Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[SoCalSleuth]

Thank you AZ!!!

I've perseverated over this ALL day to the point of transcribing a VERY detailed post of all the expressions/emotions that I observed today. I think I've finally developed a possible scenario but need some expert opinions to even semi-validate it's potential.

HHJB asked the DT to explain their defense to him... which led to the DT having some serious discussions.

The DT & even ICA appeared to be surprised by CM requesting the sidebar (add to that it would not be recorded - perhaps because no one was expecting it and nothing was decided). I've read that CM was heard laughing but also yelling during one of the closed door sessions. Going on the assumption that CM "yelling" was indeed factual...

Is it possible during their first "all employee DT meeting w/ ICA" before court began... CM wanted to change the theory of Defense since they would most likely be unable to substantiate the molestation & incest allegations but everyone else objected... which led CM (in good conscience as effective counsel) to raise his concern to the judge and essentially force the other DT members to hash it out with the judge?

I would expect that would cause ALOT of fireworks and a major inconvenience to the court... sooo... is it plausible or would CM bite his tongue and just let the chips fall where they land?

Changing the theory of the defense would not support an ex parte conference with the judge and ICA. They can change the theory of defense all they want at any time they want.

 

[bayouland]

Is there any chance of CA being charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, or tampering with evidence? Thanks in advance.

 

[Amil]

Is it legal for JB to go on Telemundo and comment about the case while the trial is going on? The witnesses could be influenced by his comments.

 

[GennyMac]

Thursday, when defense expert witness, William C. Rodriguez, was on the witness stand he stated that he was a co-founder of the “Body Farm”, otherwise officially known as the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility. Mr. Rodriguez has an extensive history in forensic anthropology, but he did not co-found the Body Farm. Both Jean C and WKMG reported Mr. R was a grad student there with Dr Bass, not a co-founder. He also evidently washed windows to make ends meet. Jean C contacted the Body Farm and asked about his credentials, and has reported the press contact there has responded by saying they had no idea why Rodriguez would say he was a co-founder.

This was also the witness which caused HHJP to admonish JB for his intentional act of ignoring the court’s order on discovery. I believe they will have a hearing on this at a future time before or after court.

While this sits on the sideline for somebody to pick up and deal with, JB has filed a Motion for Prosecutorial Misconduct against JA regarding the testimony of said Mr. R. Click Orlando reported what the motion stipulates, however it has not been filed with the clerk yet.

We heard some of the tiff during court on Thursday afternoon. Baez accused Ashton of calling defense witness Rodriguez's supervisor at the DoD, prompting Rodriguez to be told he would lose his job if he testified. Ashton said Rodriguez's supervisor contacted him, and both sides agreed to let Rodriguez go home. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28355538/detail.html

Now according to the exchanges in court, HHJP was also there when this phone call was discussed. Not only that, but JB also informed the court they were filing a Witness intimidation suit against the DoD !

So, not only did JB NOT follow the court's order on expert reports/discovery guidelines, he has had an expert perjure himself on the witness stand, and he now says he has filed something against the DoD, and possibly a false motion of misconduct.

Now this is not to bash the DT. But at some point doesn't JB's inexperience, mistakes, and intentional infractions become serious enough to cause HHJP to do something about the overall case? God knows this Judge has done everything in his power to be as fair as possible, from conducting Law 101, Court Procedures 101, Discovery 101, and even Rules of Evidence 101 for JB, to the extent of pointing out pertinent case law to ensure they don't make additional mistakes.

I am just wondering if this potential perjury issue will be caught, or if it will fall aside with the bigger issue of the discovery infraction and the motion against JA. If it is determined the misconduct motion is flagrantly false, esp since HHJP was with them that afternoon and was part of the discussion about the phone call, would this cause any sanction?:waitasec:

Thanks in advance.

