Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[AZlawyer]

Who gives their closing statement last? State or Defense? Thanks.

The State will give a closing argument, then the defense, then the State gets a rebuttal argument.

 

[sherryk]

I do not know if this has been asked forgive me if it has.

I am wondering if JB along the way WHEN he was informed by Casey that it was an accidental drowing and the GA was involved was JB obligated to inform police or detective of that part of a crime?

One other question with attoney client confidence. If an attorney has a client that admitts that they did comitt a crime is he obligated to inform police if the client does not want to confess? In a sence could an attoney help cover a crime in the senario in this paragraph.

Thank you.

 

[AZlawyer]

I do not know if this has been asked forgive me if it has.

I am wondering if JB along the way WHEN he was informed by Casey that it was an accidental drowing and the GA was involved was JB obligated to inform police or detective of that part of a crime?

One other question with attoney client confidence. If an attorney has a client that admitts that they did comitt a crime is he obligated to inform police if the client does not want to confess? In a sence could an attoney help cover a crime in the senario in this paragraph.

Thank you.

No, JB was definitely not obligated to tell anyone, and defense attorneys are not obligated to tell police if their clients admit guilt to them.

 

[hpvdr]

My understanding is that Jose Baez would like to have "air samples" thrown out as evidence because air samples are not considered (for lack of better terminology) evidence because they have never been evidence in a trial before. Isn't at one time or another something introduced as evidence that has never been considered before? Isn't there a first time for everything? Before DNA testing was "perfected" it was never used in a courtroom, but there had to be a "FIRST" time that DNA was used. What is your opinion as a legal expert, could it be possible this will set a precedent for "air samples" to be admitted in the future? Do you think the air samples will be allowed as evidence? (side question: Has the EPA never used air samples in a court room?)

 

[AZlawyer]

My understanding is that Jose Baez would like to have "air samples" thrown out as evidence because air samples are not considered (for lack of better terminology) evidence because they have never been evidence in a trial before. Isn't at one time or another something introduced as evidence that has never been considered before? Isn't there a first time for everything? Before DNA testing was "perfected" it was never used in a courtroom, but there had to be a "FIRST" time that DNA was used. What is your opinion as a legal expert, could it be possible this will set a precedent for "air samples" to be admitted in the future? Do you think the air samples will be allowed as evidence? (side question: Has the EPA never used air samples in a court room?)

That was not his reason for wanting it thrown out. He argued that it was insufficiently tested and insufficiently accepted by the scientific community. ETA: JB's objection was not to air samples in general, but to using air samples to conclude that a decomposing body was present.

The decision of a Florida trial court will not be very persuasive anywhere else except for other Florida trial courts.

IIRC HHJP has already issued his decision that the air sample testing will be allowed.

 

[hpvdr]

That was not his reason for wanting it thrown out. He argued that it was insufficiently tested and insufficiently accepted by the scientific community. ETA: JB's objection was not to air samples in general, but to using air samples to conclude that a decomposing body was present.

The decision of a Florida trial court will not be very persuasive anywhere else except for other Florida trial courts.

IIRC HHJP has already issued his decision that the air sample testing will be allowed.

First let me say thank you very much for your explanation. Perhaps I listen to the commentary/news more than I actually hear and understand everything legal being spoken during courtroom testimony. I thought his objection was because it has never been used before hence wondering if we would see history in the making. I appreciate your time and explanation where the lay person is concerned.

 

[6Cinder1ella2011]

perhaps i am just an idiot

in your experience: legal prudence has the case in chief been laid out or will The DA bring out the "final staw"
: and if you have a idea about how many hours HHBP will listen to closing argument

Thanks so much WS friends and pals for helping

 

[AZlawyer]

First let me say thank you very much for your explanation. Perhaps I listen to the commentary/news more than I actually hear and understand everything legal being spoken during courtroom testimony. I thought his objection was because it has never been used before hence wondering if we would see history in the making. I appreciate your time and explanation where the lay person is concerned.

The problem is that the news reporters have much less of a grasp on the evidence than most WS'ers.

 

[AZlawyer]

perhaps i am just an idiot

in your experience: legal prudence has the case in chief been laid out or will The DA bring out the "final staw"
: and if you have a idea about how many hours HHBP will listen to closing argument

Thanks so much WS friends and pals for helping

The SA (State's Attorneys) have no "bombshells" or "final straws" waiting to be exposed. However, they will explain the significance of the evidence in closing argument for any jurors who might have missed the point on any important items of evidence.

My guess is that HHJP will tell both sides they have an hour for closing but will let them go about 2 hours before he gets mad.

ETA: And you are not an idiot!! :blowkiss: Or why would you be on WS?

 

[Kentjbkent]

Regarding closing statements....

Jose Baez stated during his opening statement that Caylee drowned accidentally in the pool, made allegations that GA molested KC, Lee attempted molestation, as well as stated that Kronk moved the body.

If the defense does NOT admit any evidence to back up these particular claims made in his opening statements, can the prosecution address this omission during their closing statement or rebuttal to the jury?

Can SA state "The defense claimed Caylee drowned and KC covered up the accident due to repeated sexual abuse by her father but offered NO PROOF as such. We, however, (insert state evidence summary here)...."??

