Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[Joanner]

"Prior bad acts are not permitted at trial." I foresee Baez saying something about the checks and stealing money, and then objecting to himself. Might Judge Perry step in and stop him if appears he brought it up, or would he just let Baez hang himself?

 

[Mama-cita]

I know the thievery is a prior bad act, but doesn't also go to show state of mind? Most notably that this chick is a cold hearted sociopath that will steal from her nursing home grandpa and throw ANYONE under the bus? Is there SOME WAY to get her thieving ways in alongside her lying ways? I am listening to her Universal interviews and I am SHOCKED at how blase she is about the whole thing! So you think this will hang her in the jury's eyes??

 

[beachbumming]

SoCalSleuth,

Thanks for your response. I will post my questions here to see if they get answered. They are basically about how things work for people called to tesify.

The other day when the young men from the aprtments were all testifying one of them (forget who) mentioned he is there from OHIO. Then the next day, JB asked one of them I believe the same young man. How he got there, who paid for it and was he sticking around?

All my questions go along with that:

When you are called by either side how does it work? Subpoena?
Do they have to come for the beginning and stay in FLA? (TL has been called for days and he lives here in NY)
Are all the witnesses sitting in the Courthouse somwhere just in case it's there turn at any given moment?
What about personal life? (Work,School,Family,etc..)
Who pays for all of his costs attached to coming to FLA? (Flight,Lodging,etc..)
Is there anyway they can say, "No I can't make it that day."

Then I understand that witnesses can't attend in the gallery to watch. What keeps them from going home/hotel and watching it on the web. Or reading anywhere?

TIA to anybody who can explain.






1. If your subpoena crosses jurisdictional lines, the state issuing the subpoena basically asks a judge from the corresponding jurisdiction to accept the subpoena and require the witness to appear. Much more of a procedural matter.

2. Normally the State Attorney’s office has coordinators to coordinate itineraries with witnesses. The state provides airline tickets, transportation, lodging, etc. (As does the defense for their witnesses.)

3. The witnesses must be quickly accessible to the court.

4. If a judge in a corresponding jurisdiction orders the witness to appear in another jurisdiction, then the witness is obligated to appear and then subject to the same penalties as in-state or in-county witness.

 

[KPCrimeNY]

1. If your subpoena crosses jurisdictional lines, the state issuing the subpoena basically asks a judge from the corresponding jurisdiction to accept the subpoena and require the witness to appear. Much more of a procedural matter.

2. Normally the State Attorney’s office has coordinators to coordinate itineraries with witnesses. The state provides airline tickets, transportation, lodging, etc. (As does the defense for their witnesses.)

3. The witnesses must be quickly accessible to the court.

4. If a judge in a corresponding jurisdiction orders the witness to appear in another jurisdiction, then the witness is obligated to appear and then subject to the same penalties as in-state or in-county witness.

Thanks.
From one newb to another. WELCOME

 

[websurfer]

my question is this:

To positively prove that Casey & Casey alone was in the area
at the time of the murder, will the Prosecution have to show and demonstrate, via a family cell phone ping chart?

The chart having all 4 names and locations at the time of the alleged murder?Also the location?

Will they show pings from
George
Lee
Cindy
Casey
and do a comparison?

I really would have a very clear chart with each family member with a different color dot.....

to indicate their physical location at the day before, day of, day after...
this way no desputes of who was when & where...
so will they do this?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

"Prior bad acts are not permitted at trial." I foresee Baez saying something about the checks and stealing money, and then objecting to himself. Might Judge Perry step in and stop him if appears he brought it up, or would he just let Baez hang himself?

If JB brings it up himself then he has opened the door and the SA can run with it. I should have clarified my statement about prior bad acts. If the prior bad act is also relevant on another issue in the case, the judge could let it in if it's probative value outweights its prejudicial effect.

I know the thievery is a prior bad act, but doesn't also go to show state of mind? Most notably that this chick is a cold hearted sociopath that will steal from her nursing home grandpa and throw ANYONE under the bus? Is there SOME WAY to get her thieving ways in alongside her lying ways? I am listening to her Universal interviews and I am SHOCKED at how blase she is about the whole thing! So you think this will hang her in the jury's eyes??

