Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[BG4pip]

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.

I can't imagine Rodriquez [or any hired expert] changing his mind so late in the game and refusing to testify. And, if he refused, I think most lawyers -- maybe even CA's lawyers -- would not call him; one would expect he would not be an effective witness.

But, as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. I agree with AZlawyer -- I think a reluctant witness can be compelled to testify about matters as to which he has personal knowledge [e.g. the witness to a gang-related crime who fears reprisal]. But I think a witness with specialized knowledge cannot be compelled to formulate and render and testify about an opinion. [Thus, in a personal injury case, if the plaintiff's treating physician hates lawyers and courts, he cannot be compelled to testify about his opinion concerning the cause of the injury, but like any other percipient witness, he can be compelled to testify about the nature and extent of the injury, and the course and cost of treatment.]

But if an expert hired to render an opinion at trial refused to testify, he would likely face a lawsuit for breach of contract, in which the party who hired him would seek not only reimbursment of the fees paid, but damages for having lost the case as a result of the expert's refusal.

 

[pipkins]

This is a great thread and Thanks to all you experts for taking time to answer

My question is regarding the sentencing. Once the jurors have deliberated and a verdict is reached please can you tell me what happens next?

* Are we warned when verdict is going to be read?
* Who reads verdict?
* What happens then with sentencing?
* Does the judge sentence on the same day

Im not sure on USA law so would love to know your opinion....ooooh and also if I may

* if the verdict is reached in a very short amount of time is this usually a GUILTY verdict or vice versa if deliberations are taking a long long time is this any indication?

So many questions I know and I appreciate your time

Thank You

 

[BG4pip]

'I'm putting the State on notice'. JB said that in the middle of his whupping. Putting them on notice for what?

Blaise

He said he was putting the state on notice that he [JB] was taking the deposition of his own witness. This was a bizarre statement. It is only in the rarest situations that a party would take his own expert's deposition -- for example, where the expert is uniquely qualified and suffering from a terminal illness, and you want to record his testimony so it can be presented as evidence.

 

[doogiesgirl]

AZlawyer-

In regards to the "rule of sequestration" for witnesses, I noticed that JB said he told Dr. Spitz about the video of duct tape overlay on a picture of Caylee video, does that violate the rule of sequestration- as should JB have been discussing another expert witness's testimony BEFORE Dr Spitz testified?
TIA

 

[sappysoul]

If aggravated child abuse with more than one act of abuse (the SA argues that would include 3 pieces of duct tape and/or tape plus chloroform) resulted in Caylee's death, then I think you're right--she would be guilty of felony murder. No prior abuse would be necessary.

There are only a few states at most that allow judges to impose the death penalty over a jury's recommendation of LWOP. I don't know the statistics, but I can only assume it is rare.

<snipped for clarity>

Thanks so much for answering but I'm still not clear. You may have to talk to me like I'm 2.:shush: So she cannot be found guilty of aggravated child abuse only (not guilty on all other counts)? I guess I'm confused because if she used duct tape and/or chloroform on Caylee and it resulted in death that would be felony murder. Do they have to include the aggravated child abuse charge in order to get felony murder 1?

 

[AZlawyer]

This is a great thread and Thanks to all you experts for taking time to answer

My question is regarding the sentencing. Once the jurors have deliberated and a verdict is reached please can you tell me what happens next?

* Are we warned when verdict is going to be read?
* Who reads verdict?
* What happens then with sentencing?
* Does the judge sentence on the same day

Im not sure on USA law so would love to know your opinion....ooooh and also if I may

* if the verdict is reached in a very short amount of time is this usually a GUILTY verdict or vice versa if deliberations are taking a long long time is this any indication?

So many questions I know and I appreciate your time

Thank You

I'm not sure what you mean by "warned." HHJP will announce when he has been informed that the jury has reached a verdict, if that's what you mean.

HHJP will ask the jury how they find on each count, and the foreperson will answer.

