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?
JA and LDB would have been assigned by the State Attorney for the 9th Cir. Lawson Lamar. They are both assistant state attorneys. They would decide between themselves how to divide up witnesses based on what they perceive as their strengths and weaknesses.
Judge Perry is the chief judge for the court. Judge Strickland was initially assigned to the case, but resigned after the defense created a drama out of his off-hand comment to a blogger who was in the courtroom. The case went back to Judge Perry for reassignment, and he decided to handle it himself.
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.
Maximum for 2nd degree is life. Not sure of minimum. Min-max for aggravated manslaughter of a child for someone with Casey's background and considering the details of the crime would be 13-30 years.
Do you think if Casey is found guilty she will have a case for appeal due to ineffective counsel? Could or would a defense team appear ineffective on purpose so the client could appeal? It seems like career suicide to do so but I am starting to wonder in this case. Also, if Baez subpoenaed Mr. Thompson or anyone else just to cause sensationalism, can he be sanctioned or punished? Lastly, is a sequestered jury truly sequestered? What is to stop them from reading the paper, talking to friends and family about the case, looking it up on the internet, watching TV programs about the case, etc? Thank you.
BBM: Not yet--still keeping my fingers crossed. Judge Perry is obviously doing everything he can to protect Casey from the effects of her attorneys' inadequate representation.
IMO no defense attorney would appear inadequate on purpose to give the client an issue for post-conviction proceedings. It would always be so much better to provide adequate representation and maybe get an acquittal!
IMO JB did not add VT to the witness list in bad faith--he added him as a result of sloppy work and inexperience, which are the sources of most of his problems.
A sequestered jury is truly sequestered. What is to stop them from doing these things? They are kept in a hotel with no unsupervised access to phones, internet, and family, and with prescreened TV programs/channels.
And to follow up on QuietStorm, is it possible Jose Biaz could be disbarred for repeatedly and intentionally walking over the rules of the court... or for that matter, for his poor representation for the defense? Thanks!
No, not really. Not so far anyway. Disbarment is the "death penalty" for lawyers; it doesn't happen easily.
This question struck me when watching Dr. Spitz testify about his critique of Dr. G's autopsy procedure. I remember hearing about his critiques a long time ago about Dr. G not "following protocol", and it really surprised me that Dr. Spitz could only tell the prosecution that "somewhere" the protocols exist, but could not identify where they were written.
I was wondering - would that not be something that the defense team would have investigated and ensure that the witness would have the information at his disposal or does that cross the line in prepping a witness for testimony?
If that information exists, would it be incumbent on Dr. Spitz only or could/should the defense team help in finding where it was written?
TIA
Yes the defense team should have prepared him for this question! Definitely!
To what extent can the former cases of an expert be brought into evidence?
Usually this is objected to by the prosecution when the defense try to do it (and sustained as being irrelevant). But see my question above, the Defense did object this time the proseution tried it.
However, regarding Dr. Werner Spitz, Bill Schaeffer was saying whenever he tries to testify in another case from now on that the opposing side will bring out the transcript of his testimony (and his - shall we say - far fetched theory) from this case to try and discredit him. Is this permissable?
The judge has a lot of discretion about this kind of thing--basically it is OK if there is some reasonable connection that can be made between the kind of mistake/motive/etc. involved in the other case and the kind of mistake/motive/etc. involved in the case being tried.
Is Dr Werner Spitz only viable as an expert now if ICA is found not guilty.
Is there any governing body that can tell him he needs to retire?
I think he has lost any viability as an expert regardless of the result in this case. If Casey is found not guilty, it will be in spite of Dr. Spitz's performance, not because of it.
No governing body will tell him to retire unless there is a complaint made, and IMO nothing he did on the stand today would be an appropriate reason to make him retire. He's just not a good witness.
Regarding the re-emergence of the sanctions issue and the discovery violations by JB. What happens from here? And what are the possible or likely consequences? Above and beyond any civil contempt findings (which I think are a given at this point) can HHJP also file a bar complaint over this (much like HHJS did in an earlier instance of perceived lying to the court)?
Just how much trouble is JB in over this? And does that trouble extend to any other defense team members?
IMO HHJP is very likely to impose monetary sanctions on JB at the end of the trial and also file a bar complaint. Or maybe he will do what one of our county judges did recently--he ordered the attorney to turn
himself in to the state bar.
What would/could happen if ICA fired JB? Could she make any petitions for mistrial due to incompetent representation at this point? Thanks.
IMO nothing would happen except that CM would have to work a lot harder.
HHJP has done a good job of protecting Casey from JB's errors whenever possible. He is not going to grant a mistrial based on anything that's happened thus far. She will, of course, raise the ineffective assistance of counsel argument in post-conviction proceedings. So far, I still don't think she would win that argument, but only because the argument is practically impossible to win.
Can you explain how the jury will vote for either murder or manslaughter? Are the jurors all asked together if they vote for murder or manslaughter or neither, and then if one person does not concur with the rest, it is a hung jury? A hung jury is then retried? Also, when considering sentencing how is the jury supposed to come to a conclusion if they all do not agree on the death penalty or life without parole? If they do not agree on either the death penalty or life without parole, is the judge supposed to intervene and decide?
The jurors are not "asked" for their individual votes. They deliberate together in confidence in the jury room until they can come to a unanimous agreement. Quite often they will take an initial "poll" to find out where everyone stands, and quite often this initial poll is not unanimous, but after conferring for hours or days about all the evidence, the jury manages to agree.
If one or more jurors still does not agree after deliberation, and the judge determines that the jury is not reasonably likely to reach a unanimous decision upon further deliberation, a hung jury will be declared and the case can be retried.
The jurors do not have to reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty--only a majority decision. Either way, the ultimate decision on sentencing is up to the judge.
AZ, to dovetail w/ Robinez' question which you answered above.....
That means that even if Dr. Rodriguez sitting there today thought *What have I done? JB tried to blame this on me! I'm not going to testify for this defense.* (or something to that effect)
He's stuck with this, right? Have you ever seen a case where a defense witness then takes it out on the DT during direct and cross? Or is that far fetched? :waitasec: Sorry if I'm not stating this correctly.
And thanks so much to you and beachbumming and others who have answered our questions throughout this case. I appreciate it.
BBM: No. What I said was that he would only have to testify as to facts he knew, not as to his opinions, if he decided to resign as an expert for the defense. Does he even know any facts? I doubt it.
Hi AZ! :seeya:
Quick question regarding something HHBP said today about a "possible violation of rule of sequestration". The Judge said it was ironic that they were to meet at 8:30am to discuss this possible violation. Could the violation be Dr. Spitz appearing on news media outlets for interviews?
Thanks! :blowkiss:
No, that would not violate the rule at all.