Not as blase as she was on the 911 call!! I think her cavalier attitude (giggling and all) during the LE interview does demonstrate she is one cold individual. However, the jury may just buy the defense theory that she was in denial. The stealing could not come in to prove she was a cold hearted sociopath. (btw, both shrinks found she did NOT suffer from any mental illness or personality disorder; and as I've stated before, some people are just bad to the core.) In order for the stealing to come in it would have to be relevant to some other issue and it's relevance would have to outweigh its prejudicial effect.

my question is this:

To positively prove that Casey & Casey alone was in the area
at the time of the murder, will the Prosecution have to show and demonstrate, via a family cell phone ping chart?

The chart having all 4 names and locations at the time of the alleged murder?Also the location?

Will they show pings from
George
Lee
Cindy
Casey
and do a comparison?

I really would have a very clear chart with each family member with a different color dot.....

to indicate their physical location at the day before, day of, day after...
this way no desputes of who was when & where...
so will they do this?

I'm sure at some point in time KC's pings will come into evidence. However, a day and time of death hasn't been established so I don't see how, at this point in time, they would use the ping chart you sugggested.

With that folks, I am off on a 3 week much needed and deserved vacation! Hope I am back in time for closing arguments!

 

[Desertdawg]

How common is it for a DT to change it's strategy mid-trial? Do you see it happening in this trial? Now that the A's aren't testifying in favor of ICA, could the DT switch to a post-pardem depression story or some other strategy all together? Or, is going more-or-less how the DT thought it was going to go?

 

[Bravo]

Could the money thefts be brought in simply by a paper trail? There has to be some bank statements etc. from Casey's taking money from her Grandparents acct. Making cell phone payments etc. Credit card purchases. The jury must be wondering at this point how she had money for all these shopping trips etc.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Will the stolen money come into evidence when Shirley Plesea testifies, assuming she does?

 

[TakingALook]

<modsnipped>

I am wondering; To bring in the MySpace of Cindy A: (Showing it to (1)support CA's attempt to see the child and (2) See that her welfare is being cared for -- to me that is showing concern NOT so much emotion) ...
Couldn't an attempt be made for the 'foundation to be laid by showing or establishing that ICA as well as Caylee were residents of the A&#8217;s home', that the 'A&#8217;s had been responsible for providing &#8216;everyday needs&#8217; (especially the car of which she was returning to get (steal) gas for it, (won&#8217;t go into the theft of food taken to TA&#8217;s &#8211; etc.).


And because Caylee was under the care of the grandparents, on a frequent basis, that it would be only natural for Cindy to be doing any and all of these things to make contact with the child/mother whether it was the constant TEXTING, PHONE MESSAGES and NOW by MEANS of MY SPACE which she has found out that is a way that young people Communicate today?

 

[aafromaa]

I think I've been in stunned mode since the moment JB said that GA found Caylee in the pool during his opening statement. Prior to opening statements, I actually thought that DT had a chance (just a chance, mind you) of creating reasonable doubt with at least one juror by going with "it was an accident" and using sexual abuse as a reason to justify the 31 day delay in reporting the accident and the lies told to LE, etc. But in my mind, adding in that GA was there when Caylee died completely blew the possibility that anyone on the jury would believe the rest of the story.

So what I'm hoping you can help me understand is why create such an elaborate alternate theory in the first place? Since DT doesn't have to prove it, why not present it more ambiguous in the opening statement rather than give such detail that the jury might dismiss the whole theory?

Also, should we refer to it as a "theory" since JB presented it as "fact" or should we refer to it as the DT "version of events" - that is "legally" what would be the proper terminology?

(I've been puzzled by the DT since day one and have waivered between thinking DT is totally incompetent or intentionally setting up an appeal based on incompetent representation.)

 

[AZlawyer]

How common is it for a DT to change it's strategy mid-trial? Do you see it happening in this trial? Now that the A's aren't testifying in favor of ICA, could the DT switch to a post-pardem depression story or some other strategy all together? Or, is going more-or-less how the DT thought it was going to go?

There is really no way they can change the story without the jury rejecting both stories.

