Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[beachbumming]

If Lee or one of them admits to it as a defense witness, how would state get around that if they had denied it under oath previously?

It just depends on how CA would testify regarding the details of the fight including what is was about, how did it end, did ICA stay or leave the house. That's really hard to know at this point. The one thing the SA would have to do is be careful not to undermine the A's testimony they gave on direct. You surely don't want the jury thinking that CA was lying.

Unless LA witnessed the fight he can't testify to it.

 

[Sleuth5]

During trial ICA is allowed to assist in her defense. Because of technological advances and how they are used in court, there would be no reason why ICA couldn't use the computers, iPads, etc.

Thanks, beachbumming. Lots of questions about that today.

 

[Katprint]

It just depends on how CA would testify regarding the details of the fight including what is was about, how did it end, did ICA stay or leave the house. That's really hard to know at this point. The one thing the SA would have to do is be careful not to undermine the A's testimony they gave on direct. You surely don't want the jury thinking that CA was lying.

Unless LA witnessed the fight he can't testify to it.

Well, Lee could testify to CASEY telling him about the fight, if she did. That way, the state-of-mind evidence concerning Casey would get in but would not effectively impeach or undermine the Anthonys because of all the other evidence of many, many other events/people/things Casey said happened/existed that did NOT happen/exist.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[beachbumming]

Well, Lee could testify to CASEY telling him about the fight, if she did. That way, the state-of-mind evidence concerning Casey would get in but would not effectively impeach or undermine the Anthonys because of all the other evidence of many, many other events/people/things Casey said happened/existed that did NOT happen/exist.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

You are completely right, I lost my mind for a sec

 

[Pink Panther]

By accusing GA and LA of molestation thereby pitting three of the four remaining family members against the accused, have the Defence put up their only gloves, in undermining motive? I think so. They've forced the Prosecution to stand by immediate family members who tried to cover up her crime. They (the Defence) have a definite advantage in doing so, they know what KC knows about what her family has done in their attempt to protect her.

Any thoughts?

moo

 

[beachbumming]

By accusing GA and LA of molestation thereby pitting three of the four remaining family members against the accused, have the Defence put up their only gloves, in undermining motive? I think so. They've forced the Prosecution to stand by immediate family members who tried to cover up her crime. They (the Defence) have a definite advantage in doing so, they know what KC knows about what her family has done in their attempt to protect her.

Any thoughts?

moo

When it comes down to it, both sides are stuck with the facts as they are. IMO the prosecution has laid out a couple of motives (ICA jealous of CA, ICA wanted freedom). When the jury deliberates they will come up with a few more. Despite the defense claiming accident the prosecution is doing such a nice job of methodically and credibly laying out their case. The jury will figure it out.

 

[Itsy]

The problem is that the news reporters have much less of a grasp on the evidence than most WS'ers.

Amen to that!! I sure do wish there was SOME way to get the reporters to bring out the fact that the Anthony's didn't even use chlorine in their pool & that Caylee was last known to be in a pool that (probably) did have it was about 2 weeks before 6/15/2008. It irks me to no end that they are STILL not addressing this! I wish I knew a tree to shake & fervently hope the SA team is going to point this out..] :banghead:

No, that's not the kind of thing that would result in an attorney being held in contempt. I suppose it could happen, technically, but it won't.

So, is he allowed to add new evidence as I read in the media thread? There is evidently a notification that Baez et al are filing new discovery...I'd guess tomorrow? Does the SA get to investigate this?? Or is this possibly just a depo or some other kind of paper filing?

ETA Oops, sorry Beach, for whatever I posted that you had to remove. TY if it was against TOS...LOL, I can't remember what it was now & can't even get a clue looking back over the old posts to see what caught my eye. fftobed:

 

[xin]

Are Casey's medical records and prescriptions confidential? Is she protected by patient privacy laws while in jail, and later, in prison? If she receives treatment and/or a prescription, for say anxiety or depression et al, from a licensed psychiatrist -- it's private or public info?

Thanks for all you do.

 

[beachbumming]

Are Casey's medical records and prescriptions confidential? Is she protected by patient privacy laws while in jail, and later, in prison? If she receives treatment and/or a prescription, for say anxiety or depression et al, from a licensed psychiatrist -- it's private or public info?

Thanks for all you do.

Yes they are confidential.

 

[Trapshooter]

Quick question regarding one of the jurors...IIRC one juror has a planned trip in mid-July to London. If the trial is not finished by that date, could she be excused as a juror and an alternate replace her? Do the alternates hear all the testimony like the other jurors?

Thanks!

 

[beachbumming]

Quick question regarding one of the jurors...IIRC one juror has a planned trip in mid-July to London. If the trial is not finished by that date, could she be excused as a juror and an alternate replace her? Do the alternates hear all the testimony like the other jurors?

Thanks!

The alternates hear all of the testimony, if fact many alternates are disappointed when they are excused. And yes an alternate could take the place of a juror if she is going out of town/country. However, I can't imagine that HHJP would let anyone sit on this jury if he thought the juror would not be able to complete their service.

