Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[ynotdivein]

Question came up in the Sidebar thread this morning re: does each side know what the other side is going to ask the witnesses?

(I read that in the Coleman trial in IL, the two sides exchanged "scripts" and there is now an appeal based on one of the State's witnesses going "off-script" and claiming the victim told her that she/the victim was being abused by the defendant... :waitasec

 

[beachbumming]

Question came up in the Sidebar thread this morning re: does each side know what the other side is going to ask the witnesses?

(I read that in the Coleman trial in IL, the two sides exchanged "scripts" and there is now an appeal based on one of the State's witnesses going "off-script" and claiming the victim told her that she/the victim was being abused by the defendant... :waitasec

Basically each side knows what the other is going to ask because in depositions each side has already asked the questions. However, there are always a few things that do come up such as the molestation issue. The defense may have anticipated but not known the prosecution would ask GA about molesting ICA, and same goes for LA when the state didn't ask anything about it.

 

[wallflower67]

I have 2 questions:

In the closing arguments, can the SA point out that they gave Casey multiple plea deal offers and that she refused them all, and can they point out that she waited 3 years in prison to now claim it was an accident? And why would she put herself through that when she could have said it was an accident and probably be done with it by now.

Also, I know you can't be tried for the same crime twice. But I"ve also heard that if new evidence is found you can be retried. Is that true? For example, if Casey is aquitted, and then she says, "Ha ha, I really killed the little snot head and you aquitted me." Could she be tried again based on her confession?

I guess that was technically 3 quesions

 

[beachbumming]

I have 2 questions:

In the closing arguments, can the SA point out that they gave Casey multiple plea deal offers and that she refused them all, and can they point out that she waited 3 years in prison to now claim it was an accident? And why would she put herself through that when she could have said it was an accident and probably be done with it by now.

Also, I know you can't be tried for the same crime twice. But I"ve also heard that if new evidence is found you can be retried. Is that true? For example, if Casey is aquitted, and then she says, "Ha ha, I really killed the little snot head and you aquitted me." Could she be tried again based on her confession?

I guess that was technically 3 quesions

1. The prosecution cannot comment at all regarding any plea deals, how long ICA has been in jail, any defenses (accident in this case) JB is using.

2. ICA could not be retried for murder even if there is new evidence including a confession.

 

[wallflower67]

1. The prosecution cannot comment at all regarding any plea deals, how long ICA has been in jail, any defenses (accident in this case) JB is using.

2. ICA could not be retried for murder even if there is new evidence including a confession.

If KC takes the stand, can they ASK her why she stayed in jail so long when she could have been out?

 

[beachbumming]

If KC takes the stand, can they ASK her why she stayed in jail so long when she could have been out?

No they can't.

 

[countzero]

If KC takes the stand, can they ASK her why she stayed in jail so long when she could have been out?

No they can't.

IF she does take the stand and JB introduces it, laying the foundation, then can the SA ask about it? I don't see this happening at all. No way can ICA continue to compartmentalize people and the stories she has told.

 

[beachbumming]

IF she does take the stand and JB introduces it, laying the foundation, then can the SA ask about it? I don't see this happening at all. No way can ICA continue to compartmentalize people and the stories she has told.

If ICA takes the stand the SA can definitely ask why she never reported Caylee's death as an accident. They can go into why it has taken 3 years to claim it was an accident. Why didn't she tell LE back in 2008,2009, 2010, so on and so forth. They can also use the jail-house tapes to impeach her. SA can't discuss with her plea deals or issues dealing with bond, etc.

 

[greycoupon]

I realize the point is moot unless Baez comes up with more WS posts to complain about but I'm wondering if there would be any legal complication due to the repeated reference to Yuri "blogging" here. This is a message board which is different from a blog. DT and the court called it blogging. Is there any legal precedent for exactly definitions or would it not matter? I know "chat" and "blogs" are the most widely known terms so they get used incorrectly. Just curious if an objection or appeal could every be made based on mislabeling the online activity.

