Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[beachbumming]

Sorry is this has already been asked and answered, but I'm trying to satisfy my mind on something, and since my reading of law is NOT all that good, I'm hoping I can get one of our lawyers to weigh in on this for me.

From what I'm reading regarding FL's requirements for First Degree murder, there does not have to be premeditation or intent. If someone dies (in this case a child) during the commision of a crime against them (in this case aggravated child abuse), doesn't that also fit the requirements for First Degree Murder under FL law?

Correct. The SA has two avenues to get to 1st Degree Murder.
1. Premeditation; or
2. Felony murder; murder occurred during course of ICA committing aggravated child abuse.

 

[beachbumming]

The sticker empty sheets and the heart sticker were introduced into evidence. Will the jury be able to test those and see if they fit during deliberations?

The cans with the stinking carpet samples in them are being put into evidence today. Can the jury open them during deliberations?

I'm sure the jury will be able to adequately evaluate the sticker evidence. There may be some guidelines from the court as to how jury members may manipulate pieces of evidence i.e. don't remove items from transparent packaging. However, if the cans are in evidence and they are sent back with the jury during deliberations why wouldn't they be able to open the cans? Not sure about this.

 

[beachbumming]

Thanks to you all for your willingness to answer questions.
My question would be: what happens to the alternate jurors who have been through the duration of this trial. I would think when it comes time for deliberations they would not be able to participate. Are they allowed to at least sit in on the deliberations?
Thanks!

No they are not allowed to sit in on deliberations.

 

[beachbumming]

If the Defense gets up tomorrow morning and says they are not putting on a CIC - which some THs have said they should do, but won't because they have to back up their crazy theory given in OS, would the State then be required to immediately give their Closing Arguments? In your experience, do they already have one written in case that happens? I can't imagine it would look good if the State was not prepared and the Jury had to go back to their hotel for a second day.

Thanks so much for your patience with my questions:innocent:

The SA began working on their closing arguments the minute JB made his opening statement. If the defense rests without putting on any evidence I would think HHJP would give some time for both sides to prepare for closing arguments.

 

[beachbumming]

After all these days of testimony, I find myself needing to go back over testimony and evidence, and that's with listening and discussing this case everyday, which the jury has not been allowed to do. My question is, is the jury allowed to request any and all testimony and evidence to review, once deliberations begin, especially where it's been reported that not many of them took notes.

Also, can they request to listen to any audio portions of the trial, such as the 911 calls and jallhouse calls?

TIA

All physical evidence that has been admitted into evidence will go back with the jury for their deliberations. HHJP will provide whatever electronics are necessary for the jury to review tapes, videos, etc. It will be HHJP's call as to if and how much testimony can be read back to the jury upon request. The judge will instruct the jury to use their collective recollection to reconcile all of the evidence and return a verdict.

 

[beachbumming]

HHJP was very firm in his instructions to the jury about waiting to hear all the evidence presented before making up their minds and to NOT talk about the trial with one another before deliberations began.

I was shocked yesterday when HHJP said the jurors wanted to see the heart shaped sticker AND they requested a list of all the evidence to be provided to them when they start deliberations. To me this sounds like at least 2 of them have been discussing the case already. I was really surprised that neither CM nor JB jumped up and called for an immediate mistrial due to jury misconduct then and there.

Am I making too much of the jury's request?

I think you bring up a very good point. The first thing a jury does when they go back to deliberate is to select a foreperson. It sounds like the jury is already looking to one or more members as such. That begs the question how did that occur if they haven't been discussing the case? How would anyone know that members of the jury want an exhibit list sent back with the evidence if it wasn't discussed? Apparently neither the SA nor the DT is concerned enough to ask for a mistrial or at least an inquiry into juror conduct. Perhaps both sides are pleased with the makeup of this jury and don't want to start all over again. DT must not believe anything the jury has done has been too prejudicial toward ICA.

 

[beachbumming]

Someone on another thread asked this question, but I will borrow it as it sounded interesting.
If the Jury asks to smell the carpet/odor will they be allowed to do so?.

That is such a good question. I touched on it in #1102, but it will be interesting to see how HHJP handles this if the issue comes up.

 

[beachbumming]

My apologies if this has been asked: Does the jury know Casey was not initially read her Miranda rights?

Gosh I just don't remember what came out during YM testimony. Maybe AZ or Katprint know the answer to this.

 

[AZlawyer]

The sticker empty sheets and the heart sticker were introduced into evidence. Will the jury be able to test those and see if they fit during deliberations?

Yes, but it won't fit. See my post in the sticker thread. I just hope the jury wasn't confused into thinking that it ought to fit.

Howdy and Thank you -
If the cell phone pings (or any specific case evidence) has not been entered into court evidence, can it be discussed by the State during Defense Case - i.e. to impeach or whatever the terminolgy. (Hope this makes sense)

Yes, more evidence can be introduced during the defense's case and also during rebuttal.

My apologies if this has been asked: Does the jury know Casey was not initially read her Miranda rights?

Yes, IIRC that was discussed when YM testified.

I heard yesterday that there was a "bombshell" regarding a missing laundry bag - that Cindy said that on the stand. I can't find it anywhere (supposedly she said one bag was missing - they had four). Can anyone help PLEASE.

First of all, I think there were only 2. And I think the one Cindy calls "missing" is the one LE seized as evidence to compare to the one found with the remains.

I'm sure the jury will be able to adequately evaluate the sticker evidence. There may be some guidelines from the court as to how jury members may manipulate pieces of evidence i.e. don't remove items from transparent packaging. However, if the cans are in evidence and they are sent back with the jury during deliberations why wouldn't they be able to open the cans? Not sure about this.

I agree. What's the point of admitting cans of air into evidence if the jury can't open them?? :waitasec: Personally, I fail to see why the court should treat the use of the sense of smell as an impermissible "jury experiment" but the use of the senses of sight, hearing, and touch as "reviewing the evidence."

 

[bonniez451]

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.

Thank you!

 

[wonders]

Does the jury know that ICA has spent the last three years in jail? TIA.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I'm of the (understandably unpopular) opinion that if I were a juror, I don't think I could vote for a murder conviction based on the case so far. Manslaughter, yes, but not murder. My concerns lie with the fact that I don't think the state has provided enough evidence to prove the death was a result of a criminal act (be it willfull killing or aggravated child abuse). A lot of the arguments I'm getting point out that the state isn't required to provide motive, cause of death, etc. and while I agree that they aren't required to do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that in this case it's difficult to conclude that the death meets the elements of a murder conviction without those things being addressed. My understanding is that beyond a reasonable doubt goes beyond probability or likelihood, and while it doesn't require total certainty, it means you ought to be "pretty darn sure". For the legal experts here, am I wrong in my understanding of BARD? Totally willing to revise my opinion if I am.

 

[Solace]

First of all, I think there were only 2. And I think the one Cindy calls "missing" is the one LE seized as evidence to compare to the one found with the remains."

But, but bUt according to testimony, Cindy bought both types. We know there are TWO cylindars because one was FOUND at the home and the other at the crime scene.

Cindy also admits that she had the REGULAR tote in the bedroom holding things and it was kept beside the bed next to the wall. That she took it out after she found a zippered container for the balls. She says she put it back in the garage and she said after LE took the black bags holding the tote(s) she never saw them again.

This is what I am asking: Did Cindy buy TWO OF EACH KIND. And LE found one of each kind in the garage AND ARE ASSUMING THAT CASEY TOOK ONE OF EACH TOTE TO HIDE CAYLEE'S BODY AND LE ONLY FOUND THE CYLINDAR AT THE CRIME SCENE. THEY HAVE NOT FOUND THE REGULAR TOTE. But we are just hearing about hte regular tote NOW?

 

[Mama-cita]

How far can these defense lawyers stretch their "immunity" whilst implicating innocent people as part of crimes??? This latest Vasco Thompson debacle is case in point. If it turns out his number was incorrectly transcribed in a public records database, and now Jose and company come with guns blazing, trying to implicate this convicted felon who has served his time, of being part of either the death or disposal of Caylee Marie Anthony, I mean does Jose get to just HIDE BEHIND HIS IMMUNITY and accuse anyone??? It seems so ridiculous! And unfair. People are being impugned and this is not a little matter! There is no recourse then? He can say whatever he wants to cover his client's sorry arse?

 

[AZlawyer]

Does the jury know that ICA has spent the last three years in jail? TIA.

They can't be told that. But they can guess.

I'm of the (understandably unpopular) opinion that if I were a juror, I don't think I could vote for a murder conviction based on the case so far. Manslaughter, yes, but not murder. My concerns lie with the fact that I don't think the state has provided enough evidence to prove the death was a result of a criminal act (be it willfull killing or aggravated child abuse). A lot of the arguments I'm getting point out that the state isn't required to provide motive, cause of death, etc. and while I agree that they aren't required to do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that in this case it's difficult to conclude that the death meets the elements of a murder conviction without those things being addressed. My understanding is that beyond a reasonable doubt goes beyond probability or likelihood, and while it doesn't require total certainty, it means you ought to be "pretty darn sure". For the legal experts here, am I wrong in my understanding of BARD? Totally willing to revise my opinion if I am.

IMO you are not wrong that a reasonable juror could say, "I still have a reasonable doubt and cannot vote guilty for murder."

But, but bUt according to testimony, Cindy bought both types. We know there are TWO cylindars because one was FOUND at the home and the other at the crime scene.

Cindy also admits that she had the REGULAR tote in the bedroom holding things and it was kept beside the bed next to the wall. That she took it out after she found a zippered container for the balls. She says she put it back in the garage and she said after LE took the black bags holding the tote(s) she never saw them again.

This is what I am asking: Did Cindy buy TWO OF EACH KIND. And LE found one of each kind in the garage AND ARE ASSUMING THAT CASEY TOOK ONE OF EACH TOTE TO HIDE CAYLEE'S BODY AND LE ONLY FOUND THE CYLINDAR AT THE CRIME SCENE. THEY HAVE NOT FOUND THE REGULAR TOTE. But we are just hearing about hte regular tote NOW?

I think we got this cleared up on the other thread, but there were only 2 laundry bags. One cylindrical, found with the remains. One square, found in the A. garage and seized by LE as evidence. The square one "matched" the cylindrical one in the sense that they came from the same "set," but didn't match in shape.

 

[AZlawyer]

How far can these defense lawyers stretch their "immunity" whilst implicating innocent people as part of crimes??? This latest Vasco Thompson debacle is case in point. If it turns out his number was incorrectly transcribed in a public records database, and now Jose and company come with guns blazing, trying to implicate this convicted felon who has served his time, of being part of either the death or disposal of Caylee Marie Anthony, I mean does Jose get to just HIDE BEHIND HIS IMMUNITY and accuse anyone??? It seems so ridiculous! And unfair. People are being impugned and this is not a little matter! There is no recourse then? He can say whatever he wants to cover his client's sorry arse?

Yes, as long as he's not doing it maliciously. And I have faith that JB has not figured it out yet.

 

[Solace]

they can't be told that. But they can guess.



imo you are not wrong that a reasonable juror could say, "i still have a reasonable doubt and cannot vote guilty for murder."



i think we got this cleared up on the other thread, but there were only 2 laundry bags. One cylindrical, found with the remains. One square, found in the a. Garage and seized by le as evidence. The square one "matched" the cylindrical one in the sense that they came from the same "set," but didn't match in shape.

absolutely and thank you so much.

 

[SyraKelly]

she is being charged with 1 degree murder..can the jury come back with 2n even if its not one of the charges?

 

[Aedrys]

I know he refused to talk to LE, but will the SA get to depose Vasco Thompson? Is he going to become part of this case, or not because he refused to speak to the defense's investigators?

 

[AZlawyer]

she is being charged with 1 degree murder..can the jury come back with 2nd?

Yes, 2nd degree murder should be a lesser-included charge presented to the jury.

I know he refused to talk to LE, but will the SA get to depose Vasco Thompson? Is he going to become part of this case, or not because he refused to speak to the defense's investigators?

I think he refused to talk to the defense--not sure he refused to talk to LE. If HHJP decides to allow him as a witness, IMO the SA will be given a chance to talk to him first.