Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[Dr. Know?]

I heard one of the TH's yesterday say something like could this be they are recusing the Judge? Could this be what happened yesterday? I'm curious after GR has stated the defense is upset referenced in the below post.

Snipped from Essie's post:

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

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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?

Yes, yes, and yes.

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




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?

The litigation privilege does not extend to comments made to Geraldo Rivera at lunch. However, I don't believe that stating that the Anthony's believed LA to be Caylee's father is defamatory.

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?

The SA could only introduce that search result as evidence if it was, in fact, a search result found on the computer and was accessed, and is otherwise relevant.

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???

They could ask the judge to lift that order, however, the SA would definitely have a say in the matter and it could not be discussed ex parte without the SA present. Ditto asking the judge for a jury instruction, the SA would have to be allowed to be there.

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?

Although it may warrant an ex parte conference, it would not warrant an ex parte conference without the SA present--unless the SA agreed.

I heard one of the TH's yesterday say something like could this be they are recusing the Judge? Could this be what happened yesterday? I'm curious after GR has stated the defense is upset referenced in the below post.

Snipped from Essie's post:

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

The legal pundits on TV are idiots. This is a public trial. A request to recuse a judge, for any reason, would not be sealed. Such a request could not be made by the DT to the judge without the SA present. The transcript would not be allowed to be sealed. It's definitely not that.

 

[curiositycat]

I am wondering about a charge against JB for witness tampering as concerns LA. I was surprised that he talked to JB about something he overheard from GA&CA, without the SA being present.
I looked up this article on the statue that pertains to witness tampering in the state of Florida, but I have no idea how to interpret it. I would appreciate any help you could give as to "witness tampering" in LA's testimony of meeting with JB.
Thank you!
http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net/html/tampering.html

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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




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?

I forgot to add that there are also privileges which exist concerning journalists reporting on trial coverage, newsworthy items, etc. which would preclude a defamation lawsuit.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I am wondering about a charge against JB for witness tampering as concerns LA. I was surprised that he talked to JB about something he overheard from GA&CA, without the SA being present.
I looked up this article on the statue that pertains to witness tampering in the state of Florida, but I have no idea how to interpret it. I would appreciate any help you could give as to "witness tampering" in LA's testimony of meeting with JB.
Thank you!
http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net/html/tampering.html

There are no laws which preclude a witness from offering information to defense lawyers or prosecutors--LA did nothing wrong in that regard. Since LA voluntarily sought out JB to provide JB with info, there would be no witness tampering.

 

[cleo612]

If Cheney Mason became aware that Baez or one of the other defense attorneys was somehow attempting to suborn perjury, or was in some other way making an attempt at witness tampering, would he (Mason) be required to notify the Court of this behavior?

If he would be required to notify the Court, would the State be privvy to this notification, or would this be held in an in camera ex parte meeting?

ETA: If such actions (witness tampering or suborning perjury) were brought up to the Court, what actions could Judge Perry undertake? Would sanctions or some sort of punishment be doled out at that time, or at a later date? Would both parties be present for any of this?

 

[sappysoul]

I'm struggling to understand exactly why there is a perjury law. I've read that nothing will happen to Cindy even if it is proven she lied about evidence while under oath, nothing will happen to Dr. R. even though he lied about his professional experience and nothing will happen to George if he says he molested Casey although he previously denied it under oath. So if I decide to help out a friend and lie under oath can I assume I won't be prosecuted?

 

[D96s]

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?

The opposite is true as well ..... The judge has allowed lines of questioning that the SA didn't want - to help support the defense's theory. So my question would be if the defense changes their theory now, what legal avenues does SA have to "strike" all that testimony that was allowed because it supported the theory the defense now say isn't true?

 

[Purple Iris]

We've heard that the jury leaves their daily notes on their seats at the close of each day.

Once the trial is over, and they are given instructions, I'm assuming then that each person's notes will be returned to them for their use during the deliberations.

Do they also get to keep them once the trial is completely over to use for books, etc?

 

[Donjeta]

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.

Does it have a chance of succeeding with the jurors? I've never served in a jury but it sounds like it would be very hard to be credible if you first say, "The state thinks a horrible murder happened but now I'm gonna tell you what really happened, complete with details that only the defendant would know, so clearly she told me everything and I'm now sharing it with you" and then, later on, "Hold on, forget what I said previously, it's not really the truth, now my client has remembered that THIS is what really happened and you should believe her because..."

 

[Capri]

This is about as general a question as it gets, but thought if anyone could shed some light onit, one of our legal eagles could:

http://ow.ly/1u72ty

What the heck happened?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I'm struggling to understand exactly why there is a perjury law. I've read that nothing will happen to Cindy even if it is proven she lied about evidence while under oath, nothing will happen to Dr. R. even though he lied about his professional experience and nothing will happen to George if he says he molested Casey although he previously denied it under oath. So if I decide to help out a friend and lie under oath can I assume I won't be prosecuted?

