Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[krkrjx]

I have a question regarding insanity. I realize that insanity is a legal term and can be successful if it can be shown that person did not know right from wrong at the time of the crime but is there not some leeway legally for those who do know the difference between right and wrong but believe that it does not apply to them?

I think KC knows right from wrong, but in her mind society's rules do not pertain to her. Could this have been grounds for insanity defense and had KC's defense gone with insanity plea, might it have been successful?

If so, how much chance is there that their not claiming insanity could be seen by an appellate court as ineffective assistance of counsel?

 

[beachbumming]

Thanks to all the attorneys for taking the time to answer questions, it's very helpful. I hope that my question will be understandabble.

When JB does his cross, I can see somewhat of where he's trying to get to, mostly because we have been privy to so much discovery and heard so much in the media. However, I am curious if you think his points are lost on the jurors because he never really seems to get it out there?

IMO most of the jurors understand the points he makes or is trying to make. I thought the testimony of the FBI agent was a bit confusing on direct and cross, but I believe both sides with sum it up in closing, and collectively the jury will figure it out.

 

[beachbumming]

I have a question regarding insanity. I realize that insanity is a legal term and can be successful if it can be shown that person did not know right from wrong at the time of the crime but is there not some leeway legally for those who do know the difference between right and wrong but believe that it does not apply to them?

I think KC knows right from wrong, but in her mind society's rules do not pertain to her. Could this have been grounds for insanity defense and had KC's defense gone with insanity plea, might it have been successful?

If so, how much chance is there that their not claiming insanity could be seen by an appellate court as ineffective assistance of counsel?

Some states recognize what is called "diminished capacity" where the defendant admits the law was broken, but he/she shouldn't be held fully responsible because mental functions were impaired at the time the crime. Ex, alcohol and drug use, mental disorders, etc. This defense is not used for out right acquittal, but to reduce the degree charged, i.e. charged with First Degree Murder, found guilty of Second degree due to diminished capacity.

Florida does not recognize diminished capacity in the guilt phase, but will allow it during the penalty phase.

 

[beachbumming]

I have a question regarding insanity. I realize that insanity is a legal term and can be successful if it can be shown that person did not know right from wrong at the time of the crime but is there not some leeway legally for those who do know the difference between right and wrong but believe that it does not apply to them?

I think KC knows right from wrong, but in her mind society's rules do not pertain to her. Could this have been grounds for insanity defense and had KC's defense gone with insanity plea, might it have been successful?

If so, how much chance is there that their not claiming insanity could be seen by an appellate court as ineffective assistance of counsel?

One more point. I'm assuming JB did not plead not guilty by reason of insanity because there were no psych evals to back it up.

 

[MissJames]

I've seen him look at his phone at the podium and before re-cross. It doesn't make since someone is texting him regarding the case, he has competent co-counsel to confer with. Maybe he has bullet points on his phone that he wants to cover on cross. I have no idea.

There were some defense attorneys who have officially withdrawn,but I'm wondering if any of them may be advising him by IM or something similar.

Seems very risky to me,but we know JB has done other things that were questionable,such as the sale of Caylee's photos and videos to the American Broadcasting Company (ABC/Good Morning America) .He seems quite willing to push the envelope.

Could LKB help JB ,even tough she has withdrawn,and is it acceptable to do that by electronic messaging in real time?

 

[Katprint]

There were some defense attorneys who have officially withdrawn,but I'm wondering if any of them may be advising him by IM or something similar.

Seems very risky to me,but we know JB has done other things that were questionable,such as the sale of Caylee's photos and videos to the American Broadcasting Company (ABC/Good Morning America) .He seems quite willing to push the envelope.

Could LKB help JB ,even tough she has withdrawn,and is it acceptable to do that by electronic messaging in real time?

Any attorney can accept any help from anyone at any time (assuming other rules are followed i.e. Attorney A can't send a spy to work as a temp in Attorney B's law office to obtain privileged/confidential information, Attorney A can't illegal tap Attorney B's telephone lines, etc.) They must do it in a way that does not interfere with the orderly functioning of the court but really, if Baez were actually getting suggestions from other attorneys via text then that is really no different from any other attorney who asks the judge "May I have a moment?" then confers with co-counsel to see if they have any advice concerning additional subjects or follow-up questions.

What Baez REALLY needs is a remote-operated shock collar coupled with an earbud headset with Robert Shapiro or some other top notch defense attorney at the other end, to jerk his chain when he starts self-destructing. Or Casey-destructing, more accurately.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[pjmale]

Are defendents allowed to use computers in the courtroom?
ICA has been using one for a couple of days.

