Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[allycat1208]

I thought the hardship questions took long. Is there a time limit on how long one potential juror is questioned now? What phase of the jury selection is this called?

 

[AZlawyer]

I thought the hardship questions took long. Is there a time limit on how long one potential juror is questioned now? What phase of the jury selection is this called?

It's up to HHJP whether he wants to set a time limit. He has to be careful, because the defense will say on appeal that they were "thwarted" and could not ask all of their critical questions and therefore Casey did not get a fair trial.

This is still voir dire...believe it or not.

 

[Cher352]

It's up to HHJP whether he wants to set a time limit. He has to be careful, because the defense will say on appeal that they were "thwarted" and could not ask all of their critical questions and therefore Casey did not get a fair trial.

This is still voir dire...believe it or not.

I can understand this but never having watched voir dire before I am amazed that any case ever makes it to trial if the lawyers have the ability to just go on and on as long as they want.

Have you seen cases where voir dire has taken spent this much time on each person? In your experience what is the average time for a murder trial?

 

[mikeysmommom]

Can the SA bring the jurors to ICA car?

 

[AZlawyer]

I can understand this but never having watched voir dire before I am amazed that any case ever makes it to trial if the lawyers have the ability to just go on and on as long as they want.

Have you seen cases where voir dire has taken spent this much time on each person? In your experience what is the average time for a murder trial?

In death penalty cases, 1-2 weeks for jury selection is not abnormal (sometimes a lot more if there is a lot of pretrial publicity), although 4 hours for just one juror is a little nuts. I think the defense team could tailor its questions better and the whole process would speed up.

As far as the length of time for the trial, it depends on the number of witnesses, complexity and amount of evidence, etc. In this case, it will take some strong trial management from HHJP to get done in 2 months.

I remember when everyone first heard the trial would take 2 months, and I was getting messages: "Seriously? 2 months? How could it possibly drag on that long??" Now you know!

 

[AZlawyer]

Can the SA bring the jurors to ICA car?

They could if HHJP allowed it, but I think what they are contemplating is just having the jury smell the sealed can with the carpet cutting in it. HHJP will not have time for any field trips if he wants to get this trial done in 6-8 weeks.

 

[luv]

I think another poster mentioned this in another thread but what is the difference between jurors smelling the odor in the cans and jurors looking at evidence photos? How is one allowed and not the other?

 

[amandab]

Many many thanks AZ, for your knowledge and insight.

 

[strawberry]

For kicks and giggles, pretend that what the DT is proposing is true. Caylee died accidentally and ICA was terrified to admit it. JB has been saying from the beginning that ICA had an explanation. So say you as ICA's client find out what really happened and that the panic included duct taping Caylee to stage a kidnapping. Would you encourage her to keep quiet while people searched for Caylee and while she was charged with murder and let her sit in jail for 3 years? To quote John Allen, does that make sense to you?

 

[Marina2]

Will one of the lawyers explain "laying a foundation" and give some example of what laying a foundation for allowing the can with decomp to come in would be? Also, will this be the same for any witness to be allowed to smell and comment on it?

 

[okiedokietoo]

Hi - Thanks
During the penalty phase of the trial, can GA be asked if he molested ICA?
I know there are rules about questioning about things not asked in depos, but does that apply just to "expert" testimony or to everyone?

 

[allycat1208]

Does anyone know how many attorneys are on each side? It seems like new ones are being added all the time.

 

[AZlawyer]

I think another poster mentioned this in another thread but what is the difference between jurors smelling the odor in the cans and jurors looking at evidence photos? How is one allowed and not the other?

An argument could be made that smelling the odor would not be useful for the jurors unless they have smelled decomp before. But if the defense is going to say, "it just smelled like normal trash," then IMO that argument is blown away because the jurors HAVE smelled normal trash and should be allowed to see if the can smells like trash or like...well...something they have never smelled before.

For kicks and giggles, pretend that what the DT is proposing is true. Caylee died accidentally and ICA was terrified to admit it. JB has been saying from the beginning that ICA had an explanation. So say you as ICA's [lawyer] find out what really happened and that the panic included duct taping Caylee to stage a kidnapping. Would you encourage her to keep quiet while people searched for Caylee and while she was charged with murder and let her sit in jail for 3 years? To quote John Allen, does that make sense to you?

No, it doesn't. I would have been begging for a plea deal early on.

Will one of the lawyers explain "laying a foundation" and give some example of what laying a foundation for allowing the can with decomp to come in would be? Also, will this be the same for any witness to be allowed to smell and comment on it?

We discussed this up-thread. What laying a foundation MEANS is just going through where the evidence came from and what has been done to it--e.g., person A opened the trunk, cut the piece of carpet out, put it in a can and mailed it to person B; person B received the can, opened the can but not for long, blah blah blah.

Some lawyers and judges use "foundation" also in a looser (wrong lol) way to mean evidence of reliability. I think. It always drives me nuts, quite honestly, and I'm not sure what they mean exactly. :banghead:

Hi - Thanks
During the penalty phase of the trial, can GA be asked if he molested ICA?
I know there are rules about questioning about things not asked in depos, but does that apply just to "expert" testimony or to everyone?

Yes. For "normal," non-expert witnesses in Florida criminal cases, you don't have to disclose everything the witness is going to say.

 

[AZlawyer]

Does anyone know how many attorneys are on each side? It seems like new ones are being added all the time.