No. One of the reasons perjury is rarely prosecuted is that it is very difficult to prove each element of the charge. The prosecutors have to prove that you willfully, absolutely, falsely testified on a material issue. Is Dr. R's testimony that he co-founded the body farm a material issue in the case? Doubtful. Perhaps Dr. Rodriquez' definition of co-founded is different than yours or mine. Did Cindy just remember differently? Did she have innocent misrecollection in July 2009? Did she have better recall now for one reason or another? Did her prior medication affect her memory then? None of the answers to these questions are cut and dried and that's why perjury is rarely prosecuted.

The opposite is true as well ..... The judge has allowed lines of questioning that the SA didn't want - to help support the defense's theory. So my question would be if the defense changes their theory now, what legal avenues does SA have to "strike" all that testimony that was allowed because it supported the theory the defense now say isn't true?

The SA has no recourse. It would be a good day for the SA if the DT changed it's theory during the trial. But then again, the DT pretty much covered all possible bases and then some during it's opening so what cold they possibly add now?

We've heard that the jury leaves their daily notes on their seats at the close of each day.

Once the trial is over, and they are given instructions, I'm assuming then that each person's notes will be returned to them for their use during the deliberations.

Do they also get to keep them once the trial is completely over to use for books, etc?

No, the jury notebooks belong to the court. In California they are destroyed, don't know about Florida.

 

[Papacharlie]

Can witnesses discuss the case between themselves ?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Does it have a chance of succeeding with the jurors? I've never served in a jury but it sounds like it would be very hard to be credible if you first say, "The state thinks a horrible murder happened but now I'm gonna tell you what really happened, complete with details that only the defendant would know, so clearly she told me everything and I'm now sharing it with you" and then, later on, "Hold on, forget what I said previously, it's not really the truth, now my client has remembered that THIS is what really happened and you should believe her because..."

One never knows what a jury is going to do, so it may or may not. Generally speaking, it would be a disaster, particularly in this case where the DT set forth a very specific defense in its opening --the majority of the story which apparently came from their client. Above all, an attorney has to be credible before a jury. Once you lose your credibility, it's difficult, if not impossible, to get it back. Once I had a 3 month defamation trial. DT in opening claimed their clients never made the defamatory statements. Then they claimed they didn't make them but if the jury didn't believe them, then they had a good faith belief in the truth of the statements (which they didn't make). Then they admitted making the statements but claimed they were true. The jury gave us bucketloads of money, especially in the punitive damage phase, because they were awfully offended by this tactic and felt the entire trial was a sham on the part of the defendants.

This is about as general a question as it gets, but thought if anyone could shed some light onit, one of our legal eagles could:

http://ow.ly/1u72ty

What the heck happened?

Can't bring up this page.

 

[kantoo]

I saw the Alford plea mentioned on another site.

After reading a few pages on it i still don't understand who has input into whether on not the SA has any input into it. Would this ever be considered in ICA's case?

 

[allycat1208]

I'm curious as to the defense asking for phone records from the State, that the State got from law enforcement, particularly, YM. Is the defense not allowed to ask law enforcement themselves directly for phone records or other information that may be needed? I assume that phone companies can only provide law enforcement agencies and the court with phone records of witnesses. Only the State can ask law enforcement through the court for phone records and other material needed?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I saw the Alford plea mentioned on another site.

After reading a few pages on it i still don't understand who has input into whether on not the SA has any input into it. Would this ever be considered in ICA's case?

The prosecutor always has input into an Alford plea as an Alford plea is a plea bargain. I don't see any reason why an Alford plea could not have been considered in this case, although necessarily its consideration would come from the DT.

I'm curious as to the defense asking for phone records from the State, that the State got from law enforcement, particularly, YM. Is the defense not allowed to ask law enforcement themselves directly for phone records or other information that may be needed? I assume that phone companies can only provide law enforcement agencies and the court with phone records of witnesses. Only the State can ask law enforcement through the court for phone records and other material needed?

No. The DT can and here, did, ask for these phone records as well as many others.

 

[ynotdivein]

Good evening peeps! :seeya:

Gentle reminder time here: this thread is for questions to and answers from our Verified Lawyers only.

"Thank you for your general awesomeness and dedication, and you are so amazingly smart that it's scary and I am beyond grateful to you for donating your time to help us sleuthers out" posts are also welcome and, I believe, appreciated.

:tyou:

 

[Jorjamay]

Is this Interview not evidence of witness tampering

In an interview with Greta on Fox her Mr Lippman the Anthony's attorney said
"The Idea was presented to her that she was doing a search and a popup came from a UTube site with a skateboarder breaking his neck or something along those lines but she did not write break neck into the search bar...."


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html at about 6mins and 40sec

this is a quote from her testimony
"you suggested Google engine suggested change to Chloroform because chlorophyl was spelled incorrect...yes or no...did you type in on search bar on Google How to Make Chloroform...I did type in the word chlrofom....did you search for self-defense, house holding, neckbreaking - did not -I dO recall there was a pop up there was a skateboarder on rails....recall it saying a neckbreaking feat....is this something you are recalling now since changed medication in 2009?"

 

[kitkit]

By all the post I guess if George gets on the stand and changes his testimony that he did molest Casey seems like nothing will happen to him. What if he gets on the stand and says he was there when she drowned in the pool and helped cover? Will there be a mistrial? Will they both get a slap on the wrist? Nothing tomorrow would surprise me...