Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[AZlawyer]

I've been wondering. ICA gets to dress in regular clothing when in court so it does not prejudice the public/jury as she is presumed innocent and should not be presented in jail garb unless and until found guilty.

So the question is at the penalty phase she would have already been found guilty, so is it regular clothing or jail garb?

Regular clothing.

Brave, dedicated .....and MODEST, too! :floorlaugh:

For sure!

Baez was able (for some inane reason he pursued this line of questioning) to elicit testimony from Dr. Timothy Huntington, the "forensic entomologist," that the stain in the trunk did not look like decomposition, and that after 2 years of being closed up, the trunk did not smell of decompoistion, but rather smelled of "garbage."

Does this now open the door for Ashton to have that stained trunk liner, as well as opening of the cans which contain portions of the trunk liner and are reportedly stained with the decomposition fluids, to be brought in on rebuttal?

I really think he has already had the stained trunk liner admitted as evidence. But yes, he could have someone say in rebuttal that it is consistent with being a decomp stain. As for the smell, he has already brought in lots of testimony about the smell and can bring in more on rebuttal, but the issue of the jury smelling the cans will not be affected by the fact that there is a conflict of expert testimony regarding the nature of the smell.

In California, Business and Professions Code section 6068(e) provides that it is the duty of a lawyer "(1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an attorney may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual."

I haven't researched it (yet), but it sounds like lawyer who learns from client charged with murder where body is located not only has no duty to report it, but has duty not to report it. And, in the more difficult case, where client is accused of kidnapping and reveals where victim is, and victim is at risk of dying if not rescued soon, lawyer still has no duty to inform authorities, but will not be charged with breaching client confidentiality for doing so.

I think it is very likely that the state bar associations for different states have reached different conclusions on these difficult issues. I clearly remember a case or ethics opinion like the one Themis mentioned--in which it was determined that the lawyer was not exempted from a criminal statute requiring the reporting of dead bodies just because of the A/C privilege and ethics rules. The criminal statute "trumped" the ethics rules--but, IIRC, the lawyer was supposed to protect the client's confidence to the extent possible by not revealing the source of his information (or by reporting the body anonymously--I can't recall which). On the other hand, I know in the absence of such a statute there is no way the attorney could reveal the information, given the ethics rules.

I know you are probably asked this constantly but I am worried at the comments now surfacing all over the internet. I never once dreamed Casey could possibly get off on these charges but now I am not so sure....
From what we have seen so far do you think she could really get an acquittal? If it would end that way I would be totally devastated....in my heart I feel she will have gotten away with murdering her own child....justice will not have been served. What are your thoughts on how this might end?

I don't think she will get an acquittal, but I think it is certainly possible she will be convicted of, e.g., manslaughter.

There was a tweet from the courtroom-I don't know how reliable it is-stating that two of the jurors put a coat over a monitor. Is this allowable under any condition? Side bar, etc. If the evidence has been up a long time

I don't see anything wrong with it, if it didn't prevent any juror from seeing any item of evidence--so, as you said, if the evidence had been up on the monitor for a while, or if there was a side bar, or if the juror was just sick of looking at it, or had already seen it earlier in the trial, or could see it as the witness held up the item, etc.

 

[azscr4mbl3r]

What do you mean the police are backing away from it? No one ever made any such allegation against George until the defense's opening statement, and thus far not one single witness has been presented to support the allegation. What is there to investigate?? The police already know 100% from DNA tests that George certainly was not Caylee's father.

I don't understand why they ( FBI, OCSO, DT, whoever ) don't just say we investigate any and all claims of sex abuse including incest and be done with it. They DT have been fighting allowing it to be heard IE paternity DNA. The problem is it allows it to fester and grow and denying it lends credibility to the rumor. JA says there is no good faith basis to allow it. I say there is. To clear LA and GA's names.

 

[uklaw]

QUESTION: Do the DT have the "right", or is it standard practice, for the DT to be present at the crime scene investigation/processing of the crime scene?

