AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
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
.
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?
I don't really understand the quote either. IAC can be argued whether or not the death penalty is imposed.
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?
HHJP only ordered that the skull pictures be pixelated. However, Judge Strickland had already ordered that no photos of the remains be published, pursuant to the law you mentioned. The media went so far as to black out photos of the "death band hair" in compliance with Judge Strickland's order. Now they seem to think it no longer applies.
I think HHJP will bring it up if and only if someone brings it to his attention.
I don't think there are any criminal charges or civil suits available as a result of violation of the law. I think the law just makes the photos exempt from release as public records. The photos right now are not even being released as public records, so the law may not directly apply. But IMO Strickland's order still applies.
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.
If the State needs the witness to prove any part of its case, the State must call the witness in its case in chief. It cannot prove its case through cross-examination of defense witnesses.
If the State does not need the witness to prove any part of its case, then it is not engaging in any "strategy" by waiting for JB to call the witness. There is simply no point in calling a witness who can't help you prove the case.
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?
IAC is really, really, really hard to prove, and definitely means something much more than you (or I) mean when we say Baez is ineffective. He does not have to be a "good" lawyer, or a smart lawyer, and the appellate court will not second-guess his "strategic" decisions, which I am putting in quotation marks for a good reason.
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?
They can only question her about her testimony--but that will include impeaching her testimony, which, believe me, will allow the SA to go pretty much wherever they want to go.
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?
Impeachment just means trying to show the jury that the witness's testimony can't be trusted. No testimony gets "thrown out" except in the minds of the jurors.
Even if the As were given immunity (for allegedly committing perjury in prior statements I guess you mean?), those prior statements could still be used to impeach them.
If CA is questioned about the fight, with or without immunity, I am 100% sure she would deny it. [IMO the big fight, if there was one, was June 8, which is why Casey took off to RM's apartment after that, why Cindy originally remembered June 9 as the last day she saw Caylee, and why Cindy gets so smug when she (truthfully) denies any fight occurred on June 15.] If LA is questioned about tampering (with what??) I am 100% sure he would also deny it regardless of whether he is granted immunity.
I don't see how it would help the State's case to show that Lee tampered with anything--quite to the contrary. As for the fight, I think the State attorneys know they have absolutely zero evidence to support that it happened, unless Cindy admits it, which she won't. Casey certainly isn't going to admit it either, even if she testifies.
What are the specific qualifications that an attorney must have in order to defend a DP case in the state of Florida?
I looked at the rule, and really I think it only applies to appointed counsel, not retained counsel. http://www.joffelaw.com/state-rules/3-112.html It also uses the word "should" (Rule 3.112(e)), suggesting that the standards are not absolute requirements.
Here are the important bits of Rule 3.112:
(f) Lead Counsel. Lead trial counsel assignments should be given to attorneys who:
(1) are members of the bar admitted to practice in the jurisdiction or admitted to practice pro hac vice; and
(2) are experienced and active trial practitioners with at least five years of litigation experience in the field of criminal law; and
(3) have prior experience as lead counsel in no fewer than nine state or federal jury trials of serious and complex cases which were tried to completion, as well as prior experience as lead defense counsel or cocounsel in at least two state or federal cases tried to completion in which the death penalty was sought. In addition, of the nine jury trials which were tried to completion, the attorney should have been lead counsel in at least three cases in which the charge was murder; or alternatively, of the nine jury trials, at least one was a murder trial and an additional five were felony jury trials; and
(4) are familiar with the practice and procedure of the criminal courts of the jurisdiction; and
(5) are familiar with and experienced in the utilization of expert witnesses and evidence, including but not limited to psychiatric and forensic evidence; and
(6) have demonstrated the necessary proficiency and commitment which exemplify the quality of representation appropriate to capital cases, including but not limited to the investigation and presentation of evidence in mitigation of the death penalty; and
(7) have attended within the last two years a continuing legal education program of at least twelve hours duration devoted specifically to the defense of capital cases.
(g) Co-counsel. Trial co-counsel assignments should be given to attorneys who:
(1) are members of the bar admitted to practice in the jurisdiction or admitted to practice pro hac vice; and
(2) qualify as lead counsel under paragraph (f) of these standards or meet the following requirements:
(A) are experienced and active trial practitioners with at least three years of litigation experience in the field of criminal law; and
(B) have prior experience as lead counsel or cocounsel in no fewer than three state or federal jury trials of serious and complex cases which were tried to completion, at least two of which were trials in which the charge was murder; or alternatively, of the three jury trials, at least one was a murder trial and one was a felony jury trial; and
(C) are familiar with the practice and procedure of the criminal courts of the jurisdiction; and
(D) have demonstrated the necessary proficiency and commitment which exemplify the quality of representation appropriate to capital cases, and
(E) have attended within the last two years a continuing legal education program of at least twelve hours duration devoted specifically to the defense of capital cases.