BaileyandBella
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 317
- Reaction score
- 9
Just wondering....thanks
If ICA insists on testifying she has a right to do so.I would like to know if ICA has the right to testify, since it's a DP case. even if her DT strongly recommends that she doesn't. TIA!
IS this the rule in Florida that you know for sure? Because I remember I think that the State said we want to be there when they examine KC and the Defense after speaking with Judge and State, said they will not be using the experts. The defense has never claimed insanity as a defense and the Judge was hesitant because it would be going to state of mind which he was not allowing.
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
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.
In what order will the verdicts be read?
Just wondering....thanks
I know she will get automatic appeals if she gets the death penalty, but will she get automatic appeal if she gets LWOP or some other sentence?
BBMThe rules in Florida provide for the State to conduct an examination where an insanity defense is being offered (that is not happening here), or where mental mitigation evidence is being offered during the penalty phase (we're not up to that part yet in this case), but say nothing about what happens if mental health evidence is offered during the guilt phase to explain how post-incident behavior is consistent with innocence rather than guilt.
The case law basically says that it is impossible for the State to effectively rebut mental health testimony based on an examination of the defendant without being allowed to have the State's expert also conduct such an examination.
Here, the new proposed defense expert will not be testifying based on an examination of Casey, so the State has no right to have Casey examined.
By the way HHJP never said he would not allow state of mind evidence--he said he would not allow evidence of "diminished mental capacity" (which no one is arguing in this case).
I thought she had just stipulated to her parents' work time records being admitted--which show she was the only one not at work for at least one of the Google-searching time periods.
I think he meant that the DT does not have to turn over their case law in advance, and the State could do its own research.
Usually they start at the "top"...with the most serious charges.
No.
Hi and thank you -
The sealed evidence that was presented in court (the ones where the State just had the witnesses identify as being sealed by them) - do the Jurors get to open those later and examine during deliberations?
BBM
Thank you ! I just could not tell who he was directing that too.
I also was getting paranoid the lawyers had me on ignore:innocent:
+1 to beachbumming distinguishing between a potential appellate issue and a successful appeal.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.
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.