Then we move on to the penalty phase if there is a guilty verdict on 1st degree or felony murder. Evidence is presented regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The jury recommends death (by a majority vote) or LWOP. The judge then schedules a sentencing hearing at which he might hear additional information, and then he will decide whether to accept the jury's recommendation.

If there is no guilty verdict on a death-eligible charge, there will be no penalty phase but there will still be a sentencing hearing, which will be separately scheduled.

In this particular case, I would think a short deliberation would mean a guilty verdict. I wouldn't say that in all cases.

AZlawyer-

In regards to the "rule of sequestration" for witnesses, I noticed that JB said he told Dr. Spitz about the video of duct tape overlay on a picture of Caylee video, does that violate the rule of sequestration- as should JB have been discussing another expert witness's testimony BEFORE Dr Spitz testified?
TIA

No, I don't think that would violate the rule. An exhibit is not testimony.

<snipped for clarity>

Thanks so much for answering but I'm still not clear. You may have to talk to me like I'm 2.:shush: So she cannot be found guilty of aggravated child abuse only (not guilty on all other counts)? I guess I'm confused because if she used duct tape and/or chloroform on Caylee and it resulted in death that would be felony murder. Do they have to include the aggravated child abuse charge in order to get felony murder 1?

I suppose she could be found guilty of agg. child abuse and nothing else if, for example, the jury found that she chloroformed Caylee and kept her in the trunk, but that didn't lead to her death. This is pretty unlikely to happen.

Yes, the SA did need to include the agg. child abuse charge in order to get a felony murder jury instruction.

 

[larryphx]

How does Jose prove sexual abuse if Casey doesn't take the stand?

 

[AZlawyer]

How does Jose prove sexual abuse if Casey doesn't take the stand?

Excellent question. I think he was hoping George would admit it.

 

[Kimster]

BG4pip is a verified attorney.

A couple of BG4pip's posts were removed during the verification process. I just restored them. Just an FYI. :kimsterwink:

 

[butwhatif?]

I was watching a show last night on the West Memphis Three. When the guilty verdict was handed down, the defendant was asked if he had anything he wished to say and then was asked if he had been happy with the way his DT handles his case.

Does this happen in every state? Are we likely to see it in this case? And if it does, and ICA says no, she wasn't happy with the way her DT handled the case, what happens then?

TIA

 

[uklaw]

LINK: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYRTwr5nb3g&feature=related"]YouTube - &#x202a;Casey Anthony: Day 22, Baez Facing Contempt Charges&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

Richard Hornsby has stated that it is almost unheard of for the Defense to be ordered to state in advance what their expert witnesses will say.

Given that the Prosecution bears the burden and the defense none does this violate any constitutional principle? It almost seems to me as although it verges on the right to remain silent. Since the Defense is entitled to sit back until the prosecution has presented their case before they decide whether or not to present evidence at all and if so what evidence to present. By making the disclosure order against the Defense it seems as though the Judge forced the defense to mould their evidence before they have heard the prosecution case and deprived them of the opportunity to to tailor and hone their case to challenge that of the prosecution.

Thanks

 

[ijam]

Does it matter if an expert witness varies his opinion on the stand compared to what was in his report?
Dr Spitz, on the stand, stated Dr G did shoddy work by not opening the skull b/c protocol calls for the opening...but in his report he stated "The skull had not been opened, at the first autopsy, in accordance with normal protocols as when dealing with skeletal remains"

http://www.baynews9.com/static/arti...sey-anthony-2nd-autopsy-werner-spitz-0315.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

I was watching a show last night on the West Memphis Three. When the guilty verdict was handed down, the defendant was asked if he had anything he wished to say and then was asked if he had been happy with the way his DT handles his case.

Does this happen in every state? Are we likely to see it in this case? And if it does, and ICA says no, she wasn't happy with the way her DT handled the case, what happens then?

TIA

I don't know the normal procedure in HHJP's courtroom. I know Judge Strickland asked Casey a couple of times if she was happy with the way her defense team was handling the case. Personally, I don't see the point of the question. Unless the defendant is a lawyer, whether the defendant is happy or not most likely bears no relation to whether the defense team is doing a good job.