 

[Amil]

On the wftv web page there is a video which is labeled "Casey walks in". This shows Elizabeth F. Receive a text message, shoe it to ICA, scroll down to read all of it and then they look at CA. The WFTV web page show CA in their part 1 of today's trial. She is using her phone like texting and then stares toward ICA for the longest time. Is this legal for ICA to communicate with CA in the courtroom?

 

[thumbtack]

Good morning everyone!

I have a question that is a little different than the legal ones above, and I'm sure that this will call strictly for opinion, but I highly value your opinions! :rocker:

One of the more interesting things we here at Websleuths looked at/dissected through the discovery were the cell phone pings that tracked Casey's movements during the critical period. So far that has not been discussed at trial (unless I missed something - which is entirely possible, by the way!). Do you think that this is coming in later, given the way the prosecutors have structured their case? The incident that immediately comes to mind is the night on which she had the long phone conversation with Ryan Pasley while she was pinging very close to the remains site in the middle of the night. I was just wondering if they would be able to get this in, or does it call for too much speculation??

And on a related note - I had pegged Ryan as a very, very important witness, and yet we have not heard from him. He seemed to have the most detailed information about the nature of Cindy and Casey's relationship. Just curious if you think that will come in at some point, or if not, why not??

Thanks in advance for all you do for us here at WS!!

I, too, would love to hear answers to these great questions! TIA

 

[cleo612]

I have a feeling that Krystal Holloway/River Cruz is going to be a big witness for the defense (at least in their eyes--in mine, she means nothing).

As I recall, it went something like this: "It was a terrible accident that snowballed out of control."

If George either prefaced this with "I think..." or ended it with "...that is the only thing I can figure out," then I can see the jury discounting this testimony.

However, if these qualifying terms are not uttered by Holloway/Cruz during her testimony, then isn't that giving an almost certain manslaughter conviction rather than the first degree murder conviction that I am hoping to see?

I firmly believe that ICA maliciously murdered little Caylee and I want to see her be convicted of first degree murder. I don't want to have to settle for "second best," as in a second degree murder charge. With the exception of this woman's testimony, I have zero confidence in anything else that the defense brings to the table and fully believe that the prosecution's case is solid.

How can the prosecution overcome the hurdle of the jury hearing her say the words that George told her?

 

[AZlawyer]

Good morning everyone!

I have a question that is a little different than the legal ones above, and I'm sure that this will call strictly for opinion, but I highly value your opinions! :rocker:

One of the more interesting things we here at Websleuths looked at/dissected through the discovery were the cell phone pings that tracked Casey's movements during the critical period. So far that has not been discussed at trial (unless I missed something - which is entirely possible, by the way!). Do you think that this is coming in later, given the way the prosecutors have structured their case? The incident that immediately comes to mind is the night on which she had the long phone conversation with Ryan Pasley while she was pinging very close to the remains site in the middle of the night. I was just wondering if they would be able to get this in, or does it call for too much speculation??

And on a related note - I had pegged Ryan as a very, very important witness, and yet we have not heard from him. He seemed to have the most detailed information about the nature of Cindy and Casey's relationship. Just curious if you think that will come in at some point, or if not, why not??

Thanks in advance for all you do for us here at WS!!

The cell phone pings are not too useful--the most the SA can show is that Casey (or her phone at least) was within a couple of miles of a certain cell phone tower at a certain time. They cannot show that she was "very close" to the remains site--and in any event the remains site is very close to her home, so being close to the remains site doesn't mean she knew where it was.

Ryan is not really an important witness, because he knows almost nothing about what happened immediately before and after Caylee went "missing."

On the wftv web page there is a video which is labeled "Casey walks in". This shows Elizabeth F. Receive a text message, shoe it to ICA, scroll down to read all of it and then they look at CA. The WFTV web page show CA in their part 1 of today's trial. She is using her phone like texting and then stares toward ICA for the longest time. Is this legal for ICA to communicate with CA in the courtroom?

It is against the rules for the inmate to communicate with people in the gallery. But no one seems to care very much about these rules.

I have a feeling that Krystal Holloway/River Cruz is going to be a big witness for the defense (at least in their eyes--in mine, she means nothing).

As I recall, it went something like this: "It was a terrible accident that snowballed out of control."

If George either prefaced this with "I think..." or ended it with "...that is the only thing I can figure out," then I can see the jury discounting this testimony.

