In light of the news that Rosalie Bolin is now on the defense team what do you think of Judge Perry citing a Bolin case to support his Order Denying Motion To Exclude Hearsay Evidence, Gossip And Innuendo
That case was "Bolin v. State 2010 WL 2612348 (Fla.)"
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hig...07-19-2010.pdf
Found here (not sure but think I'm correct) -
http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/tran...fs/08-1963.pdf
Sorry, this seems to be the one Judge Perry cited -
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/d.../sc08-1963.pdf
Poetic justice or a case of it's a small world in death penalty circles?
Just Casey Case Coincidence No. 10,003
Interesting... I would probably be one of the lawyers causing you to bang your head. What you describe as "laying a foundation" was taught to me as "proving chain of custody" or its equivalent depending on the evidence.
Laying a "foundation" in my jurisdiction refers to a standard that must be met before evidence is admitted, where the proponent of the evidence must show that it is what it purports to be (and relevant and helpful to the fact-finder). In other words, here, the state would have to show some foundation (other than the jurors own perceptions) showing that the air in that can is actually decomp. I think Dr. Vass' testimony would be the proper foundation.
ETA: In my jurisdiction, proving "chain of custody" is considered part of laying the foundation, but not entirely sufficient.
Thanks. I have a suspicion from some of the things HHJP has said in previous hearings that he means something more like this as well.
RE: ROSALIE BOLIN
I have been unable to get passed the previous relationship and project that Rosalie Bolin had with Larry Garrison of Silver Creek Entertainment (and previous PR man for Anthonys) and have a question...
We know Mrs. Bolin is not an attorney but makes claims on the net that she has worked as a "mitigation specialist" and in other articles claims to be a "private investigator".
We ASSUME that the recent Motion for Addtl Investigative Hours (posted by media) is in reference to Mrs. Bolin's new role...but we do not know this as fact.
We know that Jeanne Barrett is still involved as mitigation specialist as she has spent several hours recently with KC according to jail logs, as well as previously request additional investigative hours from JAC.
Mrs. Bolin appeared suddenly on Day THREE of jury selection. It appears her current role is "nanny" to KC during these lengthy hearings. (If she is indeed involved in role as investigator, shouldn't she be out INVESTIGATING instead of spending HOURS every day in court????)
My question is....what kind of confidentiality would she be bound to in regards to any conversations, etc she may be privy to by defense or KC? What about any statements that may be uttered by KC during these proceedings that do NOT refer to her innocence or guilt?
She states in articles that she works "pro bono" so I would assume there is NO Financial Agreement contract in place?
If Baez had her sign a confidentiality agreement in order to be present at defense table during these proceedings and trial, would that stand up in court should she decide to enter into a media deal agreement with Larry Garrison post-trial????
(May want to skim Rosalie Bolin thread...is interesting read...)
(I am keeping in mind the controversy of the confidentiality agreement involving Dominic Casey, investigator. WAS he or WASN'T he bound?)
As part of the defense team, she is covered by attorney-client privilege, which would include whispers at the defense table from KC.
If she is working pro bono on THIS case, she cannot be paid by JAC. So perhaps she is not working pro bono on this case. I don't know if the JAC requires a written payment agreement, or if an oral agreement would be OK.
Yes, I think she would be bound by a confidentiality agreement. I can't remember all the details about DC, though. If you're talking about when he was being questioned by LE, such questioning "trumps" any private confidentiality agreement.
To jump off of this post,
Could JB legally be getting around the indigent claim ,by funneling info through RB to LG ,for a movie after the trial? This would be yet another way to get "paid" without being paid directly by ICA.
Sad ,but I always think JB is scheming of ways to make money off this case in an unethical way. Blood money.
Would there be any legal repercussions?
I think it would be a breach of attorney ethics rules in Florida for JB to arrange a contract to tell his "story" while he is still representing Casey. If so, this would be unethical whether he does it directly or through third parties.
But this would have nothing to do with Casey's indigence, because you are not talking about (as far as I can tell) anything that belongs to Casey.
It has been posted on the jury selection forum that the judge announced they would go with 12 jurors and then replace as the attorneys use their strikes....only 12? Are they not going to seat any alternates in a two-month-long case?!!
I think HHJP said there will be 8 alternates. I'm not watching jury selection live--maybe he meant they will get through the selection of 12 jurors first (replacing as the attorneys use their strikes) and then separately select the 8 alternates? (IIRC the Florida rule says you get 1 or 2 additional strikes if there are 1 or 2 alternates...so maybe HHJP will give them 8 more strikes for 8 alternates? Hopefully not or we will need more potentials.)
Do you think anyone, including the A's, will get up at the proper time and give the 'Victim Impact Statement'. If not the A's then who?
I never thought the As would do this, but now that AF has laid out the penalty phase strategy, I am beginning to suspect that the As might have something to say about Caylee after all by the end of this process. And if the guilt phase strategy indeed turns out to be "throw momma from the train and daddy under the bus," then the chances of Caylee having family members on her side increase even more.