 

[ClockWatcher]

What would happen if ICA said that she wants to testify and Baez knows she going to lie, but is willing to let her lie in order to further his own agenda. Mason also knows that she is going to lie, but knows that it's wrong and says no, it's unethical on my part to let you lie. If she insisted that she wants to testify and told Mason to <modsnip>, would that create a situation that resembled what occurred in court this morning?

Thanks to all you hard working legal professionals who answer our questions!

 

[AlwaysShocked]

The body language of Mr. Mason this morning was interesting. As Jose Baez was standing there telling the Judge that he, Baez, had "had enough of this" and Judge Perry pursed his lips and just let Baez ramble on, Mr. Mason looked down at the desk and had one hand placed from temple to temple across his forehead in the classic "I've got a really bad headache" pose.

After Baez was finally finished and the Judge made his comments, Mason stood and announced he had an issue that "has nothing to do with anything we have discussed". He then approached the sidebar with what I would describe as a "resolute" look about him, both in his facial countenance and in his posture.

Given the unusual early morning meeting of the Defense Team with Casey back in the holding area and then the above scenario taking place, would the rest of the actions that took place fit in with Cheny Mason having asked to be released from the case at this time?

What would/could get Mr. Mason off the case at this point if he decided he wants off? Ethics? Illness?

 

[CarolinaWoman]

Is it legal for for the defense attorneys to have lunch and discuss frustrations regarding the trial with a member of the media? Last night on Fox News Channel (6/24/11) Juan Williams filled in for Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo was a guest.

Top Story Inside Casey Anthony's defense

Juan began Friday's show by welcoming Geraldo Rivera, who has been spending time with Casey Anthony's defense attorneys. "What I learned during my lunch with the defense team," Rivera revealed, "is that they are extremely frustrated that the judge has been limiting them in terms of the witnesses they can present and the lines of questioning they can pursue. They want to try to establish that Casey was so battered down by years of physical and sexual abuse by her father and her brother that she couldn't behave rationally. So you have a defense that is unable to present its entire theory and the judge is being extremely pro-prosecution." Rivera opined that Casey Anthony should not be facing the death penalty: "I believe this never should have been a first-degree murder case; three to five Americans are killed by their parents every day."


http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=latestTVShow#1

 

[AZlawyer]

Could one of our amazing lawyers explain what a Brady issue is and what kind of things or testimony the judge would be looking at to determine if a violation occurred? His Honor mentioned it when JB said that YM testified to phone records of RK and GA - records that JB said the defense had not been given.

A "Brady" issue occurs when the SA has "exculpatory" evidence (evidence that helps Casey) and doesn't turn it over to the defense.

Is there any chance of CA being charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, or tampering with evidence? Thanks in advance.

No, not really. I would be absolutely shocked if anything like that happened.

Is it legal for JB to go on Telemundo and comment about the case while the trial is going on? The witnesses could be influenced by his comments.

Yes.

Thursday, when defense expert witness, William C. Rodriguez, was on the witness stand he stated that he was a co-founder of the &#8220;Body Farm&#8221;, otherwise officially known as the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility. Mr. Rodriguez has an extensive history in forensic anthropology, but he did not co-found the Body Farm. Both Jean C and WKMG reported Mr. R was a grad student there with Dr Bass, not a co-founder. He also evidently washed windows to make ends meet. Jean C contacted the Body Farm and asked about his credentials, and has reported the press contact there has responded by saying they had no idea why Rodriguez would say he was a co-founder.

This was also the witness which caused HHJP to admonish JB for his intentional act of ignoring the court&#8217;s order on discovery. I believe they will have a hearing on this at a future time before or after court.

While this sits on the sideline for somebody to pick up and deal with, JB has filed a Motion for Prosecutorial Misconduct against JA regarding the testimony of said Mr. R. Click Orlando reported what the motion stipulates, however it has not been filed with the clerk yet.