However, if these qualifying terms are not uttered by Holloway/Cruz during her testimony, then isn't that giving an almost certain manslaughter conviction rather than the first degree murder conviction that I am hoping to see?

I firmly believe that ICA maliciously murdered little Caylee and I want to see her be convicted of first degree murder. I don't want to have to settle for "second best," as in a second degree murder charge. With the exception of this woman's testimony, I have zero confidence in anything else that the defense brings to the table and fully believe that the prosecution's case is solid.

How can the prosecution overcome the hurdle of the jury hearing her say the words that George told her?

I believe River said that George told her he THOUGHT it was an accident. Sounds like hearsay to me--and irrelevant hearsay at that.

 

[Jovi Girl]

It looks like, to me, from a television viewer point of view, that Casy's mother, Cindy, is writing something during the trial. Is Cindy taking notes ? Or does she have a sudoku, crossword, etc., to keep her mind busy or when things get tough ? If she is taking notes, why ?

 

[cluciano63]

My question may be a pretty simple one, as I believe I know the answer, but will the state continue to pay and furnish counsel for the automatic appeals if Casey is convicted and given the death penalty?

What if she is given LWOP? Does she still receive court-appointed counsel since she was ruled indigent? Does every inmate who appeals their conviction end up with court-appointed counsel, since they clearly would be indigent by that point?

Thanks.

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

If a person is already on the states witness list and the DT decides to call them during their direct cross would that person have to be listed on DT witness list?

 

[Sea Witch]

2 Questions for our lawyers:

1. Can a judge stop a trial mid-stream because of "ineffectiveness of counsel" and call a mistrial?

2. No matter what Casey is found guilty of (assuming she's found guilty of something) if the decision is reversed on appeal because of "ineffectiveness of counsel" would she walk away scot-free? I mean she couldn't be tried again because of double jeopardy, no?

thanks

 

[beachbumming]

It looks like, to me, from a television viewer point of view, that Casy's mother, Cindy, is writing something during the trial. Is Cindy taking notes ? Or does she have a sudoku, crossword, etc., to keep her mind busy or when things get tough ? If she is taking notes, why ?

I believe I heard she has a journal with her.

 

[beachbumming]

2 Questions for our lawyers:

1. Can a judge stop a trial mid-stream because of "ineffectiveness of counsel" and call a mistrial?

2. No matter what Casey is found guilty of (assuming she's found guilty of something) if the decision is reversed on appeal because of "ineffectiveness of counsel" would she walk away scot-free? I mean she couldn't be tried again because of double jeopardy, no?

thanks

Ineffective assistance of counsel is a post conviction motion brought by the defendant. If ICA is convicted of 1st degree murder and the conviction is overturned on appeal, she would remain in jail pending retrial. cluciano63 is right about double jeopardy.

 

[AZlawyer]

My question may be a pretty simple one, as I believe I know the answer, but will the state continue to pay and furnish counsel for the automatic appeals if Casey is convicted and given the death penalty?

What if she is given LWOP? Does she still receive court-appointed counsel since she was ruled indigent? Does every inmate who appeals their conviction end up with court-appointed counsel, since they clearly would be indigent by that point?

Thanks.

Yes, the state will provide counsel for Casey on appeal if she does not have private counsel. They will not "continue" to do so, as the state is not currently paying for her counsel--only her costs.

Not every inmate who appeals is indigent.

If a person is already on the states witness list and the DT decides to call them during their direct cross would that person have to be listed on DT witness list?

OK, "direct" and "cross" are 2 different things. But if the defense wants to call a witness during the defense's case, technically the witness ought to be on the defense list. But as a practical matter IMO the defense will be allowed to call any witness from either list.

 

[TxLady2]

You guys are just SO intelligent and your answers are so clear, I really appreciate all of you!! I just love getting into this legal stuff, it's so interesting. Again...THANK YOU for what you do!

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

Yes, the state will provide counsel for Casey on appeal if she does not have private counsel. They will not "continue" to do so, as the state is not currently paying for her counsel--only her costs.

Not every inmate who appeals is indigent.



OK, "direct" and "cross" are 2 different things. But if the defense wants to call a witness during the defense's case, technically the witness ought to be on the defense list. But as a practical matter IMO the defense will be allowed to call any witness from either list.

Thank you so much! I thought I heard it refered to as "direct cross" on in session and since I didn't want to sound like an idiot I thought I better use the correct term LOL, hmm don't think that's working out for me! :waitasec: