Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

What does the State need RK for? I think they did not call him to the stand because they have no need for him and JB would hijack the trial with his cross-examination of RK.

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

Yes, the State is presenting its case now. The defense will have its turn next. But that doesn't necessarily mean we have "half" of the trial to go--the defense might not have as much evidence to present. The defense will call its expert witnesses to challenge the forensics, might be allowed to call the expert regarding "grieving," might recall some witnesses who have already testified as part of the State's case, and might call Casey as a witness to testify about her being abused and what happened to Caylee.
 
First a big thankyou to all the attorneys who give of their time and knowledge to answer our questions.

I have a feeling that the state will not call Tim Miller either, due to the Laura Buchanon debacle, plus Tim really didn't have too much contact with KC, more with Cindy, and why get into all that. I think that Baez will call Tim for his CIC. What do our resident lawyers think?
 
First a big thankyou to all the attorneys who give of their time and knowledge to answer our questions.

I have a feeling that the state will not call Tim Miller either, due to the Laura Buchanon debacle, plus Tim really didn't have too much contact with KC, more with Cindy, and why get into all that. I think that Baez will call Tim for his CIC. What do our resident lawyers think?
I agree with AZLawyer that the state will not call people who are not really relevant to proving Casey murdered Caylee. Significantly, neither Tim Miller nor any of his people searched the area where Caylee was found (as it was underwater) nor were Caylee's remains found by him or his people.

That probably won't stop Baez from calling Tim Miller in the defense case and asking him questions along the lines of, "You had searched this area where Caylee's remains were discovered in December 2008, didn't you?" "Nope." "And, your searchers had searched this area too, didn't they?" "Nope. None of us could search it because it was underwater." "And, when you and your searchers had searched this area, you didn't find Caylee's remains, did you?" "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence, misstates the witness' testimony." "Sustained." and so forth.

Katprint
Who is NOT a fan of Baez' questioning mannerisms
Always only my own opinions
 
The defense OS by Baez has been criticized by other lawyers in the media. As HHJP pointed out ,Ms. Anthony has 5 attorneys. What are the typical dynamics when so many lawyers are involved ? Is there generally an agreement on strategy?
 
The defense OS by Baez has been criticized by other lawyers in the media. As HHJP pointed out ,Ms. Anthony has 5 attorneys. What are the typical dynamics when so many lawyers are involved ? Is there generally an agreement on strategy?

Well, typically, if there are 5 attorneys and one of them has only been practicing a few years and is also not the sharpest tool in the shed, that attorney would defer to the experience and judgment of the other attorneys on the team.

Hypothetically speaking. :innocent:
 
The defense OS by Baez has been criticized by other lawyers in the media. As HHJP pointed out ,Ms. Anthony has 5 attorneys. What are the typical dynamics when so many lawyers are involved ? Is there generally an agreement on strategy?
Disclaimers: I don't do death penalty cases (although some of my cases have involved circumstances which theoretically COULD have qualified for the death penalty) and I have never worked on a case where the defense team contained more than 3 attorneys. Nonetheless...

In my experience, as the case progresses and the evidence becomes known, the strategic options become obvious. In theory, a defendant can assert multiple conflicting defenses i.e. Some Other Dude Did It (SODDI), but if you determine that it was me then here are the reasons why it wasn't as bad as what the prosecution says, or it didn't happen at all. In practice, it may be better to give the jury a single, cohesive counter-explanation of the facts.

By way of example, let's take the implied defense assertion in this case that the rare Henkel duct tape was placed by George on Caylee and the gas can then George meticulously removed duct tape from the rest of household (I guess Baez was insinuating they were using it to mount pictures on the wall? Hold the legs on the sofa? Keep the pieces of string cheese in the refrigerator together? I really didn't understand where in the house OTHER than the shed/garage one might expect to find duct tape in use. As comedian Jeff Foxworthy might say, if duct tape is visible in the living areas of your home, you may be a red neck...) in order to frame Casey, although George didn't plant the remaining duct tape roll in Casey's car but instead used it to post missing-Caylee posters. Casey was supposedly molested by George but her jailhouse videos show her praising what a great father and grandfather he was.

