Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[SoCalSleuth]

Does the Jury know that the delay Saturday was so ICA could be evaluated or does HHJP simply tell them what the public knew at that time; that there is a delay due to a legal issue?

He only told them there was a delay because of a legal issue.

 

[Macushla]

i just finished watching the first part of Kronk's testimony (I had to go out so recorded it). to me, that was a horrible direct examination by CM. LDB prevented him from making a fool of himself but pointing out Orange County non emergency # was called. CM seemed to be fumbling with pages, not being able to find what he wanted, etc. It was a train wreck of epic proportions, in my opinion.

If any of our most marvelous legal minds watched this, would you please share your opinion on how you think CM is doing.

 

[atthelake]

Many of us have been FLOORED and impressed with Mr. Kronks testimony. Do you know/can you state here who the lawyer is as he had so many issues that WE ALL KNOW of, but he appears to be the best prepared witness for the lay folks I've seen. VERY VERY IMPRESSED!

How did the lawyer do such so well in your opinion/e.g. how would you have made such an impressive difference vs. all the rest of the lay folks.

What would YOU HAVE SAID to Joe Jordan right after his faux pas that he claimed the 5th.

Also, one of the jurors had a trip right after the 4th. Will HHJP approach that juror for feedback, or is it a MUST that ONLY is addressed if the juror sends a reminder to the judge?

 

[Snaz]

Question, please.

If ICA takes the stand to testify in the defense's CIC, the State is limited in cross to only what the defense questions her about, is that correct?

Assuming that to be true, and since ICA has then become a witness in the case, can the State then call her in their rebuttal and ask further questions?

Thank you so much! Y'all are great to answer all our questions!

 

[Macushla]

IF KC has decided that the jury is not buying the story from JB's opening statement and is insisting that she be put on the stand to tell her new improved story - what does that do to the defenses plan for how they questions witnesses? And, if they believe that she made up this new improved story, how do they let her testify?

 

[AZlawyer]

i just finished watching the first part of Kronk's testimony (I had to go out so recorded it). to me, that was a horrible direct examination by CM. LDB prevented him from making a fool of himself but pointing out Orange County non emergency # was called. CM seemed to be fumbling with pages, not being able to find what he wanted, etc. It was a train wreck of epic proportions, in my opinion.

If any of our most marvelous legal minds watched this, would you please share your opinion on how you think CM is doing.

I truly don't get it. Presumably he used to be much better, given his reputation. :waitasec:

Many of us have been FLOORED and impressed with Mr. Kronks testimony. Do you know/can you state here who the lawyer is as he had so many issues that WE ALL KNOW of, but he appears to be the best prepared witness for the lay folks I've seen. VERY VERY IMPRESSED! How did his lawyer do such so well in your opinion/e.g. how would you have made such an impressive difference vs. all the rest, and what would YOU HAVE SAID to him right after his fo pah that he claimed the 5th.

I'm not sure if you're talking about Roy Kronk or Joe Jordan here, unless we've had 2 witness take the 5th today.

Question, please.

If ICA takes the stand to testify in the defense's CIC, the State is limited in cross to only what the defense questions her about, is that correct?

Assuming that to be true, and since ICA has then become a witness in the case, can the State then call her in their rebuttal and ask further questions?

Thank you so much! Y'all are great to answer all our questions!

They can cover in cross anything they could cover in rebuttal. "Only" what the defense asks about will be a huge area of questioning even if they barely ask any questions. SoCal and I (and perhaps others) have both explained this in more detail repeatedly in the last 5-10 pages of this thread.

IF KC has decided that the jury is not buying the story from JB's opening statement and is insisting that she be put on the stand to tell her new improved story - what does that do to the defenses plan for how they questions witnesses? And, if they believe that she made up this new improved story, how do they let her testify?

It would destroy the defense "plan," assuming they have one. But it would be a pretty excellent reason to ask for her to be declared incompetent, in hopes of delaying things long enough to have to restart with a new jury.

Whether they believe her story is not the issue. They can't participate in asking her questions if they know she will respond with lies--but presumably she would tell them that her latest story is the truth. In any event, even if they couldn't participate, she would still have the right to get on the stand and tell her story to the jury without the help of counsel's questioning.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Whether they believe her story is not the issue. They can't participate in asking her questions if they know she will respond with lies--but presumably she would tell them that her latest story is the truth. In any event, even if they couldn't participate, she would still have the right to get on the stand and tell her story to the jury without the help of counsel's questioning.

snipped by me

Is what you've described above "testifying in narrative?"

eta also is there an underlying assumption by the court that the information stated will not be truthful and if so what if any understanding of this is the jury given. (Not that they would need it - just curious)

 

[uklaw]

OK call be a bit of a nit BUT:

I was looking at the Florida Evidence code and something came up. I got to thinking is there another way for the defense to introduce Casey's statements. Could the Defense bring in many of her self-serving statements to rebut those introduced by Prosecution?