We heard some of the tiff during court on Thursday afternoon. Baez accused Ashton of calling defense witness Rodriguez's supervisor at the DoD, prompting Rodriguez to be told he would lose his job if he testified. Ashton said Rodriguez's supervisor contacted him, and both sides agreed to let Rodriguez go home. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28355538/detail.html

Now according to the exchanges in court, HHJP was also there when this phone call was discussed. Not only that, but JB also informed the court they were filing a Witness intimidation suit against the DoD !

So, not only did JB NOT follow the court's order on expert reports/discovery guidelines, he has had an expert perjure himself on the witness stand, and he now says he has filed something against the DoD, and possibly a false motion of misconduct.

Now this is not to bash the DT. But at some point doesn't JB's inexperience, mistakes, and intentional infractions become serious enough to cause HHJP to do something about the overall case? God knows this Judge has done everything in his power to be as fair as possible, from conducting Law 101, Court Procedures 101, Discovery 101, and even Rules of Evidence 101 for JB, to the extent of pointing out pertinent case law to ensure they don't make additional mistakes.

I am just wondering if this potential perjury issue will be caught, or if it will fall aside with the bigger issue of the discovery infraction and the motion against JA. If it is determined the misconduct motion is flagrantly false, esp since HHJP was with them that afternoon and was part of the discussion about the phone call, would this cause any sanction?:waitasec:

Thanks in advance.

IMO no one will care about the distinction between "co-founder" and "worker" in the bigger picture of this death penalty case. Certainly there will not be any perjury prosecution.

If there was no misconduct, IMO the motion will simply be denied. HHJP has plenty of sanctionable issues to deal with after the trial. He doesn't need to be looking for new ones.

What would happen if ICA said that she wants to testify and Baez knows she going to lie, but is willing to let her lie in order to further his own agenda. Mason also knows that she is going to lie, but knows that it's wrong and says no, it's unethical on my part to let you lie. If she insisted that she wants to testify and told Mason to <modsnip>, would that create a situation that resembled what occurred in court this morning?

Thanks to all you hard working legal professionals who answer our questions!

How would they know she was going to lie? You mean if she said "I'm going to lie"?

Some of what happened today could be explained by what you suggested, but IMO there would have been MUCH MUCH MUCH more tension between Casey and Mason, and between Mason and Baez if that were the case. Also, Mason would have asked for an emergency recess to confer with co-counsel (to convince JB by knocking him over the head with something if necessary) rather than asking for a sidebar.

The body language of Mr. Mason this morning was interesting. As Jose Baez was standing there telling the Judge that he, Baez, had "had enough of this" and Judge Perry pursed his lips and just let Baez ramble on, Mr. Mason looked down at the desk and had one hand placed from temple to temple across his forehead in the classic "I've got a really bad headache" pose.

After Baez was finally finished and the Judge made his comments, Mason stood and announced he had an issue that "has nothing to do with anything we have discussed". He then approached the sidebar with what I would describe as a "resolute" look about him, both in his facial countenance and in his posture.

Given the unusual early morning meeting of the Defense Team with Casey back in the holding area and then the above scenario taking place, would the rest of the actions that took place fit in with Cheny Mason having asked to be released from the case at this time?

What would/could get Mr. Mason off the case at this point if he decided he wants off? Ethics? Illness?

Mason has never been paid for his work on the case, and isn't appointed. I suppose if HHJP felt that the remainder of the "team" could handle things alone, he might be free to go.

I really don't think he would have asked this way, though, all of a sudden at the beginning of a trial day. I think he would have discussed it with the team and Casey over the weekend, or waited until the end of the day at least.

Is it legal for for the defense attorneys to have lunch and discuss frustrations regarding the trial with a member of the media? Last night on Fox News Channel (6/24/11) Juan Williams filled in for Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo was a guest.

