Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[AZlawyer]

At what point in the trial is it impossible to cop a plea?

At the end.

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

At the end.

Hi AZ,

2 Q's..... Why did you decided to bold your whole sig line?

Do you think HHJP allowing the video of the duct tape today will be reason for appeal?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZ,

2 Q's..... Why did you decided to bold your whole sig line?

Do you think HHJP allowing the video of the duct tape today will be reason for appeal?

1. Because people kept being confused why I had one little part un-bolded.

2. I really don't think so. I agreed with his reasoning--it was not gruesome, especially shocking, etc. IMO. The only shocking part about it was that a pretty, happy, alive toddler was reduced to bones--but that's something that is, unfortunately, unavoidable in this case. Murder ain't pretty, I think was HHJP's point.

 

[Sea Witch]

For the lawyers:

On the news today, there's been a lot of conversation about Dr. G's testimony today being problematic not just for the Defense but also for the Prosecution. Why?

 

[beachbumming]

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?

I agree with you.

 

[beachbumming]

For the lawyers:

On the news today, there's been a lot of conversation about Dr. G's testimony today being problematic not just for the Defense but also for the Prosecution. Why?

The only think I can think of is Dr. G could not render an opinion as to cause of death, just manner of death. However, I think she was very good on the stand.

 

[Itsy]

Could/will there be any consequences because of some media sites and chat boards releasing non-pixelated pictures of Caylee's skull and other photos when HHJP specifically asked the media NOT to release them? Although the skull pictures have been deleted, others remain & I can already hear the DT crying for yet another mistrial...

 

[AZlawyer]

Could/will there be any consequences because of some media sites and chat boards releasing non-pixelated pictures of Caylee's skull and other photos when HHJP specifically asked the media NOT to release them? Although the skull pictures have been deleted, others remain & I can already hear the DT crying for yet another mistrial...

There could be consequences, yes. Not a mistrial, but perhaps some press passes might be revoked. Did he ask for non-skull photos to be pixelated?? :waitasec:

 

[2goldfish]

I'm assuming the state feels the photographs are sufficient to show the evidence. Other than that I'm not sure, maybe strategy, efficiency? Personally I opened evidence bags in court to show the jury what was purported to be inside actually was inside, but there is so much evidence in this case that perhaps it would slow down the trial too much.

might the jury, while deliberating, ask to see evidence that was not unpacked during trial? would they be allowed to?

 

[Katprint]

At the end.

In the Hans Reiser murder case, after the jury returned a verdict of guilty of First Degree Murder but before the judge imposed sentence, Hans was allowed to withdraw his "not guilty" plea and plead guilty to Second Degree Murder in exchange for revealing where he had hidden Nina's body after he murdered her. One of the primary factors motivating the prosecution and the judge was the ongoing emotional suffering of Nina's very young children due to Hans telling them that their mother didn't really love them, had abandoned them, etc. Nina's son - who had actually SEEN his father carrying his mother's body past his bedroom door on the way out of the house - had frequent nightmares that Nina was lost and trying to make her way back to them. Revealing the location of Nina's body was important to give closure to her children.

I don't think Casey has anything left to trade.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[uklaw]

A prosecution expert just testified that he was paid $400 per hour (and I think he got to charge that for travelling and waiting time).

I have quoted below the relevant part of the JAC provisions for due process costs the 9th Circuit in Florida. As can be seen, the prosecution are able to spend far more than the Defense it would appear. The Defense are limited to about $160 per hour (less than half what the prosecution can spend as an hourly). Further, the Defense, on the face of it, appear to be limited to 20 hours of expert services (I don't know if this is per expert or a cumulative cap).

QUESTION 1: Apart from the fact that this would appear to be totally unfair that the prosecution are able to entirely "outgun" the Defense, is their an issue here as to KC's right to a fair trial or any other legal issue arising from this apparent inequality of arms?

QUESTION 2: Also will Baez be able to call for a mistrial due to Dr Haskell's outburst (for want of a better word) that Baez had not paid him? Or at the least get an instruction that the jury are to disregard this fact.

QUESTION 3: Who pays for the Deposition of an opponent's expert witness? The party doing the Depo or the opponent? The reason I ask is because apparently Henry Lee refused to do a Depo for the State because he had not been paid (and it seemed that the Defense were exptected to pay Henry Lee for the Prosecution to Depo him).

TIA

Other Experts Established ISC rates

Out-of-court services (includes initial review of records, testing, writing reports, depositions & other services):
First hour or less $131.00
Per quarter hour thereafter $32.75

In-court testimony:
First hour or less $158.00
Per quarter hour thereafter $39.50

Waiting to testify:
At court appearance-per hour $79.00
At deposition-per hour $65.50

Travel time:
Per hour $65.50

Caps per case for Experts Established ISC rates
Capital cases-maximum hours 20
First degree felony cases-maximum hours 15
Second degree felony cases-maximum hours 10
Third degree felony cases-maximum hours 5
Misdemeanor, traffic, juvenile cases-maximum hours 5

Source:CIRCUIT 9 - DUE PROCESS COSTS ESTABLISHED RATES FOR SERVICES PROVIDED ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2010 (http://www.justiceadmin.org/court_app_counsel/Cir 09 - Due process final.pdf)
Emphasis mine

 

[AZlawyer]

might the jury, while deliberating, ask to see evidence that was not unpacked during trial? would they be allowed to?