I have no idea how the DT thought this was going to go--from their reactions (and Casey's) it almost seems like they thought GA and CA (or at least CA) would go along with this horrible, disgusting story. :waitasec:

Could the money thefts be brought in simply by a paper trail? There has to be some bank statements etc. from Casey's taking money from her Grandparents acct. Making cell phone payments etc. Credit card purchases. The jury must be wondering at this point how she had money for all these shopping trips etc.

Will the stolen money come into evidence when Shirley Plesea testifies, assuming she does?

I don't think the stealing from great-grandpa's account will come in, as that happened before Caylee went "missing." However, the later stealing MIGHT come in to rebut Casey's statement to LE that she was stealing and lying with the goal of finding Caylee--but strangely the things she was buying with the stolen money seem to be for Casey herself. On the other hand, now that Casey has ADMITTED that the stealing and lying were unrelated to finding Caylee, HHJP might decide not to allow that testimony.

<modsnipped>

I am wondering; To bring in the MySpace of Cindy A: (Showing it to (1)support CA's attempt to see the child and (2) See that her welfare is being cared for -- to me that is showing concern NOT so much emotion) ...
Couldn't an attempt be made for the 'foundation to be laid by showing or establishing that ICA as well as Caylee were residents of the A’s home', that the 'A’s had been responsible for providing ‘everyday needs’ (especially the car of which she was returning to get (steal) gas for it, (won’t go into the theft of food taken to TA’s – etc.).

And because Caylee was under the care of the grandparents, on a frequent basis, that it would be only natural for Cindy to be doing any and all of these things to make contact with the child/mother whether it was the constant TEXTING, PHONE MESSAGES and NOW by MEANS of MY SPACE which she has found out that is a way that young people Communicate today?

I don't think any of this is related to the problem with getting the MySpace page into evidence. I think there were objections raised in pretrial motions, which were overruled, and then there was an objection relating to the fact that Cindy did not create most of the page--Lee did. So maybe it will come in when Lee testifies.

I think I've been in stunned mode since the moment JB said that GA found Caylee in the pool during his opening statement. Prior to opening statements, I actually thought that DT had a chance (just a chance, mind you) of creating reasonable doubt with at least one juror by going with "it was an accident" and using sexual abuse as a reason to justify the 31 day delay in reporting the accident and the lies told to LE, etc. But in my mind, adding in that GA was there when Caylee died completely blew the possibility that anyone on the jury would believe the rest of the story.

So what I'm hoping you can help me understand is why create such an elaborate alternate theory in the first place? Since DT doesn't have to prove it, why not present it more ambiguous in the opening statement rather than give such detail that the jury might dismiss the whole theory?

Also, should we refer to it as a "theory" since JB presented it as "fact" or should we refer to it as the DT "version of events" - that is "legally" what would be the proper terminology?

(I've been puzzled by the DT since day one and have waivered between thinking DT is totally incompetent or intentionally setting up an appeal based on incompetent representation.)

There is no "legally" appropriate terminology, although some people call it the defense "theory of the case." I call it "JB's Tall Tale" in this case.

IMO JB went WAY WAY too far with: (1) the detail he provided, which only calls into question the detail he DIDN'T provide--e.g., how the heck slowly was Casey "running" that she didn't catch up with George while he was still at the pool? Was George soaking wet from having jumped in to retrieve Caylee from the bottom of the pool? Were the statements JB related the only things Casey and George said to each other? What a strangely short and stilted conversation under the circumstances :waitasec:, (2) the complexity he added--George being there, Kronk moving the body, the dogs and forensics being wrong, blah blah blah. The truth is generally simpler than that.

 

[beachbumming]

I think I've been in stunned mode since the moment JB said that GA found Caylee in the pool during his opening statement. Prior to opening statements, I actually thought that DT had a chance (just a chance, mind you) of creating reasonable doubt with at least one juror by going with "it was an accident" and using sexual abuse as a reason to justify the 31 day delay in reporting the accident and the lies told to LE, etc. But in my mind, adding in that GA was there when Caylee died completely blew the possibility that anyone on the jury would believe the rest of the story.

So what I'm hoping you can help me understand is why create such an elaborate alternate theory in the first place? Since DT doesn't have to prove it, why not present it more ambiguous in the opening statement rather than give such detail that the jury might dismiss the whole theory?