I was trained in the "Golden Thread" technique i.e. there is a golden thread running through all of the evidence and all evidence relates back to that golden thread. My "Golden Thread" training would lead me to use Lee's deposition where Lee explained that Lee sometimes mowed the lawn that summer thus Lee would have removed the neat, precisely square piece of Henkel duct tape George had placed over the gas can vent when Lee was pouring gas into the lawnmower, to break the vacuum so the gas would indeed pour. Then, when Lee re-filled the gas can with gas, Lee was less meticulous than George and placed a less-than-perfectly-square piece of duct tape over the gas can vent to prevent it from leaking. Apparently Lee kept the roll of duct tape because subsequently Lee used it to post the missing-Caylee posters at the missing-Caylee command post. The reason the roll of Henkel duct tape is missing from the Anthony residence is because Lee has it. Cherry on top: Casey had previously complained to others about Lee molesting her (but had NOT complained about George) plus Lee is likely to be familiar with the neighborhood pet cemetery/hangout for drinking and smoking pot. Thus, Lee seems like the obvious choice of alternative suspect - much better than George. Alternatively, since there is SO MUCH evidence pointing straight back at Casey as the last person to see Caylee alive, failure to report Caylee missing/kidnapped, etc., an early-stage plea bargain (prior to discovery of Caylee's trash-bagged, duct-taped remains) would have been a good idea.

If I were involved in a case where the other attorneys wanted to go with a shotgun approach rather than a golden thread approach, I would probably feel so uncomfortable that I would leave. Kind of like how Terence M. Lenamon, Andrea Lyon, Linda Kenney Baden and Todd Macaluso aren't members of Casey's defense team anymore.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions
 
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:

My understanding was that he only asked that the skull was to be pixelated. .. I could be wrong but that is how i understood what he said.
 
I believe I read that Amy Huizinga, Tony Lazzaro and Jesse Grund all hired attorneys and I can't imagine they wanted to have to pay for an attorney. I thought I read another post that said the depositions of experts witnesses are paid for by the defense or prosecution depending on who wanted the deposition. So, only expert witnesses depositions are paid for, not other witnesses who just happened to come in contact with KC during the time period of the missing child. Did Amy, Tony and Jesse need attorneys because of their depositions or something else? Why do they have attorneys?
 
Does the law in America involve a jury using the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' method? For example, if there's the slightest chance of doubt from the jury this should result in a not guilty verdict?

I would be concerned if your courts operated the same as ours (in Australia). Regardless of Casey's obvious guilt, I think a jury would apply 'beyond reasonable doubt' given the evidence is very circumstantial.

I hope this makes sense and thanks for answering.
 
I believe I read that Amy Huizinga, Tony Lazzaro and Jesse Grund all hired attorneys and I can't imagine they wanted to have to pay for an attorney. I thought I read another post that said the depositions of experts witnesses are paid for by the defense or prosecution depending on who wanted the deposition. So, only expert witnesses depositions are paid for, not other witnesses who just happened to come in contact with KC during the time period of the missing child. Did Amy, Tony and Jesse need attorneys because of their depositions or something else?

They didn't technically "need" attorneys, but if one is being deposed and is being named as a potential murderer or associate/conspirator with a murderer by the grandmother of the victim, one ought to get an attorney.

Does the law in America involve a jury using the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' method? For example, if there's the slightest chance of doubt from the jury this should result in a not guilty verdict?

I would be concerned if your courts operated the same as ours (in Australia). Regardless of Casey's obvious guilt, I think a jury would apply 'beyond reasonable doubt' given the evidence is very circumstantial.

I hope this makes sense and thanks for answering.

Yes, the jury must find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, this does not mean the jury cannot have the "slightest chance of a doubt"--the doubt must be REASONABLE.

The fact that the evidence is circumstantial has really nothing to do with whether or not it shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO circumstantial evidence (e.g., DNA) is often much more convincing than, e.g., eyewitness testimony, which can be so easily wrong/bought/invented.
 
I believe I read that Amy Huizinga, Tony Lazzaro and Jesse Grund all hired attorneys and I can't imagine they wanted to have to pay for an attorney. I thought I read another post that said the depositions of experts witnesses are paid for by the defense or prosecution depending on who wanted the deposition. So, only expert witnesses depositions are paid for, not other witnesses who just happened to come in contact with KC during the time period of the missing child. Did Amy, Tony and Jesse need attorneys because of their depositions or something else?

