Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[Spangle]

Since JB is insinuating that the LE/SA had reason to request the paternity test, Can the State bring in a Witness at this point, to explain why they had the test done?

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I searched, and hopefully did not overlook something and am just repeating an 'asked and answered' here.

What would happen if Casey took the stand, and Baez on direct asked only questions, and elicited answers only related to abuse by Lee and George, and stops right there, period! Would the cross still be confined to the scope of the direct examination, and exclude the State from asking anything not pertaining to the abuse issue? Or, can they venture into into other lines of questioning??

Medic

 

[citigirl]

Piggybacking on LongtimeMedic's question...could Casey answer Jose Baez' questions and then plead the Fifth Amendment on cross-examination and through the rest of the trial?

 

[chckmate22]

I have to ask, is it normal to have a witness(especially FBI personnel) to be a witness on the stand and continually interrupt the atty, ask their own questions, and rattle on about things that were never asked? part 2 of this ? is this why the SA didnt call her as their own witness? (AND JUST SO YOU KNOW I DONT CARE IF SHE IS A DT OR SA WITNESS IT WAS AGGRAVATING) thanks as always

 

[sayd]

Does the FBI normally testify for the defense? As a taxpayer, I hate to see my tax dollars going for this! :banghead:

 

[Sea Witch]

Question: If, in fact, Caylee had died in some kind of accident, wouldn't it have benefitted Casey (legally) if she had come clean with that 3 years ago? Wouldn't/Couldn't that have affected what she was charged with?

 

[DIXIECAT]

Here's another question for the patient and long suffering attorneys: What if ICA takes the stand and tells the same story that JB did in his OS, and then she is found guilty. Would that "first trial" testamony be carved in stone, so that she could not take the stand in any "new trial" and tell a different story? (Assuming, of course, that she is granted a new trial.)

That is such a convoluted question... but not as bad as some from the DT, IMO.

 

[theskredes]

Correct. But if there is any basis at all for a verdict of 2nd degree, the instruction will be given.

Ok lets say 'worst case' (for us) she get a verdict of 2nd degree- what is the general sentence for that verdict? And once she gets that sentence- and lets say she is dumb enough to do this- and says I actually killed her- can they increase her sentence or change the verdict at all?

 

[Bon]

It was said that JA afraid defense won't proceed in good faith

Can you blame him?


What if anything can JP do to keep JB in line and prevent him from continuing to do this? Because he will probably keep doing it....

The SA has been nothing but professional and fair but I can't say the same about the DT??? And it just sickens me.........is this our justice system?

 

[1tasha]

In your opinion was the testimony about the trash in the area around Caylee a score for the defense or prosecution. I understand the emotional value of the state's cross, but it makes me uneasy that (to me) it does look like you could pick and choose evidence in all that mess.

 

[hpvdr]

Thank you again for always taking the time to answer all of our questions, I for one appreciate this site with so many people's opinions but to top it off we also have very credible, top-notch legal members clearing things up for us.

So Jose Baez says that George sexually molested Casey since she was at least 8. Does or did Jose have any legal/moral/ethical obligation to report this to the police at the time he found it out? If Jose believes that George sexually molested Casey, I would think that Jose being the stand-up guy that he is would want to protect other females from George, the sexual molester, ESPECIALLY given the fact that George lives so very close to a school....(where I believe he thinks the children who frequent the empty lot, 15 houses from George, deposit heart stickers attend each and everyday.)

I really am being serious, if Jose really, really believes that George is a danger to young girls I want to know why he hasn't filed a police report with Casey.

 

[AZlawyer]

So the things that were stipulated to like photobucket and the timecards of the Anthony's (and were the cell pings also?)...those are entered into evidence, but no one testified about them. Does that mean the jury will go sleuthing into those records by themselves if they have questions once in deliberations?

They can. But the State will make its points about those items in closing.

I know I keep asking stupid questions but I have a need to know from professionals.

Is the defense making a big deal out of Lee not being the father of Caylee in order to make the jury think George is?
If so can the state ask if the fathers id be unsealed?

Yes, I think that's what the defense is doing, and I think when JA objects and acts nuts about it, it only makes things worse. He should have allowed the questions, and then said, "And the DNA tests also showed George was not the father of Caylee, correct? And also that the across the street neighbor was not the father of Caylee, correct?" And he should have acted bored about the whole subject.