BACKGROUND
A quote from another thread:

...
There's media footage of Kenney-Baden, Henry Lee and other defense forensic investigators standing outside the crime scene tape while the scene was being worked, because they OC would not allow the defense to monitor the investigation, which, as all of these experts have said, is just not ever the case. Particularly when it comes to an outside forensic pathologist being disallowed from the autopsy, as also happened in this case.

...

I clarified and it seemed that Posters' understanding was that the DT and their experts are usually allowed at the crime scene even if only to "observe".

Here is Bill Shaeffer's take on this issue and the Defense's motions to be present at the crime scene:

WFTV legal analyst William Sheaffer called the motions "ludicrous." Sheaffer said it was unheard of for a defense team to ask to be part of a murder investigation. He also pointed out that the request for a second autopsy was a moot point because either Casey Anthony, or her parents, George and Cindy, would have the right to have that done once the remains are turned over to them, if the remains do indeed belong to missing 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

http://www.wftv.com/news/18288396/detail.html#-

 

[AZlawyer]

What do you mean the police are backing away from it? No one ever made any such allegation against George until the defense's opening statement, and thus far not one single witness has been presented to support the allegation. What is there to investigate?? The police already know 100% from DNA tests that George certainly was not Caylee's father.

I don't understand why they ( FBI, OCSO, DT, whoever ) don't just say we investigate any and all claims of sex abuse including incest and be done with it. They DT have been fighting allowing it to be heard IE paternity DNA. The problem is it allows it to fester and grow and denying it lends credibility to the rumor. JA says there is no good faith basis to allow it. I say there is. To clear LA and GA's names.

Oh, OK. The FBI (which requested the test) can't say that they investigate all claims of incest because they certainly don't. Also, no such claim had been made at the time by anyone at all really, not even by Casey.

I agree, though, that JA should not be making a big deal about it and should have just allowed the FBI witness to say "yes, I tested Lee. He was not the father. The DNA evidence also shows that George was not the father." BAM end of story.

QUESTION: Do the DT have the "right", or is it standard practice, for the DT to be present at the crime scene investigation/processing of the crime scene?

BACKGROUND
A quote from another thread:



I clarified and it seemed that Posters' understanding was that the DT and their experts are usually allowed at the crime scene even if only to "observe".

Here is Bill Shaeffer's take on this issue and the Defense's motions to be present at the crime scene:

No, IMO it is not normal for the defense team to be present during primary investigative work.

 

[Nore]

In the closing statement will the SA. be able to mention the fact that the entomologist was contacted the day the remains were found? I think they should be aware of this. (the Jury that is.).:seeya:

 

[AZlawyer]

In the closing statement will the SA. be able to mention the fact that the entomologist was contacted the day the remains were found? I think they should be aware of this. (the Jury that is.).:seeya:

They could, assuming he mentioned that fact in his testimony. It doesn't seem like an important point to me,:waitasec: but we can leave that discussion for the other thread.

 

[oreo]

They could, assuming he mentioned that fact in his testimony. It doesn't seem like an important point to me,:waitasec: but we can leave that discussion for the other thread.

As a juror, if this were brought to my attention, I would be suspicious of TH being on speed dial, almost as if the dt knew ahead of time that when the body was found the condition would be such that TH would be needed for the defense. Are closing arguments limited to evidence presented? TIA

 

[larryphx]

When Casey is found guilty and we move to the PENALTY phase of the trial... Doesn't Casey have to come clean on everything and tell the jury exactly what happened to try to save herself from the Death Penalty?

 

[beach]

Friendly Mod Reminder -

This is a "No Discussion" Q & A ONLY thread. Please post only legal questions, then patiently wait for an answer only from our verified attorneys.

:tyou:

 

[Robinez]

Hi, I am Robin. Thank You for taking my call

This is a question concerning expert witnesses.

The Defense needs an expert to testify. The expert agree's but then decide's for whatever reason that they don't want to testify after all.. Are they subject to penalties from the court for backing out?

Let's say the State's Attorney subpeona's an expert witness, are they in even more grave danger if they don't show up because they were subpeoned by the State?