Also, should we refer to it as a "theory" since JB presented it as "fact" or should we refer to it as the DT "version of events" - that is "legally" what would be the proper terminology?

(I've been puzzled by the DT since day one and have waivered between thinking DT is totally incompetent or intentionally setting up an appeal based on incompetent representation.)

Using the terminology "theory of the case" is applicable to both the defense and the state.

You have probably heard the phrase "If you can't argue the law argue the facts. If you can't argue the facts just argue." That is basically what the DT is doing. JB is using the "throw is everything and the kitchen sink." There is also a thought that some jurors make up their minds in opening statements. You only need one.

 

[Sea Witch]

I have a question for the lawyers. I'm new here and this is my first post.

I've read in a couple of places that there's information that there was some kind of big fight at the Anthony's house on June 15? was it? Some neighbors told the police (or said it in a deposition), and then Lee told someone (was it the boyfriend?) the same thing. My question is why didn't either the prosecution or the defense ask either CA or GA when they were on the stand about this fight? Why didn't they ask what it was about?

thanks

 

[GatorMom]

Is lack of foundation why Cindy did not testify about the fight on June 15th about Casey stealing money from her grandparent's account? To the best of my recollection they had a fight when Casey got home after Cindy and Caylee went to visit Cindy's parents because Casey stole money from them.

Is it possible that it will be introduced to show there was a huge argument between Cindy and Casey that night? If this has been asked and answered I'd appreciate it if someone can give me the post #.

Thank you.

Edited to add: She is still on direct so perhaps it will be brought out on Tuesday? But I am not clear on if it is allowed to be mentioned at all.

 

[Amster]

Not allowing any testimony about ICA stealing money is going to leave a lot of questions unanswered....burden of proof being on the state....doesn't this unfairly restrict them proving their case?

I would never be on jury. I know, from watching so many trials, here, that the defense is able to hide way too much info.

 

[Kimster]

FYI: beachbumming is now a verified attorney.

 

[maryaok]

Is lack of foundation why Cindy did not testify about the fight on June 15th about Casey stealing money from her grandparent's account? To the best of my recollection they had a fight when Casey got home after Cindy and Caylee went to visit Cindy's parents because Casey stole money from them.

Is it possible that it will be introduced to show there was a huge argument between Cindy and Casey that night? If this has been asked and answered I'd appreciate it if someone can give me the post #.

Thank you.

Yes, I want to know about this too! I was really stooped when it wasn't brought up in Sat's testimony w Cindy. I guess the prosecution feels like they don't even need to bring it up, they're letting Baez do all the speculating. The prosecution is relying on facts, that's it. Not he said, she said. My Question for a lawyer is, can they call Cindy back up to testify again and ask her again about that night and the fight. I mean if they asked her once about that day, if she testified once about that day, can they then ask her to testify again about that same day? Seems like we've gone round and round about stupid duct tape on a can!

 

[beachbumming]

Not allowing any testimony about ICA stealing money is going to leave a lot of questions unanswered....burden of proof being on the state....doesn't this unfairly restrict them proving their case?

I would never be on jury. I know, from watching so many trials, here, that the defense is able to hide way too much info.

Prior bad acts are only admissible for impeachment purposes as to a witness's credibility. Stealing is an act that could go to ICA's truthfulness but only during cross-examination if she took the stand. The theory is you don't want jurors thinking that because a defendant was guilty of something in the past, then they must be guilty of the present crime. The prosecution is not allowed to present evidence of prior bad acts of a defendant in their case-in-chief.

 

[beachbumming]

Yes, I want to know about this too! I was really stooped when it wasn't brought up in Sat's testimony w Cindy. I guess the prosecution feels like they don't even need to bring it up, they're letting Baez do all the speculating. The prosecution is relying on facts, that's it. Not he said, she said. My Question for a lawyer is, can they call Cindy back up to testify again and ask her again about that night and the fight. I mean if they asked her once about that day, if she testified once about that day, can they then ask her to testify again about that same day? Seems like we've gone round and round about stupid duct tape on a can!

CA can be called back to the stand. This may be a strategic decision on the part of the prosecution, as it may not further their theory of the case and wouldn't be a problem if the defense cross-examined on that point. That testimony could present pros and cons for both sides to where neither side wants to go down that road.