Will a PSI (pre-sentence investigation) be done prior to sentencing? Who do you suppose would be called if it is performed?
I don't think this would be done in a capital case, because the penalty phase (when aggravating and mitigating evidence is presented) serves that purpose.
At this point, I don't see how there is not going to be a conviction above and beyond the false information charges. Of course, that is just my opinion. LOL
I am curious as to whether or not they can impose additional charges at this late date based on their (proposed) testimony, such as: improper disposal of a human body, concealing a death, and any other sundry and assorted related charges?
They can't add charges at this point, no.
- What Florida prison will she be housed in after the conviction ?
- If she is given the death penalty, will she interact with the inmate population, or is she on lock down 24/7 till death ?
Thank you
I think we have a thread about Florida's death row. I don't personally know much about it. I would assume she would be on lockdown the vast majority of the time.
Florida was the jurisdiction where Ron Goldman's family was successful in piercing the corporate veil of Lorraine Brooke Associates, which was a corporation set up in the name of Simpson's children to collect the $1 million advance for OJ's book "if I DID IT: Confessions of a Killer" although there was no evidence that the children were funneling money to their father. If Caylee's father pops up after Casey is convicted - when he is less likely to be thrown under the bus - then IMO he could give the Anthonys a run for their money. In the meantime, there is nobody with a better right to any profits indirectly derived from Caylee's death.
Katprint
Always only my own opinions
I think the difference is that the "If I Did It" book told OJ's story, not the kids' story. I'm assuming the As would be telling their own stories.
I have two questions that I'm sure have already been asked and answered :loser:
Because of the defense's opening statement, can we assume that Casey has not told them the absolute truth? In other words, can they outright lie in their opening statement?
Also, if she told them where she tossed the remains (before they were found) would they be legally obligated to tell law enforcement?
They can't lie in the opening statement, but they don't have to personally believe the story is true.
They would not be obligated to tell law enforcement where the remains were and would not be permitted to do so unless Casey agreed for some reason (like a plea deal).
Does the DT need to make a proffer for every question that the prosecution objects to and the judge rules cannot be asked in order to preserve the record for appeal?
I was just thinking if they had to do that the jury would be in and out continuously.
If they plan to raise something on appeal, they would have to show that the inability to ask the question likely affected the outcome of the trial. That's tough to prove if you don't make a proffer.
I was somewhat confused by the answer the Judge gave to Baez's request for a mistrial. He said he didn't have to make a decision on a mistrial until just before the verdict is published. Does this miean he is considering a mistrial at this time?
OK today once again Atty Baez asked for a mistrial. After the jury was excused Judge Perry told both sides that he has a right to hold all motions for mistrial until he has read the verdict. What might he have been telling them? Why at this stage has he decided that he will not rule on mistrial motions until such time? Today's was denied. But he had a little grin when he said it.
Help us. At first I wondered if he could grant a mistrial rather than allow a not guilty verdict, but read online that is not true. He can only overturn guilty verdicts if he feels the jury got it wrong.
Any ideas what he is trying to accomplish here?
I think he's just keeping his options open--I wouldn't read anything into it.
Do you know or have an opinion as to why Mark NeJames, Linda Kenny Baden and Brad Conway are no longer working for their respective clients regarding this case?
I really don't. At one point I did, but I can no longer recall what little nuances were going on at the time of each attorney's departure.
With all the State's evidence stacking up, could ICA take the stand, testify it was an accident, saying she panicked, took measures to make it look like a kidnapping with the duct tape, lets everyone off the hook, and takes full responsibility for her actions.
What would happen, should this hypothetical scenario occur?
Thanks
The jury could consider her testimony, and could also consider the State's cross-examination of her, which would presumably be brutal.
I have a question about the defense case in chief. Can they recall all the witnesses that have testified thus far, and take then down a fork in the road? In otherwords, explore everything the SAO has not? Would there then be no end? I can just see JB bringing back all the witnesses and reasking all of his objection/sustained questions.
TIA
There would not be "no end," because they would have to ask questions that are permissible and relevant. HHJP will not be happy if JB tries to re-ask a bunch of improper questions.
Isn't failure to report an accident and covering up of that accident for a child under the age of 12 most likely to be considered a serious crime punishable by law? If so, what kind of sentencing could it entail?
I read through the table of contents for the Florida criminal statutes and didn't see anything like this.
This is my first time asking a question here and if it has been asked before please forgive me. What I have been wondering is while the State is presenting there witness and questioning them I have noticed Baez get up and get right in the mix of the questioning. He is not standing up at his defense table but right up there with the SA while they are speaking. Is this normal procedure?
Not really. Kind of rude IMO.
But, wouldn't it make a more lasting effect on the jurors if they actually see the evidence instead of a picture...especially what was left of the clothes & her blanket?
Yes, I agree.
I am going to take this question one step further. IF she is found innocent of all the charges (which I seriously doubt will happen) can the State turn around and then arrest her on any of the charges that the above post mentions?
If those things are actually crimes (which we haven't confirmed yet), and the statute of limitations hasn't passed, then maybe so. I don't think double jeopardy would prevent such an arrest given the current charges.
Do attorneys have to tender LE, at least those who have direct jurisdiction in the case, as expert witnesses or is their expertise assumed and implied by their jurisdictional status? (so for example while the defense could challenge an LE officer on the stand over their training and experience, no one really has to provide evidence that each LE officer who gives testimony is qualified in any way to do so before they are allowed to testify? Correct?) And in a similar way would Dr. G be under a similar presumption based on her status as the jurisdictional officer? In this case she is not testifying as an "expert witness" she is testifying as the Chief Medical Examiner (and Coroner?) of the jurisdiction in question. Does that make a difference? (I am really not sure if I am phrasing this right?)
LE are often not testifying as experts but as fact witnesses ("here's what I did next, this is what I saw," etc.). Dr. G gave her expert opinions, I assume, regarding things such as manner of death, so she would have to be qualified as an expert witness.