Is Baez or the defense team allowed to put George Anthony on the stand and pummel him with accusations that have no basis? Somehow that seems so wrong. Could he sue them for defamation or something else? It seems it should be against the law to do that unless KC gets on the stand and accuses him first.

No, he cannot sue for defamation.

Since JB is insinuating that the LE/SA had reason to request the paternity test, Can the State bring in a Witness at this point, to explain why they had the test done?

First of all, the State didn't ask for the test to be done. Nick Savage (FBI) did. Second, it would be unhelpful to ask him the reason, because the reason was that he kind of suspected that Lee might be the father.

I searched, and hopefully did not overlook something and am just repeating an 'asked and answered' here.

What would happen if Casey took the stand, and Baez on direct asked only questions, and elicited answers only related to abuse by Lee and George, and stops right there, period! Would the cross still be confined to the scope of the direct examination, and exclude the State from asking anything not pertaining to the abuse issue? Or, can they venture into into other lines of questioning??

Medic

Limiting the testimony on direct in this way would limit the cross as well. But the felonies would come out, and Casey's statements of what a great father George is, and her statements to the other inmate about how she was only just starting to SUSPECT anything happened with George, etc.

If they put Casey on the stand, IMO it will be to tell the Whole Story.

Piggybacking on LongtimeMedic's question...could Casey answer Jose Baez' questions and then plead the Fifth Amendment on cross-examination and through the rest of the trial?

No.

I have to ask, is it normal to have a witness(especially FBI personnel) to be a witness on the stand and continually interrupt the atty, ask their own questions, and rattle on about things that were never asked? part 2 of this ? is this why the SA didnt call her as their own witness? (AND JUST SO YOU KNOW I DONT CARE IF SHE IS A DT OR SA WITNESS IT WAS AGGRAVATING) thanks as always

Some witnesses are like that. You have to take control of the situation.

I assume the SA didn't call her because they didn't need her testimony.

Does the FBI normally testify for the defense? As a taxpayer, I hate to see my tax dollars going for this! :banghead:

Sure, they will testify just like anyone else if they are subpoenaed. You would testify for the defense too if you were court-ordered to do it.

Question: If, in fact, Caylee had died in some kind of accident, wouldn't it have benefitted Casey (legally) if she had come clean with that 3 years ago? Wouldn't/Couldn't that have affected what she was charged with?

Yes!

Here's another question for the patient and long suffering attorneys: What if ICA takes the stand and tells the same story that JB did in his OS, and then she is found guilty. Would that "first trial" testamony be carved in stone, so that she could not take the stand in any "new trial" and tell a different story? (Assuming, of course, that she is granted a new trial.)

That is such a convoluted question... but not as bad as some from the DT, IMO.

She could tell a different story in a new trial, but she could be impeached with the first story.

Ok lets say 'worst case' (for us) she get a verdict of 2nd degree- what is the general sentence for that verdict? And once she gets that sentence- and lets say she is dumb enough to do this- and says I actually killed her- can they increase her sentence or change the verdict at all?

She could potentially still get a life sentence for 2nd degree murder.

They can't change her sentence or verdict based on post-sentencing statements.

It was said that JA afraid defense won't proceed in good faith

Can you blame him?


What if anything can JP do to keep JB in line and prevent him from continuing to do this? Because he will probably keep doing it....

The SA has been nothing but professional and fair but I can't say the same about the DT??? And it just sickens me.........is this our justice system?

If JB continues to ask clearly improper questions, etc., JP might have to hold him in contempt.

In your opinion was the testimony about the trash in the area around Caylee a score for the defense or prosecution. I understand the emotional value of the state's cross, but it makes me uneasy that (to me) it does look like you could pick and choose evidence in all that mess.

I agree. And that's why I think the State should not be making a big deal of the puffy heart sticker, which was probably just part of that trash. Obviously not all that "stuff" is related to the case.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you again for always taking the time to answer all of our questions, I for one appreciate this site with so many people's opinions but to top it off we also have very credible, top-notch legal members clearing things up for us.

So Jose Baez says that George sexually molested Casey since she was at least 8. Does or did Jose have any legal/moral/ethical obligation to report this to the police at the time he found it out? If Jose believes that George sexually molested Casey, I would think that Jose being the stand-up guy that he is would want to protect other females from George, the sexual molester, ESPECIALLY given the fact that George lives so very close to a school....(where I believe he thinks the children who frequent the empty lot, 15 houses from George, deposit heart stickers attend each and everyday.)

I really am being serious, if Jose really, really believes that George is a danger to young girls I want to know why he hasn't filed a police report with Casey.

No, JB had no obligation to report this to the police, and in fact has an ethical obligation NOT to tell the police what his client told him. Casey is a grown-up girl who is perfectly capable of reporting things to the police by herself.

 

[azscr4mbl3r]

I know how stupid this sounds. Isn't incest a crime in FL? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the police to investigate it? I would hope so. I understand what the DT is doing. Why are the police backing away from it? If you play music to loud they check it out.. but not incest?
I don't think it should be made public but you have to play the hand you are dealt. I may be just getting old but I think that if they didn't check paternity they would be remiss.

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

They were talking on TV this afternoon & I could've sworn they said there was a nurse on the jury who has had experience in the smell of human decomposition. Do you think this will help during the deliberation of the jury?

 

[Paintr]

According to Dr Drew, Judge Perry was the PA when Vasco Thompson was convicted. Could this present a conflict of interest for Judge Perry? Is this enough for a mistrial?

Thank you kindly in advance for your answer.

 

[1tasha]

Thanks AZ for bringing so much to the table for so many!

 

[Hisimage]

I can't imagine they do.

Sorry, posted in the wrong thread. I forgot where I was.

 

[zoomama]

but I just read on the blog at WFTV.com this AM that the question arose that possibly some correction may have been given for the smothering that Ms Simms has done to Casey during the trial. Personally I feel she has gone overboard with the "tender touches". This is a grown woman on trial for possibly murdering her own baby. Fake tears and all. Could there be a caution given for such overt smothering for crying? I noticed today that there was a distance between them and no close leaning into each other. Has a caution been given? Or could it be done? Thank you for your answers here.

 

[Spangle]

They can. But the State will make its points about those items in closing.



Yes, I think that's what the defense is doing, and I think when JA objects and acts nuts about it, it only makes things worse. He should have allowed the questions, and then said, "And the DNA tests also showed George was not the father of Caylee, correct? And also that the across the street neighbor was not the father of Caylee, correct?" And he should have acted bored about the whole subject.



No, he cannot sue for defamation.



First of all, the State didn't ask for the test to be done. Nick Savage (FBI) did. Second, it would be unhelpful to ask him the reason, because the reason was that he kind of suspected that Lee might be the father.



Limiting the testimony on direct in this way would limit the cross as well. But the felonies would come out, and Casey's statements of what a great father George is, and her statements to the other inmate about how she was only just starting to SUSPECT anything happened with George, etc.

If they put Casey on the stand, IMO it will be to tell the Whole Story.



No.



Some witnesses are like that. You have to take control of the situation.

I assume the SA didn't call her because they didn't need her testimony.



Sure, they will testify just like anyone else if they are subpoenaed. You would testify for the defense too if you were court-ordered to do it.



Yes!



She could tell a different story in a new trial, but she could be impeached with the first story.



She could potentially still get a life sentence for 2nd degree murder.

They can't change her sentence or verdict based on post-sentencing statements.



If JB continues to ask clearly improper questions, etc., JP might have to hold him in contempt.



I agree. And that's why I think the State should not be making a big deal of the puffy heart sticker, which was probably just part of that trash. Obviously not all that "stuff" is related to the case.

Hence my Question. WHY did he suspect Lee? I'm basing this on the reason alot of us questioned wither or not Lee or GA might be. Wasn't it all based from rumors from ICA herself? That ICA told one of her boyfriends the groping story. I ask, because leaving it open, insinuates that there were alot of rumors or storys of abuse that are not being told. Instead of just ONE telling, that keeps being repeated. And the person who told it, the Jury have seen mucho evidence that she is aghm... not extally the most truthful person.

Shouldn't the SA made more of an attempt to put this in it's proper context?