 

[RR0004]

That was not his reason for wanting it thrown out. He argued that it was insufficiently tested and insufficiently accepted by the scientific community. ETA: JB's objection was not to air samples in general, but to using air samples to conclude that a decomposing body was present.

The decision of a Florida trial court will not be very persuasive anywhere else except for other Florida trial courts.

IIRC HHJP has already issued his decision that the air sample testing will be allowed.

But didn't they use a decision of a New York court to get evidence admitted?

And for the life of me, I can't remember what the decision was for? LOL

 

[AZlawyer]

Regarding closing statements....

Jose Baez stated during his opening statement that Caylee drowned accidentally in the pool, made allegations that GA molested KC, Lee attempted molestation, as well as stated that Kronk moved the body.

If the defense does NOT admit any evidence to back up these particular claims made in his opening statements, can the prosecution address this omission during their closing statement or rebuttal to the jury?

Can SA state "The defense claimed Caylee drowned and KC covered up the accident due to repeated sexual abuse by her father but offered NO PROOF as such. We, however, (insert state evidence summary here)...."??

The SA will certainly point it out for the jury if no evidence is offered to support the defense theory.

But didn't they use a decision of a New York court to get evidence admitted?

And for the life of me, I can't remember what the decision was for? LOL

I can't remember either, but I think the only reason that case was mentioned by the SA was because one of the DT's ex-expert witnesses was involved in the case, and what he had to say was embarrassing for the defense.

To clarify, if there is very little law on a certain subject, lawyers might mention the decisions of lower courts in other states, but certainly no one expects the judges to feel bound to follow those decisions.

 

[RR0004]

The SA will certainly point it out for the jury if no evidence is offered to support the defense theory.



I can't remember either, but I think the only reason that case was mentioned by the SA was because one of the DT's ex-expert witnesses was involved in the case, and what he had to say was embarrassing for the defense.

To clarify, if there is very little law on a certain subject, lawyers might mention the decisions of lower courts in other states, but certainly no one expects the judges to feel bound to follow those decisions.

It was the postmortem hair banding evidence. First time allowed in a Fla. court.

Google is my friend

Thanks, AZ!

http://www.wftv.com/news/27677578/detail.html

 

[MissJames]

Shirley Plesea is on the State's witness list .CA told her things and there are e-mails.There's also stolen money ,but no charges.
What ,in all likelihood will SP be able to testify to? Just that she saw Caylee on the 15th?

 

[Katprint]

in your experience: legal prudence has the case in chief been laid out or will The DA bring out the "final staw"
: and if you have a idea about how many hours HHBP will listen to closing argument

Thanks so much WS friends and pals for helping

The SA (State's Attorneys) have no "bombshells" or "final straws" waiting to be exposed. However, they will explain the significance of the evidence in closing argument for any jurors who might have missed the point on any important items of evidence.

My guess is that HHJP will tell both sides they have an hour for closing but will let them go about 2 hours before he gets mad.

respectfully snipped to remove idiot references ;-)

As far as whether the case in chief has been laid out: If the trial stopped tomorrow morning and the jury were sent to deliberate, IMO they have enough evidence to support a conviction for First Degree Murder with special circumstances or any of the lesser included offenses other charges. In particular, the evidence establishes 1) Casey was the last person ever seen with Caylee, 2) Caylee is dead, 3) Casey's computer searches re the One Tree Hill nanny kidnapping episode and various methods of killing someone show premeditation, and 4) Casey's behavior after Caylee's death - particularly her lies to her family, friends and law enforcement concerning the nanny - show knowledge of guilt. There is also enough evidence to support conviction on the False Statements charges.

There is no way to know whether the jury has been convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All I'm saying is, any guilty verdicts would not be overturned on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

Shirley Plesea is on the State's witness list .CA told her things and there are e-mails.There's also stolen money ,but no charges.
What ,in all likelihood will SP be able to testify to? Just that she saw Caylee on the 15th?

I can't think of anything else relevant that she knows, except hearsay from Cindy, and none of that is too important anyway as Cindy already admitted that Casey was lying to her the whole time and wouldn't let her talk to Caylee.

 

[bananarama]

Shirley Plesea is on the State's witness list .CA told her things and there are e-mails.There's also stolen money ,but no charges.
What ,in all likelihood will SP be able to testify to? Just that she saw Caylee on the 15th?

I can't think of anything else relevant that she knows, except hearsay from Cindy, and none of that is too important anyway as Cindy already admitted that Casey was lying to her the whole time and wouldn't let her talk to Caylee.

In her interviews with LE, Shirley said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I think Casey hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee". Can she say that in court? That would be pretty powerful for the jury to hear!

 

[Mariah]

Don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask but, if/when ICA is convicted will she go to general population in jail? (If she is not on death row, I mean). Thanks.

 

[beachbumming]

In her interviews with LE, Shirley said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I think Casey hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee". Can she say that in court? That would be pretty powerful for the jury to hear!

None of that is coming in. Shirley is speculating as to what she thought was in ICA's mind.

 

[beachbumming]

Don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask but, if/when ICA is convicted will she go to general population in jail? (If she is not on death row, I mean). Thanks.

If convicted and not on death row, ICA will be moved from jail to prison, where she will be with everybody else.