Top Story Inside Casey Anthony's defense

Juan began Friday's show by welcoming Geraldo Rivera, who has been spending time with Casey Anthony's defense attorneys. "What I learned during my lunch with the defense team," Rivera revealed, "is that they are extremely frustrated that the judge has been limiting them in terms of the witnesses they can present and the lines of questioning they can pursue. They want to try to establish that Casey was so battered down by years of physical and sexual abuse by her father and her brother that she couldn't behave rationally. So you have a defense that is unable to present its entire theory and the judge is being extremely pro-prosecution." Rivera opined that Casey Anthony should not be facing the death penalty: "I believe this never should have been a first-degree murder case; three to five Americans are killed by their parents every day."


http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=latestTVShow#1

Yes.

 

[It's Not the Nanny]

If ICA decides to take the stand, would the prosecution have to take her deposition first?

 

[kitkit]

Could this Ex Parte have anything to do with George. Lets say George is planning on taking the stand and to say he did do the molestation to Casey. Could he have signed something legal to that fact or even that he helped in the cover up. I wouldn't put anything past that family now. Yesterday on WESH feed I seen at about the 49:30 mark where Cindy gets up goes out of the room. George looks up takes a deep breathe then looks at the attorney says something then he says I read his lips "I'M NOT SURE I CAN DO IT" ....Could this all have something to do with yesterday. Also if George does say he messed with Casey as a child or that he helped in the cover up what kind of trouble can he get into? If he says he helped in the cover up what does that do with court does that get Casey a slap on the wrist? George maybe a year in jail?

 

[BuzzieCat]

If Geraldo is correct and court will resume on Monday as if nothing happened on Saturday (DT intact and all), does that indicate anything as to the seriousness of the "legal matter" that caused the Saturday recess? I guess I would have thought that if it was so serious that the DT couldn't continue on Saturday, there would be some changes apparent on Monday OR there would be some indication that the DT was working on something over the weekend (maybe a motion filed or something like that?). Otherwise, it makes me think that it was just an excuse for the DT not to have to work on Saturday, yet JP probably wouldn't let them get off that easily. I don't get it!

 

[pferrin]

when the lawyers were in judges chambers on sat..does transcription get sent via internet to lawyers computers? I noticed that it appears KC islooking at computer with Sims during this time and Sims closes the computer when Pros come out of the room. Is this legal that defendant be allowed to see transciption of judges chamber? Reference tape 1 Saturday 28:10-28:59 tape 2 beginning at 14:14
***tape 2 shows sims closing computer every time someone comes outof judges chambers then reopens it when they have gone back in..she does this several times. http://www.wftv.com/video/28355927/index.html

 

[Bainbridge]

Question:
If Casey takes the stand, do the rules still apply re: the cross examination (only questions in the scope of direct), or can the SAs ask whatever they want? Is is possible that JB can get up there and ask, "Casey, were you sexually molested by your father?" Casey says, "yes." And there are no further questions. There's not much the SA's can do with that, right?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

What would happen if ICA said that she wants to testify and Baez knows she going to lie, but is willing to let her lie in order to further his own agenda. Mason also knows that she is going to lie, but knows that it's wrong and says no, it's unethical on my part to let you lie. If she insisted that she wants to testify and told Mason to <modsnip>, would that create a situation that resembled what occurred in court this morning?

Thanks to all you hard working legal professionals who answer our questions!

If KC told her attorneys she was going to testify and to lie in doing so, all that would happen is that they would call her to the stand and tell the judge she would be testifying in the narrative (meaning they would not be asking her questions, she would just tell her story). No need for an ex parte conference for that.

If ICA decides to take the stand, would the prosecution have to take her deposition first?

No.

Could this Ex Parte have anything to do with George. Lets say George is planning on taking the stand and to say he did do the molestation to Casey. Could he have signed something legal to that fact or even that he helped in the cover up. I wouldn't put anything past that family now. Yesterday on WESH feed I seen at about the 49:30 mark where Cindy gets up goes out of the room. George looks up takes a deep breathe then looks at the attorney says something then he says I read his lips "I'M NOT SURE I CAN DO IT" ....Could this all have something to do with yesterday. Also if George does say he messed with Casey as a child or that he helped in the cover up what kind of trouble can he get into? If he says he helped in the cover up what does that do with court does that get Casey a slap on the wrist? George maybe a year in jail?