Thanks in advance, Robin

 

[beachbumming]

Hi, I am Robin. Thank You for taking my call

This is a question concerning expert witnesses.

The Defense needs an expert to testify. The expert agree's but then decide's for whatever reason that they don't want to testify after all.. Are they subject to penalties from the court for backing out?

Let's say the State's Attorney subpeona's an expert witness, are they in even more grave danger if they don't show up because they were subpeoned by the State?

Thanks in advance, Robin

If a witness for the state or defense was properly served with a subpoena and fails to appear in court the judge can issue a warrant for their arrest.

 

[Robinez]

Hi, I am Robin. Thank You for taking my call

This is a question concerning expert witnesses.

The Defense needs an expert to testify. The expert agree's but then decide's for whatever reason that they don't want to testify after all.. Are they subject to penalties from the court for backing out?

Let's say the State's Attorney subpeona's an expert witness, are they in even more grave danger if they don't show up because they were subpeoned by the State?

Thanks in advance, Robin

Will you please also include the procedure for those that aren't expert's and what happens to just your every day person who really would rather not testify?

Robin

 

[Robinez]

If a witness for the state or defense was properly served with a subpoena and fails to appear in court the judge can issue a warrant for their arrest.

So everyone, including those who are paid big bucks, are alway's served a subpoena? That's the part that confuses me.

Thanks for your response.

Robin

 

[AZlawyer]

As a juror, if this were brought to my attention, I would be suspicious of TH being on speed dial, almost as if the dt knew ahead of time that when the body was found the condition would be such that TH would be needed for the defense. Are closing arguments limited to evidence presented? TIA

BBM

Yes.

When Casey is found guilty and we move to the PENALTY phase of the trial... Doesn't Casey have to come clean on everything and tell the jury exactly what happened to try to save herself from the Death Penalty?

Nope!

Will you please also include the procedure for those that aren't expert's and what happens to just your every day person who really would rather not testify?

Robin

A witness who is subpoenaed is required to testify.

 

[AZlawyer]

So everyone, including those who are paid big bucks, are alway's served a subpoena? That's the part that confuses me.

Thanks for your response.

Robin

If you are the one paying the witness, generally you can count on them to show up without a subpoena.

 

[Robinez]

If you are the one paying the witness, generally you can count on them to show up without a subpoena.

Exactly. And that brings me back to my question. If they are just a paid expert and they figure out that they have a concience after all, and decide not to testify for the defense, are there any penalties from the court?

Robin

 

[AZlawyer]

Exactly. And that brings me back to my question. If they are just a paid expert and they figure out that they have a concience after all, and decide not to testify for the defense, are there any penalties from the court?

Robin

IMO if a paid expert were subpoenaed against his will, he would only have to testify as to facts he knew (e.g., test results), not as to opinions. I've never seen it happen, so I haven't thought about it much.

 

[zoey]

Oh, OK. The FBI (which requested the test) can't say that they investigate all claims of incest because they certainly don't. Also, no such claim had been made at the time by anyone at all really, not even by Casey.

I agree, though, that JA should not be making a big deal about it and should have just allowed the FBI witness to say "yes, I tested Lee. He was not the father. The DNA evidence also shows that George was not the father." BAM end of story.



No, IMO it is not normal for the defense team to be present during primary investigative work.

She also wasn't positivily identified at that point....

 

[PaperTigers]

I've been following the trial for so long and I'm still unclear about how it came to that JA and LDB were chosen to be the prosecutors for this case. Did they just get 'lucky'? Who assigns prosecutors to cases?

Is LDB the lead state attorney and JA is her assistant state attorney?

Why was LDB completely silent in yesterday's trial? It seems she leaves the more aggressive cross examination styles to JA.

How about Judge Perry himself? How was he assigned to this case?

Can someone enlighten me?

 

[bayouland]

I apologize if this has been asked before. What is the minimum/maximum sentence for 2nd degree murder and aggravated manslaughter in Florida? I am trying to look this up but not finding the answer.