 

[AZlawyer]

Amen to that!! I sure do wish there was SOME way to get the reporters to bring out the fact that the Anthony's didn't even use chlorine in their pool & that Caylee was last known to be in a pool that (probably) did have it was about 2 weeks before 6/15/2008. It irks me to no end that they are STILL not addressing this! I wish I knew a tree to shake & fervently hope the SA team is going to point this out..] :banghead:

So, is he allowed to add new evidence as I read in the media thread? There is evidently a notification that Baez et al are filing new discovery...I'd guess tomorrow? Does the SA get to investigate this?? Or is this possibly just a depo or some other kind of paper filing?

ETA Oops, sorry Beach, for whatever I posted that you had to remove. TY if it was against TOS...LOL, I can't remember what it was now & can't even get a clue looking back over the old posts to see what caught my eye. fftobed:

JB is "allowed" to add new evidence if HHJP allows it. HHJP will want a really really good reason why JB didn't bring it up earlier--but if it is important evidence, and if it is at all possible to allow the new evidence without seriously disrupting the trial, he will probably allow it to avoid giving Casey one more "ineffective assistance of counsel" argument.

 

[Sea Witch]

Question for the lawyers:

If CA is acquitted of 1st degree murder but found guilty of all the other charges, what's the most she could spend in prison (roughly)? (aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and 4 counts of providing false info to LE)

 

[bananarama]

Yesterday HHJP allowed the state to show the jury some still photos of Gerus the Canine during some training. They also showed a night vision video of him finding a body during an actual search. The DT did not object to the still photos, but they did object to the video. HHJP allowed allowed them to be shown, even though none of it was given to the DT during discovery. Do you think this could be an issue for appeal?

 

[Black Magic Woman]

Attorneys, please tell us if it is normal/acceptable for the defendent to use a laptop during trial. She would have access to wifi which means she could be emailing or instant messaging her parents to try swaying their testimony. Is that OK?

 

[beachbumming]

Yesterday HHJP allowed the state to show the jury some still photos of Gerus the Canine during some training. They also showed a night vision video of him finding a body during an actual search. The DT did not object to the still photos, but they did object to the video. HHJP allowed allowed them to be shown, even though none of it was given to the DT during discovery. Do you think this could be an issue for appeal?

No. I don't see how those pictures would prejudice the jury.

 

[cluciano63]

When it comes down to it, both sides are stuck with the facts as they are. IMO the prosecution has laid out a couple of motives (ICA jealous of CA, ICA wanted freedom). When the jury deliberates they will come up with a few more. Despite the defense claiming accident the prosecution is doing such a nice job of methodically and credibly laying out their case. The jury will figure it out.

When you say both sides are stuck with the facts as they are...

What prevents the defense from asking about (possible) lies the Anthonys may have told, even is questions are ultimately sustained? i.e. Isn't it true that Casey told you about the huge fight on June 15th, when she claims that she was choked (or whatever was alleged)? Just getting that out there? And if Casey did indeed tell Lee this, for example, and blurts out a "yes" before sustained, how would the state handle this? I'm just seeing potential issues, I guess, with the state having to present the Anthonys a certain way, in a sense hiding many of their past actions and how they may come back to make the state look like they are covering up.

 

[Katprint]

When you say both sides are stuck with the facts as they are...

What prevents the defense from asking about (possible) lies the Anthonys may have told, even is questions are ultimately sustained? i.e. Isn't it true that Casey told you about the huge fight on June 15th, when she claims that she was choked (or whatever was alleged)? Just getting that out there? And if Casey did indeed tell Lee this, for example, and blurts out a "yes" before sustained, how would the state handle this? I'm just seeing potential issues, I guess, with the state having to present the Anthonys a certain way, in a sense hiding many of their past actions and how they may come back to make the state look like they are covering up.

First, the defense can't ask about Casey's statements except to the extent the prosecution has offered some part or all of a particular statement into evidence, in which case the defense is allowed to offer the remainder of the statement so that the statement can be considered "in context."

Second, it doesn't help the defense for Casey to have a motive to hurt Cindy by murdering Caylee. Thus the defense is unlikely to bring up the huge fight that happened immediately before Caylee went missing. (OTOH the defense is all over the map on the decomp smell in the trunk so there is really no knowing what they might do.)

Third, the attorneys are not supposed to ask questions which assume facts "not in evidence." The objection would be sustained and the jury would be instructed to disregard the question, and the formal jury instructions will tell the jury that the statements of the attorneys are not evidence nor are the questions of the attorneys evidence except to the extent the question gives context to the witness' answer. If an attorney deliberately asks improper questions solely for the purpose of improperly influencing the jury, the judge may sanction that attorney. Also, it might be grounds for a mistrial especially if it is something the judge previously ruled about during motions in limine.

I realize it happens a lot on TV, then the attorney withdraws the question while smiling smugly for having snuck in the improper information. Real life is different, though.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Walk in IL]

If I have missed this, please direct me to the right thread. And no snark intended.

I would like to know a defendant gets clothing to wear in court. Does he/she have the clothing in his/her cell or dress after getting to the courthouse. And who provides the clothing. Does the defendant have any choice?

 

[beachbumming]

If I have missed this, please direct me to the right thread. And no snark intended.

I would like to know a defendant gets clothing to wear in court. Does he/she have the clothing in his/her cell or dress after getting to the courthouse. And who provides the clothing. Does the defendant have any choice?

Clothing is usually given to the defense attorney by a family member or friend. In this case I don't know if the As gave some clothes to the defense or the defense purchased them. I'm sure ICA has input as to what she wears. The attorney will take the clothes to the jail and ICA will change prior to coming to the courthouse.