Party Admissions are considered an exception to the hearsay rule under the Florida Evidence Code (as opposed to the Federal Rules of Evidence where Party Admissions are not considered hearsay) (Florida Statue 90.803(18))

I have reproduced 90.806(1) below

(1) When a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, credibility of the declarant may be attacked and, if attacked, may be supported by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement is admissible, regardless of whether or not the declarant has been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain it.

So I got to thinking could a lot of Casey's self-serving statements be brought in by the Defense to try and rebut her incriminating statements brought in by the defense under the portion of the statute I have bolded?

I also got to thinking, a literal interpretation of the unbolded part of that statute would suggest that since the prosecution themselves have introduced KC's hearsay statements that they could introduce her convictions to impeach her under 90.610 (not gonna happen I know lol).

 

[AZlawyer]

snipped by me

Is what you've described above "testifying in narrative?"

eta also is there an underlying assumption by the court that the information stated will not be truthful and if so what if any understanding of this is the jury given. (Not that they would need it - just curious)

Yes, this is "testifying in narrative."

The judge would certainly realize the reason for it. The jury presumably would not.

OK call be a bit of a nit BUT:

I was looking at the Florida Evidence code and something came up. I got to thinking is there another way for the defense to introduce Casey's statements. Could the Defense bring in many of her self-serving statements to rebut those introduced by Prosecution?

Party Admissions are considered an exception to the hearsay rule under the Florida Evidence Code (as opposed to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Party Admissions are not considered hearsay) (Florida Statue 90.803(18))

I have reproduced 90.806(1) below


So I got to thinking could a lot of Casey's self-serving statements be brought in by the Defense to try and rebut her incriminating statements brought in by the defense under the portion of the statute I have bolded?

I also got to thinking, a literal interpretation of the unbolded part of that statute would suggest that since the prosecution themselves have introduced KC's hearsay statements that they could introduce her convictions to impeach her under 90.610 (not gonna happen I know lol).

The prosecution has not introduced any hearsay statements of Casey. They have introduced admissions of the defendant, which, as you noted, are considered NON-hearsay. So the rule that starts out "when a hearsay statement has been admitted" is inapplicable.

 

[Nova24]

A grief counselor is going to be called and yet they never even interviewed Casey. That could be a fun cross.

 

[uklaw]

The prosecution has not introduced any hearsay statements of Casey. They have introduced admissions of the defendant, which, as you noted, are considered NON-hearsay. So the rule that starts out "when a hearsay statement has been admitted" is inapplicable.

Oops, my mistake.

That sentence should read: "as opposed to the Federal Rules of Evidence where Party Admissions are not considered hearsay".

The point is that in the Federal Evidence Rules, party admissions are stated NOT to be hearsay (FRE, Rule 801). But the Florida Evidence Code DOES treat party admissions as hearsay and simply groups it along with the other hearsay exceptions where witness availability is immaterial: Florida Statute 90.803(18), quoted in my original post.

So that was my point, for some reason in Florida party admission is treated as admissable hearsay rather than non-hearsay (which is what the FRE does).

Am I misreading the differences in the two statutes here?

Florida's Evidence Code 90.803 (FL equivalent to FRE 803).

90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.--The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
...
(18) ADMISSIONS.--A statement that is offered against a party and is:
(a) The party's own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;
(b) A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;
(c) A statement by a person specifically authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;
(d) A statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment thereof, made during the existence of the relationship; or
(e) A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member's participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.

FRE 801 (Extract)
...

(d) Statements which are not hearsay.

A statement is not hearsay if--

...

(2)Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is

(A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or

(B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or

(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or

(D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or

(E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

...

 

[AZlawyer]

Oops, my mistake.

That sentence should read: "as opposed to the Federal Rules of Evidence where Party Admissions are not considered hearsay".

The point is that in the Federal Evidence Rules, party admissions are stated NOT to be hearsay (FRE, Rule 801). But the Florida Evidence Code DOES treat party admissions as hearsay and simply groups it along with the other hearsay exceptions where witness availability is immaterial: Florida Statute 90.803(18), quoted in my original post.

So that was my point, for some reason in Florida party admission is treated as admissable hearsay rather than non-hearsay (which is what the FRE does).

Am I misreading the differences in the two statutes here?

Oh, I see what you mean. How strange. :waitasec:

I still don't think 90.806 would help the defense get self-serving hearsay from Casey in, because that rule is about attacking the credibility of the person who had made the previously admitted hearsay statement(s). The defense is not trying to attack Casey's credibility by bringing in, for example, her alleged statements to Jesse about Lee molesting her.

