Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[Anais]

The defense does not have to allow a state's psychiatrist to be present during an exam of the defendant. However, if the defense pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, the state has a right to have their expert examine ICA. That has not happened in this case. The only way I see psych experts testifying for the defense about the 31 days is if there is evidence that ICA was abused by CA or LA.

I thought that the DT withdrew their psych's due to not wanting the SA to be able to depose them back during the FRYE hearings. It was my understanding that the DT even called HHJBP during the weekend to shut the SAO's depos of them down! Now they have forfeited the right to call them as witnesses correct?

 

[Solace]

I thought that the DT withdrew their psych's due to not wanting the SA to be able to depose them back during the FRYE hearings. It was my understanding that the DT even called HHJBP during the weekend to shut the SAO's depos of them down! Now they have forfeited the right to call them as witnesses correct?

Exactly what I thought Anais. Except I think the defense wanted to be there when she was being examined by the defense.

 

[Solace]

Schaeffer was speaking about stipulations and he mentioned the defense stipulating to the truth that KC did make searches. Do you know about this? I cannot be sure if he was using it as an example or if it happened. PLEASE

 

[beachbumming]

I thought that the DT withdrew their psych's due to not wanting the SA to be able to depose them back during the FRYE hearings. It was my understanding that the DT even called HHJBP during the weekend to shut the SAO's depos of them down! Now they have forfeited the right to call them as witnesses correct?

If the DT withdrew their expert prior to the state having the opportunity to depose them, DT would not be allowed to call them. I guess if the DT decided the expert was extremely necessary HHJP could allow time for SA to depose him/her. I don't see that happening.

 

[Katprint]

I thought that the DT withdrew their psych's due to not wanting the SA to be able to depose them back during the FRYE hearings. It was my understanding that the DT even called HHJBP during the weekend to shut the SAO's depos of them down! Now they have forfeited the right to call them as witnesses correct?

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution give defendants the right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" which has been broadly interpreted to allow defendants to call witnesses and present evidence unless the prosecution can prove actual prejudice. By way of illustration, Baez' failure in the Nilton Diaz murder case to disclose the "surprise" video prepared by the defense biomechanical expert, which would have shown the jury how the victim's skull fracture could have been accidental, was prejudicial to the prosecution because the prosecution was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to have that video analyzed by its own experts and prepare a response.

IIRC, when the psych experts were withdrawn from the defense witness list, prosecution added them to its witness list. Also, I recall seeing a reference to the prosecution having taken the depositions of the psych experts although those deposition transcripts were not made public. The defense would therefore have a good argument that the prosecution would not suffer prejudice from the defense using those previously disclosed psych experts. In fact, the prosecution would probably not even object because if those experts testified to anything Casey told them then the prosecution could introduce Casey's convictions for purposes of indirect impeachment.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Edited to add: I saw beachbumming's post after I posted my post. I agree that if the psych experts' depositions have not been taken by the prosecution then the judge would definitely allow those depositions by the prosecution prior to allowing them to testify for the defense.

 

[cluciano63]

Does it matter, legal-wise, if it appears that the judge is really getting sick of/not liking the defense team at all? I am not saying I blame him, but wonder if this is a matter to be worried about. He is getting shorter and shorter with them, in my opinion.

 

[beachbumming]

Does it matter, legal-wise, if it appears that the judge is really getting sick of/not liking the defense team at all? I am not saying I blame him, but wonder if this is a matter to be worried about. He is getting shorter and shorter with them, in my opinion.

I don't see a problem with the way HHJP has handled both the state and the defense. Pretty normal.

 

[MissJames]

At the end of Court today,LDB asked HH to request the DT give the list of cases they would be using, to the State. HHJP said "the law is the law" without answering specifically. What did he mean? Does the DT have to turn these over or not? I heard CM say he would work on them tonight and give them to the State in the morning,but I'm still not clear if HH was requiring it.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

What does the "argument for acquittal" entail?

 

[beachbumming]

What does the "argument for acquittal" entail?

At the close of the state's case the DT will move the court for judgment of acquittal. This is a motion that the defense makes in every criminal case. DT is asking HHJP to grant defense's motion because the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The motion will be denied.

 

[Ssejors]

Doesn't ICA have to be on the Defense witness list if they intend to call her to testify?

And I know I asked before about her being deposed and AZlawyer answered that she didnt NEED to be Deposed before testifying. Why is that? Why would she be exempt from that as it seems to me that no witness can or has testified that hasnt had a deposition taken.

 

[joedotnet]

this is the first trial i've watched from beginning and will to end...can someone tell me...is it common to have THIS many sidebars? and for the sidebars to last so long? Thanks in advance.

 

[beachbumming]

Doesn't ICA have to be on the Defense witness list if they intend to call her to testify?

And I know I asked before about her being deposed and AZlawyer answered that she didnt NEED to be Deposed before testifying. Why is that? Why would she be exempt from that as it seems to me that no witness can or has testified that hasnt had a deposition taken.

ICA has a 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, so the state does not have a right to depose her. However, that does not preclude her from testifying at trial if she so chooses.

 

[beachbumming]

this is the first trial i've watched from beginning and will to end...can someone tell me...is it common to have THIS many sidebars? and for the sidebars to last so long? Thanks in advance.

No this is not common, however, because this is a death penalty case and appellate courts heavily scrutinize these cases, HHJP may be allowing more sidebars than normal.

 

[bonniez451]

If KC is called by the DT, and they ask her only one question, "did Caylee drown in the pool on the morning of June 16th?" And she says "yes".

Is the prosecution then limited to questioning her only about the drowning in the pool that morning?

Hello, I thought that this a good question I hope it gets answered, I understand why you ask.

 

[katydid23]

I am sure you all do not want to critique other attorney's performances, but overall, how do you think the Prosecution did in their presentation of their CIC?

 

[beachbumming]

I am sure you all do not want to critique other attorney's performances, but overall, how do you think the Prosecution did in their presentation of their CIC?

Very well, however, the jury will need the prosecution to tie up everything in closing.

 

[beachbumming]

Hello, I thought that this a good question I hope it gets answered, I understand why you ask.

Yes but the SA can ask a myriad of questions about that "drowning" and ICA will in all likelihood open the door to additional questions.

 

[beeshie]

Have any of the attorneys here noted any appellate issues (errors) thus far?

 

[beachbumming]

Have any of the attorneys here noted any appellate issues (errors) thus far?

1. Interrogation at Universal Studios. The issue will be whether LE should have Mirandized ICA prior to questioning her. The court may find that LE should have read ICA her rights, but I don't think a conviction is overturned because of it.

2. Dr. Vass'. There always has to be a first for science. I don't think issue results in court overturning conviction.

3. Video of Cayllee, skull and duct tape. I don't think court finds too prejudicial.

4. K-9s. Won't be a problem.

5. Ineffective assistance of counsel based on untimely objections to jail tapes. Not sure about this one. If the court finds that the outcome of the trial would have been different if tapes were excluded, could be basis for overturning conviction.

These are just some off the top of my head. I'll post more if I think of them.