to light via questioning Cindy or Amy (or someone else) despite the stipulation to "prior bad acts?" Many thanks.

I don't think the SA wants to get side-tracked on that issue. It came up enough to show that ICA is not truthful and trustworthy.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

You are exactly right, this is JB's case and he makes the call as to who does what.

Thanks!

 

[gemsy90]

This is my first question here and I hope it's in the appropriate thread. I tweeted a few of the media (who answered that it was a good question, but they did not know the answer), so that gave me the encouragement to ask.

Baez often has his cell in front of him at the podium and glances at it when he is questioning witnesses. Can his defense team text questions to him that he should be asking or give him other directions on where to go with a witness. He often seems frazzled and I wonder if they help him out when this happens. I know that spectators are not allowed to have cell phones on and that the media may tweet during testimony, but not sure about attorneys, especially during their questioning.

 

[gemsy90]

An addendum to this question. If the answer is, yes, they may text, then do their cell phone texts during testimony become part of the record (in the event of an appeal or mistrial for example).

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

Thanks to all the attorneys for taking the time to answer questions, it's very helpful. I hope that my question will be understandabble.

When JB does his cross, I can see somewhat of where he's trying to get to, mostly because we have been privy to so much discovery and heard so much in the media. However, I am curious if you think his points are lost on the jurors because he never really seems to get it out there?

 

[beachbumming]

This is my first question here and I hope it's in the appropriate thread. I tweeted a few of the media (who answered that it was a good question, but they did not know the answer), so that gave me the encouragement to ask.

Baez often has his cell in front of him at the podium and glances at it when he is questioning witnesses. Can his defense team text questions to him that he should be asking or give him other directions on where to go with a witness. He often seems frazzled and I wonder if they help him out when this happens. I know that spectators are not allowed to have cell phones on and that the media may tweet during testimony, but not sure about attorneys, especially during their questioning.

I've seen him look at his phone at the podium and before re-cross. It doesn't make since someone is texting him regarding the case, he has competent co-counsel to confer with. Maybe he has bullet points on his phone that he wants to cover on cross. I have no idea.

 

[beachbumming]

An addendum to this question. If the answer is, yes, they may text, then do their cell phone texts during testimony become part of the record (in the event of an appeal or mistrial for example).

I guess other members of DT could be texting JB, but that is just so hard to imagine. I think he would just walk over and confer, or let another lawyer have the witness. I admit it looks very odd, and I have no answer. If they are texting it would not be part of the record, just like handwritten notes from a member of DT to JB do not become part of the record.