Maybe 3 on the State's side and 4 on defense? Not sure.

 

[beach]

Does anyone know how many attorneys are on each side? It seems like new ones are being added all the time.

I can field this question and give the attorneys a little bit of a break.

The defense has 4 - Jose Baez & Cheney Mason are handling the criminal defense, Anne Finnell is focusing on the DP issues and Dorothy Clay Sims is handling forensic science. The prosecution team is made up of 3 - Frank George, Linda Drane Burdick and Jeff Ashton.

eta: Well shoot. Even when I try to help, AZ is too fast! lol

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Do defense lawyers and prosecutors google the individuals in the jury pool? Check Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Linkedin etc?
Thank you~
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trapshooter]

Hi AZ!

On the "Twitter" thread, the SA made mention of the jurors smelling a can with the smell of "decomp" in it (I'm assuming from the Body Farm?) but the Judge said (paraphrasing) that the jurors can't be witnesses and if there is no case law to back it up, the jurors won't be smelling the can. What kind of case law is the Judge referring to in this case? Some type of case law where jurors have actually smelled decomp before?

Thanks so much AZ for ALL you do here! :blowkiss:


ETA: Here you go AZ, from the Twitter thread...


InSession Perry says the state's line of questioning on the jurors' ability to smell evidence during trial has him confused. He asks LDB to explain.

InSession Drane Burdick says the jurors may be asked to smell the tin can of car trunk sample that was tested by Arpad Vass. #CaseyAnthony

InSession Perry says he hopes she has some case law to back that up and that jurors are not witnesses. #CaseyAnthony

InSession Ashton says the purpose isn't to show that smell is decomp - but rather to have jurors say it isn't trash - b/c everyone has smelled trash.

CFNews13Casey Perry reiterates that jurors are not witnesses. #caseyanthony

InSession Perry isn't convinced & says it seems too much like the jurors are asked to be lay witnesses. He won't allow without back up of case law.

 

[AZlawyer]

I can field this question and give the attorneys a little bit of a break.

The defense has 4 - Jose Baez & Cheney Mason are handling the criminal defense, Anne Finnell is focusing on the DP issues and Dorothy Clay Sims is handling forensic science. The prosecution team is made up of 3 - Frank George, Linda Drane Burdick and Jeff Ashton.

eta: Well shoot. Even when I try to help, AZ is too fast! lol

Yeah, but you knew their names.

Do defense lawyers and prosecutors google the individuals in the jury pool? Check Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Linkedin etc?
Thank you~
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume so. You can only do so much when you have a 1/2-day jury selection like most of mine (civil cases). But if I had a multi-day jury selection, I would definitely be doing it.

Hi AZ!

On the "Twitter" thread, the SA made mention of the jurors smelling a can with the smell of "decomp" in it (I'm assuming from the Body Farm?) but the Judge said (paraphrasing) that the jurors can't be witnesses and if there is no case law to back it up, the jurors won't be smelling the can. What kind of case law is the Judge referring to in this case? Some type of case law where jurors have actually smelled decomp before?

Thanks so much AZ for ALL you do here! :blowkiss:


ETA: Here you go AZ, from the Twitter thread...


InSession Perry says the state's line of questioning on the jurors' ability to smell evidence during trial has him confused. He asks LDB to explain.

InSession Drane Burdick says the jurors may be asked to smell the tin can of car trunk sample that was tested by Arpad Vass. #CaseyAnthony

InSession Perry says he hopes she has some case law to back that up and that jurors are not witnesses. #CaseyAnthony

InSession Ashton says the purpose isn't to show that smell is decomp - but rather to have jurors say it isn't trash - b/c everyone has smelled trash.

CFNews13Casey Perry reiterates that jurors are not witnesses. #caseyanthony

InSession Perry isn't convinced & says it seems too much like the jurors are asked to be lay witnesses. He won't allow without back up of case law.

I think what HHJP was saying is what I've said many times on this thread before--you can't ask the jurors to smell the can to see that it smells like decomp, because they have no basis for comparison. They are not experts in decomp smell (or lay witnesses with experience smelling dead bodies).

But IMO if the defense FIRST brings in testimony (e.g., from Cindy) that the trunk smelled like trash, then the SA ought to be allowed to rebut that evidence by bringing in the smell (the can) for the jurors. They don't need any special expertise to know that something smells like not-trash.

I don't know if there is any "smell evidence" case law (I haven't looked for it lol). But the defense should not be permitted to present witness testimony that "the trunk smelled like trash" without the state being allowed to rebut it, any more than the defense should be allowed to say "Casey was pacing and worrying" without the state being allowed to show pictures of her renting movies.

 

[Trapshooter]

Thanks AZ!!! :blowkiss:

So if Cindy gets up there and says it was from "rotting pizza" then the SA has the right to rebut that statement with the smell being decomp, right? So, I'm assuming we have to wait for the DT to bring up the "smell" so the SA can offer the cans so the jurors can have a whiff?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZ!!! :blowkiss:

So if Cindy gets up there and says it was from "rotting pizza" then the SA has the right to rebut that statement with the smell being decomp, right? So, I'm assuming we have to wait for the DT to bring up the "smell" so the SA can offer the cans so the jurors can have a whiff?

BBM: I would say they have the right to rebut with the smell being "not-pizza." And yes, I think the defense would have to say something about what the smell was first.

But this is just my opinion--from his comments, it sounds like HHJP might disagree.