 

[tragco]

This grief expert is going to be able to testify and SA have not taken a deposition. JA was told she would only testify in general, but now the DT said they would present scenarios consistent with their theory of defense. (I am sure they will present the witness with a "scenario" that tells ICA's story without her having to take the stand). How far can the DT go with this?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Oh, I see what you mean. How strange. :waitasec:

I still don't think 90.806 would help the defense get self-serving hearsay from Casey in, because that rule is about attacking the credibility of the person who had made the previously admitted hearsay statement(s). The defense is not trying to attack Casey's credibility by bringing in, for example, her alleged statements to Jesse about Lee molesting her.

Self-Serving admissions by KC cannot be admitted by the defense. JP already ruled on this the first day of trial.

Also, they are offered AGAINST a party, and the SA is not considered a party under these circumstances.

 

[allycat1208]

This is in response to Marleysmom: Once KC takes the stand, it would be nearly impossible, if not impossible, to "protect her case."--That's why they call it the right against "self-incrimination"! I can't think of one question the DT could ask that would "protect her case." Did you kill Caylee? Did Caylee drown? Did your dad sexually abuse you? Did you cholorform Caylee? Were you afraid to tell your mom Caylee drowned? Did you love Caylee? All of these questions woud open up the door for the Ashton Express, so to speak. Once she takes the stand she puts her credibility at issue. That would permit the SA to bring in her prior felony convictions, all of her lies, all of the jailhouse videos, telephone calls, letters, all of the media videos showing her parading around with a "Caylee is missing" tshirt, her press conferences with her attorney blasting LE for not looking for a live Caylee, etc. If she takes the stand, this trial could last through July!!

I thought I read a post from another attorney which stated that prior convictions are not permissible because of bias issues. But you are stating here that if KC takes the stand, the State is allowed to ask her about prior felony convictions. Its only allowed because KC is taking the stand? Why is this an exception? Also, in regards to prior convictions, what does "prior" mean exactly? Prior to when?

 

[Bobbarita]

If ICA is going to testify, does the Prosecution get to dipose her before she takes the stand?

 

[uklaw]

Self-Serving admissions by KC cannot be admitted by the defense. JP already ruled on this the first day of trial.

Also, they are offered AGAINST a party, and the SA is not considered a party under these circumstances.

I know. But to clarify that was HHJP talking about the admission by the defense of a self-serving statement of KC as a supposed "admission" (TBH, the very idea of the defense trying to introduce an "admission" of ICA seems bizarre but there you go). I am highly doubtful that a self-serving statement could really be an admission in any event.

What I was asking about was a nuance in the Florida Evidence Code, which might allow the Defense to introduce KC's statements to rebut KC's admissions which the state offered against her in their case (not an admission of SA).

Anyway, on reflection I think it might be academic, since as AZLawyer said, the legislatures purpose in enacting that statute was to facilitate attacking the credibility of the Declarant and, again, it would be bizarre for the Defense to try and attack KC's credibility. Still, if I was in the DT's shoes I might try and offer it as an argument. I mean, there case is in tatters and what have they got to lose by trying.

Anyway, sorry for my digression

 

[beachbumming]

This grief expert is going to be able to testify and SA have not taken a deposition. JA was told she would only testify in general, but now the DT said they would present scenarios consistent with their theory of defense. (I am sure they will present the witness with a "scenario" that tells ICA's story without her having to take the stand). How far can the DT go with this?

It really depends based on the facts of the hypothetical presented to the expert. I think the problem will be if the DT presents a hypothetical that includes facts of trauma/sexual abuse. The SA will jump up and object saying there are no facts in evidence that support the hypothetical. If the expert's opinion is that ICA is grieving a certain way during those 31 days due to childhood trauma/sex abuse and no facts have been introduced into evidence as to one or both the expert will not be allowed to give her opinion.

 

[uklaw]

It really depends based on the facts of the hypothetical presented to the expert. I think the problem will be if the DT presents a hypothetical that includes facts of trauma/sexual abuse. The SA will jump up and object saying there are no facts in evidence that support the hypothetical. If the expert's opinion is that ICA is grieving a certain way during those 31 days due to childhood trauma/sex abuse and no facts have been introduced into evidence as to one or both the expert will not be allowed to give her opinion.

The converse of that question relates to a thought I had.

Can the Defense call an expert to say that the evidence on the record of the behaviour of Casey Anthony is consistent with or indicates that she was sexually abused?

 

[GeekyGirl]

I'm not sure exactly how to word this, so I apologize in advance if it's confusing... In order for the felony murder rule to apply, does the jury have to believe that Casey's intent was to abuse her child vs. intending to end her life. For example, if the jury believes the duct tape alone was the cause of death, and for whatever reason don't believe it meets the qualifications for premeditation, can they say it was abusive and therefore meets the felony murder standard?