They might ask, and IMO HHJP would probably allow it.

A prosecution expert just testified that he was paid $400 per hour (and I think he got to charge that for travelling and waiting time).

I have quoted below the relevant part of the JAC provisions for due process costs the 9th Circuit in Florida. As can be seen, the prosecution are able to spend far more than the Defense it would appear. The Defense are limited to about $160 per hour (less than half what the prosecution can spend as an hourly). Further, the Defense, on the face of it, appear to be limited to 20 hours of expert services (I don't know if this is per expert or a cumulative cap).

QUESTION 1: Apart from the fact that this would appear to be totally unfair that the prosecution are able to entirely "outgun" the Defense, is their an issue here as to KC's right to a fair trial or any other legal issue arising from this apparent inequality of arms?

QUESTION 2: Also will Baez be able to call for a mistrial due to Dr Haskell's outburst (for want of a better word) that Baez had not paid him? Or at the least get an instruction that the jury are to disregard this fact.

QUESTION 3: Who pays for the Deposition of an opponent's expert witness? The party doing the Depo or the opponent? The reason I ask is because apparently Henry Lee refused to do a Depo for the State because he had not been paid (and it seemed that the Defense were exptected to pay Henry Lee for the Prosecution to Depo him).

TIA

1. The right to a fair trial does not mean the defendant has the right to equal resources. In this case, however, HHJP has consistently granted defense requests for resources that go far far beyond the amounts normally permitted by the JAC. I don't think they will be able to make much of this on appeal.

2. I haven't watched that part of the trial. From your description, it doesn't sound like mistrial material. If he wanted an instruction for the jury to disregard the comment, he should have asked right then. Bringing it up later is a surefire way to make the jury think it must be really really important.

3. Normally, the party taking the deposition pays the expert for the deposition. If Henry Lee bowed out because he hadn't been paid, I'm sure it was because he hadn't been paid by the DEFENSE for the work he had done up to then--not because he wouldn't be paid for the depo. He didn't want to bother doing the depo (even if he got paid by the State for that part of his time) if he wasn't going to be an expert in the case any longer (because the defense wasn't paying him).

 

[krkrjx]

One of the biggest concerns people watching this trial seem to have is the possibility of Casey winning an appeal based on ineffective counsel. Baez is clearly in over his head and appears ineffective more often than not. However, a case like this where the state has a strong case is very difficult to defend even by an experienced attorney.

Casey has been asked numerous times throughout this entire process from pre-trial hearings to the start of her trial, whether she was happy with her counsel or would like another attorney, etc. Since many (if not all) of these inquiries are on the record, could this have an affect on the decision of an appellate court in a claim of ineffective counsel? Might Casey's repeated insistence on going to trial with this defense team significantly minimize any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, or is that likely to be given little to no consideration?

 

[AZlawyer]

One of the biggest concerns people watching this trial seem to have is the possibility of Casey winning an appeal based on ineffective counsel. Baez is clearly in over his head and appears ineffective more often than not. However, a case like this where the state has a strong case is very difficult to defend even by an experienced attorney.

Casey has been asked numerous times throughout this entire process from pre-trial hearings to the start of her trial, whether she was happy with her counsel or would like another attorney, etc. Since many (if not all) of these inquiries are on the record, could this have an affect on the decision of an appellate court in a claim of ineffective counsel? Might Casey's repeated insistence on going to trial with this defense team significantly minimize any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, or is that likely to be given little to no consideration?

I think it will be given little or no consideration. A defendant is generally not expected to understand whether or not her attorney is being effective.

 

[Ssejors]

If ICA decides to take the stand, doesnt she need to have a deposition take by both the defense and the state? If they dont do this, wouldnt her testimony be unreliable? she could just be making things up as she goes.

 

[AZlawyer]

If ICA decides to take the stand, doesnt she need to have a deposition take by both the defense and the state? If they dont do this, wouldnt her testimony be unreliable? she could just be making things up as she goes.

No, there is no requirement for any witness to be deposed before trial. BUT Casey has very helpfully given lots and lots of recorded statements that can be used to impeach her.

 

[Sea Witch]

What happens if CA takes the stand and tells a different story than what Baez said in opening arguments? Can she do that? Say I doped her up and didn't mean to kill her blah blah blah?

Also, does lawyer/client privilege survive the death of the client?

thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

What happens if CA takes the stand and tells a different story than what Baez said in opening arguments? Can she do that? Say I doped her up and didn't mean to kill her blah blah blah?

Also, does lawyer/client privilege survive the death of the client?

thanks

Sure, she can do that.

The attorney-client privilege does survive the death of the client.

 

[Lera213]

Question:

The State has not called RK to the stand, could this be a strategy by the State? They probably know JB inside and out and know that JB will call him to the stand. Would the state hold out to use it later?

My guess is normally this doesn't happen but since JB has shown to be unprepared could you see this as a strategy by the State?

 

[Ssejors]

Oh, I have a dumbo qwestion!


The STATE is presenting their case right now? So the Witnesses that are being called are the States witnesses. So that means that the defense will have its turn to present it's case and call their witnesses. So.. That means we have another HALF of the trial to see yet? What does the defense have to present? I can't think of what evidence that the defense would have that points away from ICA.

Can someone give me a quick understanding of the trial process.. Im a total newb to all this and am basically learning as I go.

TYIA! <3