I've never heard of a defendant saying "no," so I don't know what a judge would do. I suppose he would have to ask the defendant exactly what concerns he or she had--what a can of worms that would be to open.

LINK: YouTube - &#x202a;Casey Anthony: Day 22, Baez Facing Contempt Charges&#x202c;&rlm;

Richard Hornsby has stated that it is almost unheard of for the Defense to be ordered to state in advance what their expert witnesses will say.

Given that the Prosecution bears the burden and the defense none does this violate any constitutional principle? It almost seems to me as although it verges on the right to remain silent. Since the Defense is entitled to sit back until the prosecution has presented their case before they decide whether or not to present evidence at all and if so what evidence to present. By making the disclosure order against the Defense it seems as though the Judge forced the defense to mould their evidence before they have heard the prosecution case and deprived them of the opportunity to to tailor and hone their case to challenge that of the prosecution.

Thanks

There is no constitutional problem. Casey "opted in" to a 2-way disclosure system. She didn't have to do that.

Does it matter if an expert witness varies his opinion on the stand compared to what was in his report?
Dr Spitz, on the stand, stated Dr G did shoddy work by not opening the skull b/c protocol calls for the opening...but in his report he stated "The skull had not been opened, at the first autopsy, in accordance with normal protocols as when dealing with skeletal remains"

http://www.baynews9.com/static/arti...sey-anthony-2nd-autopsy-werner-spitz-0315.pdf

Seems like the same opinion to me. :waitasec:

 

[LoisDenominator]

In regards to witness Dr. Rodgriguez, the defense has been "hiding" some of the opinions to which he will testify. HHCJBP remedied this impropriety by removing the witness from the stand and ordering a deposition by the SA.

If I'm understanding it correctly, this means that the State's Attorney will have one and a half days to prepare for their cross-examination, even though the DT has been preparing on his opinions for months. HHCJBP prepared his Expert Witness reports/opinions court order specifically for both sides to give each other enough time to thoroughly prepare for trial.

It seems incredibly unfair that the SA is at such a disadvantage, purely due to nefarious acts by the DT. Is this simply a situation where (as my Mom always used to tell me when I wanted to stay out past curfew) "life's not fair!" or will there be some other means to balance out the DT's ill-gotten advantage with this witness specifically? If there is no other means, what's to stop them from doing it again and again?

 

[Mohabi]

When HHJP allowed the deposition of Dr. Ramirez to be taken on Saturday afternoon, he warned JB that "lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place", i.e. that he will not allow him to do this again "with this witness".

Does that mean that JB can do it at least ONCE with any future witnesses without incurring in HHJP's wrath??

 

[ijam]

Originally Posted by ijam View Post
Does it matter if an expert witness varies his opinion on the stand compared to what was in his report?
Dr Spitz, on the stand, stated Dr G did shoddy work by not opening the skull b/c protocol calls for the opening...but in his report he stated "The skull had not been opened, at the first autopsy, in accordance with normal protocols as when dealing with skeletal remains"

http://www.baynews9.com/static/artic...spitz-0315.pdf


Seems like the same opinion to me. :waitasec:

Maybe I didn't word it well..
...on the stand he stated Dr G's autopsy was shoddy work b/c Dr G violated protocols by NOT opening the skull...but in his report he stated it was not opened at Dr G autopsy b/c she followed protocols when dealing with skeletal remains.

 

[Solace]

Anyone know about the 8 death sentences Judge Perry Handed down - I am trying to get some information on the cases and can't find anything. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

 

[andalso]

If in the end JB loses his license to practice law, is that an automatic grounds for appeal on basis of ineffective counsel?

 

[Nikki 01]

Could Judge Perry order that Mason take over as lead counsel for the defense since Baez is violating orders, causing delays, and is not very effective?

 

[mysticrose]

At this point in the trial can Jose step down ( or be made to step down) and CM take over as lead attorney ?
Thank you