Hi Alleycat, I was surprised the fee charged by the entomologist was made public in court, brought up by JB.

To our lawyers, is this acceptable during a trial? Ta
 
Hi Alleycat, I was surprised the fee charged by the entomologist was made public in court, brought up by JB.

To our lawyers, is this acceptable during a trial? Ta

It would pretty much be malpractice not to bring it up. :)
 
quote from a comment from the lawyer of the day thread from someone purporting to be a lawyer
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/lawyer-of-the-day-jose-baez/#disqus_thread
A Real Former QB
moderator.png

I don't think you see it very well. Ineffective assistance of counsel is really only a higher bar for appellants ......<modsnip quote- more at link>
.


Question: what's the difference between the strickkand test in do and non do cases? I must admit I don't understand the quote. I take it the defendant if indigent is entitled to rep for post conviction/collateral relief?
 
Florida has a law that prohibits autopsy photos from being published. It is against the law, no ifs, ands or buts. The photos of Caylee skeleton laid out and the ones of her hand bones, shown with a ruler and coin to show how small they were, were obviously done at the ME's office, and were not crime scene photos. While Dr. Utz and Dr. Garavaglia did not do an actual autopsy, there is no doubt these pictures were taken during that examination and, by default, would be considered autopsy photos. the skull in the photo that showed her entire skeleton was not pixelated.

Do you think HHJP will bring this up Monday? Is it possible that WESH (the local Orlando station that aired these photos) can be brought up on charges? Can George and Cindy sue as next of kin over this?
 
What does the State need RK for? I think they did not call him to the stand because they have no need for him and JB would hijack the trial with his cross-examination of RK.



Yes, the State is presenting its case now. The defense will have its turn next. But that doesn't necessarily mean we have "half" of the trial to go--the defense might not have as much evidence to present. The defense will call its expert witnesses to challenge the forensics, might be allowed to call the expert regarding "grieving," might recall some witnesses who have already testified as part of the State's case, and might call Casey as a witness to testify about her being abused and what happened to Caylee.
I should have tried to be a little clear. I didn't mean RK per-say, he was just an example. If the State knows JB will call a certain witness, and that witness isn't a critical witness but instead of calling that witness, the state waits and lets DT call the person.
 
I'm sorry if this has already been asked. I tried to look and have been reading here every day, but 40 pages...

Anyway, I have a question about ineffective assistance of counsel. Some believe that this is a possibility in this case because Baez is...well, Baez. I know that anything is possible, but with all of the help that she gets, is it really something that we should be concerned with? It is my understanding that ineffective assistance of counsel is NOT an easy thing to win. We all see that Baez has been pretty ineffective overall, but it is also my understanding that "ineffective" as far as appeals are concerned does not mean the same thing that I mean when I say he is ineffective. To boil down: She is not guaranteed the right to a "good" lawyer, especially with it not being court appointed, but instead one that she choose herself. And as long as her lawyer (no matter how little intelligence he shows, or how many times he falls on his face) is actively trying to win the case for his client, it would not be considered ineffective? And just because he is bad won't mean a thing, just being a bad attorney is her problem and not one for the people or the state?
 
My question is this: If Casey takes the stand in her defense, upon cross-examination, can the SA only question her about the stuff JB (or CM) asks her about? Or can they ask her about any subject?
 
The state has been generous in supplying the A's their depositions any time it appeared needed to refresh their memory of their previous words. As I understand it, if their testimony is impeached, then the entire testimony can be thrown out.

If this is correct, why wouldn't/didn't the state offer the A's immunity? Is it only because it could have been proven they lied/covered for ICA and their current testimony might not be believed?

I ask this because I feel we aren't getting the full story now due to their depositions. Wouldn't immunity allow CA to be questioned about the possible fight or LA to be questioned about possible tampering? Wouldn't it help the jury to connect the evidence if they were given more thorough information?
 
What are the specific qualifications that an attorney must have in order to defend a DP case in the state of Florida?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
3,591
Total visitors
3,730

Forum statistics

Threads
603,702
Messages
18,161,296
Members
231,833
Latest member
Pbarch
Back
Top