 

[beachbumming]

I realize the point is moot unless Baez comes up with more WS posts to complain about but I'm wondering if there would be any legal complication due to the repeated reference to Yuri "blogging" here. This is a message board which is different from a blog. DT and the court called it blogging. Is there any legal precedent for exactly definitions or would it not matter? I know "chat" and "blogs" are the most widely known terms so they get used incorrectly. Just curious if an objection or appeal could every be made based on mislabeling the online activity.

No. The point was not what "type" of board this is but whether there was specific information posted by Yuri that showed a bias toward the prosecution's case. The judge determined nothing Yuri posted showed he had any bias. That would have applied to discussion boards, blogs, facebook, tweets, etc.

 

[faefrost]

There was a very noticeable change in the atmosphere of the courtroom from the start today. HHJP seemed much shorter with the defense team and particularly JB then we have previously witnessed. School was definitely over and HHJP was not willing to teach or give hints or nudges any longer. he simply shut the defense down at almost any point. Often with short curt 1 or 2 word responses., ie "NO!". I don't think the defense won a single point or pbjection at all today.

In your opinion is this sort of change something that the jury would pick up on? And if so what impact does it have? What does it mean for the trial? Also any speculation on what could have caused this sudden chilling of the courtroom temperature? (Well ok we have a long list of JB's courtroom antics, but this change seemed sort of sudden from Saturday to Monday?)

 

[AZlawyer]

There was a very noticeable change in the atmosphere of the courtroom from the start today. HHJP seemed much shorter with the defense team and particularly JB then we have previously witnessed. School was definitely over and HHJP was not willing to teach or give hints or nudges any longer. he simply shut the defense down at almost any point. Often with short curt 1 or 2 word responses., ie "NO!". I don't think the defense won a single point or pbjection at all today.

In your opinion is this sort of change something that the jury would pick up on? And if so what impact does it have? What does it mean for the trial? Also any speculation on what could have caused this sudden chilling of the courtroom temperature? (Well ok we have a long list of JB's courtroom antics, but this change seemed sort of sudden from Saturday to Monday?)

IMO the jury will notice. And they will tend to believe that the judge (especially a judge who has been so considerate to them) has a reason for being annoyed with the defense.

I'm not sure if there was a specific trigger for the "chill." It seems to me that HHJP is getting fed up with the defense raising the same issues over and over after their record for appeal has already been made.

 

[marspiter]

Can JB be held in contempt for trying to testify for his client during cross, attempting to sneak in evidence that hasn't been submitted, and continuing to "go down that road" after being admonished by the Judge?

Further if JB was held in contempt for various actions during the trial would that give ICA grounds for an appeal?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can JB be held in contempt for trying to testify for his client during cross, attempting to sneak in evidence that hasn't been submitted, and continuing to "go down that road" after being admonished by the Judge?

Further if JB was held in contempt for various actions during the trial would that give ICA grounds for an appeal?

No, that's not the kind of thing that would result in an attorney being held in contempt. I suppose it could happen, technically, but it won't.

 

[lmcgill]

Is all evidence and topics to be discussed known to both sides before trial?

Thanks so much

 

[AZlawyer]

Is all evidence and topics to be discussed known to both sides before trial?

Thanks so much

All the witnesses and evidence are known in advance. At times, the "spin" or interpretation of the evidence by one side might take the other side by surprise.

 

[Turnadot]

Serious question: when Baez (or any lawyer) flails during cross, objects to his/her own question - do juries take note of stuff like that? Does it make the lawyer appear incompetent to the jury?

 

[AZlawyer]

Serious question: when Baez (or any lawyer) flails during cross, objects to his/her own question - do juries take note of stuff like that? Does it make the lawyer appear incompetent to the jury?

Yes!

 

[megsy]

AZlawyer, I've really enjoyed the time you and beachbumming have taken to answer all of these questions

 

[Sharai]

For anyone who is wondering, please help us :welcome: beachbumming to our Verified Lawyers group!

Thank you so much, beachbumming for sharing your knowledge with us!

Welcome to Websleuth, Beachbummer! I appreciate having access to your expertise. Thanks for sharing.