The ex parte conference yesterday could not have anything to do with GA's testimony as the SA wasn't included and the record was sealed. If GA says he molested KC nothing will happen to either of them. (Since when is that a defense to murder, manslaughter or child neglect?)

If Geraldo is correct and court will resume on Monday as if nothing happened on Saturday (DT intact and all), does that indicate anything as to the seriousness of the "legal matter" that caused the Saturday recess? I guess I would have thought that if it was so serious that the DT couldn't continue on Saturday, there would be some changes apparent on Monday OR there would be some indication that the DT was working on something over the weekend (maybe a motion filed or something like that?). Otherwise, it makes me think that it was just an excuse for the DT not to have to work on Saturday, yet JP probably wouldn't let them get off that easily. I don't get it!

My first gut reaction was that it was an excuse so CM didn't have to work on Saturday. And JP did not say he had to research the legal issue. I thought then and still do that KC probably claimed a mental/physical health issue which precluded her from attending the trial that day and she refused to waive her right to be at the trial.

when the lawyers were in judges chambers on sat..does transcription get sent via internet to lawyers computers? I noticed that it appears KC islooking at computer with Sims during this time and Sims closes the computer when Pros come out of the room. Is this legal that defendant be allowed to see transciption of judges chamber? Reference tape 1 Saturday 28:10-28:59 tape 2 beginning at 14:14
***tape 2 shows sims closing computer every time someone comes outof judges chambers then reopens it when they have gone back in..she does this several times.

If it's being transcribed then yes, the attorneys are using Court reporter software (live view or something like it) where everything is transcribed in real time.

Question:
If Casey takes the stand, do the rules still apply re: the cross examination (only questions in the scope of direct), or can the SAs ask whatever they want? Is is possible that JB can get up there and ask, "Casey, were you sexually molested by your father?" Casey says, "yes." And there are no further questions. There's not much the SA's can do with that, right?

Yes, the same rules apply. Actually, that question opens up quite a bit of cross for the SA.

 

[TxLady2]

AZ, you amaze me with your precise and sometimes funny answers! Thanks for your explanation to my suggestion/question a couple pages back.
Thanks to all the lawyers here, this thread is so helpful and informative. I swear, if this trial gets any more complicated and strange, I'm going to quit watching.
Not really.

 

[CarolinaWoman]

Questions:

1. If a mistrial happens (I hope not) does Casey remain in jail until a new trial?

2. If a hung jury happens (I hope not) does Casey remain in jail until a new trial?

3. In either situation, is a person eligible to be bailed out of jail while awaiting their trial?

 

[faefrost]

Another question about that lunch with Geraldo, looking at the full story that JB is selling him there...

Casey Anthony trial: Attorneys decline to discuss why court recessed early
snip-
One theory about the abrupt recess involved some reporting by Geraldo Rivera of Fox News.

In an online posting Friday, Rivera described having lunch with defense lawyer José Baez, who "expressed deep frustration over what he believes to be rulings from the bench that limit his ability to make the abuse argument, however implausible."


Rivera also shared details about the Baez lunch with Juan Williams on "The O'Reilly Factor" television show.

He observed: "He [Baez] wanted that jury to know that those parents feared Lee Anthony was the father of that child. That's why they didn't want him involved in the baby's birth. That's where he was going. The judge stopped it."
On Friday, when objections were raised, Perry did stop Baez from inquiring about marital problems between Cindy Anthony and husband George. He also stopped a line of questioning about why Lee Anthony had, in Baez's words, "blocked" out his sister's pregnancy. The brother had earlier expressed how hurt he felt about being excluded from what was going on with Casey during that period.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,2868459.story

JB is apparently trying to publish through the media a story that he could not get onto the floor of the court. Nor could he elicit out of witnesses. In fact witnesses have seemingly denied this when pressed. So this somewhat salacious story that Lee was thought to be Caylee's father, and was excluded from the family business has not entered the court.

We know JB is not a stickler for little things like rules or legal ethics.

Does a comment of this nature made outside of the presence of the court, directly to the media, and that is directly countered by sworn testimony in the court step outside the attorneys rather extensive immunities from civil action for things that they say in court? Has JB finally crossed the line to where LA can sue him for these comments to GR?

 

[wallflower67]

I'm bringing this quote over from another topic. Another member googled "how to make chloroform" and found this. I found something similar on another thread. I hope the red highlights come over when I copy!

It is possible for you to make chloroform at home. But you need to remember that using this chemical should be limited to as a solvent and nothing else.
To learn how to make chloroform, you will need the following materials: acetone, water, pitcher, ice, and shock powder. The mixture of shock powder and acetone creates a mix that is potent and at the same time dangerous. Shock powder is Calcium Hypochlorite and is used for swimming pools. You can purchase this in hardware or pool supply stores.
To make the chloroform, you will need to put the water first into the pitcher. As soon as you have poured the water, put the shock powder, and use a wooden stick to help dissolve the powder. As soon as you are done, you will need to put some ice in the pitcher. And then slowly pour the acetone in. Slowly stir the acetone while pouring the acetone into the pitcher. You need to do this slowly since there will be a chemical reaction when the water starts to change in its temperature. Usually 135 degrees will keep the chloroform working.
As soon as you are done stirring, you will notice that there are 3 layers in the pitcher. The acetone, water, and the chloroform. When distilling the chloroform, you need to be careful, so you will need a funnel to help separate the layers. Always wear some protective clothing when handling the chemicals. Wear a mask as well since chloroform has intoxicating effects. Now that you have transferred the chemical in its bottle, seal the bottle well, and store it in a place out of children's reach. You will have to put a label outside the bottle just in case you forget its contents. Always wipe the spills with gloves. Use a dispersing agent to make sure the affected area is now okay. If you don't have any dispersing agent, you will need to shovel some sand on the affected area to prevent the gas from diffusing into the room.
If someone swallows chloroform, do not let the person take anything except for milk. Loosen the person's clothing and bring this person as soon as possible to the doctor to get some treatment. Take note of the person's contaminated clothing, and put it immediately in the washer to prevent further contamination. This is very potent, even small amounts of this chemical could lead to coma and even death.

http://howtomakechloroform.com/

Can the SA introduce this search result or recipe as a piece of evidence? If so, do you think they have not done so because when KC (or CA if she is to be belived) never clicked on any of the resulting search results?

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

I feel like we're playing 20 Questions with this ex parte hearing...LOL

Since SS (Judge Strickland) put an order forth that KC was required to be at all hearings, except the old update ones BEFORE trial started, could JB/CM be asking HHJBP to lift that order and allow her NOT to have to be there?? Or, probably not a matter for ex parte, right??

OR...since that whole SS "order" is probably moot....but, along the lines of KC not wanting to be in court....could it be that they were asking the judge for yet ANOTHER instruction to the jury that the defendant doesn't have to be in the courtroom for the trial??? Or maybe it's too much on her mentally, etc???

 

[ami]

Changing the theory of the defense would not support an ex parte conference with the judge and ICA. They can change the theory of defense all they want at any time they want.

But the Judge has been disallowing several witnesses and lines of questioning from the defense because it isn't "relevant" to their defense strategy as revealed in the opening statement. So if they changed their theory and therefore wanted the Judge to reconsider allowing those witnesses to testify (because their testimony would now be relevant to the new defense theory) - would that warrant an ex parte conference?