Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[beachbumming]

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?

I can't believe this judge will allow an expert to say ICA's behavior is indicative of or consistent with sexual abuse without some kind of evidence that actual abuse occurred. Would the state then bring on an expert to rebut that and offer an opinion that her actions were inconsistent with abuse and/or consistent with consciousness of guilt? There may be some judge out there that would allow that kind of testimony but I can't see this judge allowing that.

 

[uklaw]

I can't believe this judge will allow an expert to say ICA's behavior is indicative of or consistent with sexual abuse without some kind of evidence that actual abuse occurred. Would the state then bring on an expert to rebut that and offer an opinion that her actions were inconsistent with abuse and/or consistent with consciousness of guilt? There may be some judge out there that would allow that kind of testimony but I can't see this judge allowing that.

Thanks, is there any guidance or anything as to what expert psych testimony can get in? Or is it just Frye/Daubert standards?

 

[coloradoteacher]

My question is about the felony murder as well.. the SA did not list felony murder as one of the charges. Many TH's are saying that ICA can be convicted of felony murder instead of first degree murder. If it is not listed as one of the charges, can the jury judge her guilt on this? Thanks as always for your wonderful help!!!

 

[Bobbarita]

After the verdict, is there a break for the jurors before the penalty phase begins? Do the jurors remain sequestered (if there's a break)? What role does the judge play in the penalty phase? Thanks for answering my questions.

 

[beachbumming]

Thanks, is there any guidance or anything as to what expert psych testimony can get in? Or is it just Frye/Daubert standards?

FL Rules of Evidence 90.702 Expert Testimony. Courts apply the Frye/general acceptance test.

 

[uklaw]

FL Rules of Evidence 90.702 Expert Testimony. Courts apply the Frye/general acceptance test.

Yeah, but if the Defense could find an expert who met the 702/Frye standards who would testify as to sexual abuse based upon Casey's behaviours would the defense be able to get the testimony in or are there more hurdles?

The only reason I ask is you said you didn't think this judge would allow such expert testimony in.

TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

After the verdict, is there a break for the jurors before the penalty phase begins? Do the jurors remain sequestered (if there's a break)? What role does the judge play in the penalty phase? Thanks for answering my questions.

It's up to HHJP whether there is a break and, if so, whether the jurors will remain sequestered during the break.

In Florida, the jury makes a recommendation as to the penalty in a capital case, but the judge makes the final decision.

My question is about the felony murder as well.. the SA did not list felony murder as one of the charges. Many TH's are saying that ICA can be convicted of felony murder instead of first degree murder. If it is not listed as one of the charges, can the jury judge her guilt on this? Thanks as always for your wonderful help!!!

Yes, there will be an instruction on felony murder. HHJP already mentioned this.

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?

First of all, if the jury believes the duct tape caused death, I don't know how they would manage to find no premeditation. But assuming that happened, they could find aggravated child abuse (and felony murder) without finding an "intent to abuse"--just an intent to commit the acts that, by law, constitute abuse would be enough intent.

But from the current state of Florida law, it looks like the jury might have to find more than one act of abuse to use agg. child abuse as the basis for a felony murder verdict.

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

No way.

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?

Yes, the prior convictions are only allowed if Casey takes the stand. The purpose of admitting the convictions would be to show that Casey's testimony should not be trusted, so she has to give testimony before the convictions can be admitted.

For purposes of cross-examination, I believe "prior" means "prior to testifying." For purposes of sentencing enhancement in Florida, I believe "prior" means "prior to committing the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced."

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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?

Yes, it is allowed because KC is taking the stand. Exception because when she testifies she puts her credibility at issue and one is allowed to impeach a witness' credibility be proving prior felony convictions. Prior means prior to her taking the stand but not so long ago in time that it's no longer relevant.

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

No.

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

The SA is allowed to introduce KC's out of court statements but the defense is not.

Thanks, is there any guidance or anything as to what expert psych testimony can get in? Or is it just Frye/Daubert standards?

The testimony has to be relevant on a material issue in the case. There has to be a foundation laid for the admission of the testimony. In other words, the testimony has to meet the admissibility requirements of evidence, just the same as any other evidence.

After the verdict, is there a break for the jurors before the penalty phase begins? Do the jurors remain sequestered (if there's a break)? What role does the judge play in the penalty phase? Thanks for answering my questions.

No and yes. The same role he plays in the case-in-chief.

 

[Beccaboo]

Do the rules of cross apply to ICA if she takes the stand or since they do not get to depose her, does the state have lee way with the questions they ask her?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Sorry AZ, I did it again!

 

[TiaM]

First, let me thank you all again for so patiently answering all these questions - and in such a timely manner!

My question is this. ICA's competancy issue. Saturday morning, CM wanted a sidebar to discuss this (as we now know). Baez' body language spoke volumes. Then, when the DT went into chambers with the judge, Baez was so reluctant he looked like he was dragging his feet. Again they came out, brought the State back up to sidebar, and again, JB drew CM back from the group to talk - they clearly were on different sides of the coin. The whole group went into chambers. When they came out Baez was completely dejected.

This all tells me that Baez was completely opposed to what CM was proposing - the competancy evaluation. Now, does that mean that Baez DOES want ICA to take the stand or DOES NOT want her to? I'm thinking he does, because I have to trust that CM with 40 years experience has to have told her (and Baez) that it's virtually putting the needle in her arm if she testifies.

So, if Baez DOES want her to testify, what was he afraid would be the result of what CM was proposing as far as the evaluation?

Can you speculate?

 

[cluciano63]

Does Florida have laws and evidence guidelines that seem to be stricter and more slanted toward the prosecution that most or does it just seem that way to me? It does seem very difficult for the defense to get anything or anyone in to testify. I know a lot of that is due to the quality of the defense, but just wondered if the laws are tougher, being that Florida is known to be a tough-on-crime DP state.

 

[beachbumming]

Yeah, but if the Defense could find an expert who met the 702/Frye standards who would testify as to sexual abuse based upon Casey's behaviours would the defense be able to get the testimony in or are there more hurdles?

The only reason I ask is you said you didn't think this judge would allow such expert testimony in.

TIA

I believe the DT said the expert has not talked with ICA, so additional hurdles might include a hearing to determine the basis for the opinion. It might be deemed appropriate that the expert, before rendering an opinion, interview ICA. If that occurred its possible the state could ask that one of their experts be allowed to evaluate ICA. I'm sure there could be other hurdles as well.

 

[CathyR]

Neither one of these things are easily provable. The State might be able to prove that CA was wrong, but that is different from proving that she was intentionally lying.

Didn't the computer expert say that the web site reloads at what ever rate it is set to reload? If CA searched the stuff before she went to work and walked away from the computer without logging off the page and went to work wouldn't the pages reload showing constant activity when actually there isn't any?

 

[LEFT-COASTER]

Ok.. I have a question.. .. If River Cruz or what ever her name is today.. .. Is suppost to testify.. but she has been spouting off about how ticked off she is after hearing GA's testimony today.... Can't she get in trouble for watching the trial.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

How does Witness Sequestration work when a trial is televised and all the news stations are carrying it. What happens if someone just comes up and tells you about testimony they heard at the trial?

 

[Katprint]

How does Witness Sequestration work when a trial is televised and all the news stations are carrying it. What happens if someone just comes up and tells you about testimony they heard at the trial?

It's basically the honor system, like filing an income tax return or submitting a mortgage application to a bank. The sequestered witnesses who have not yet testified are excluded from the courtroom itself and are ordered not to watch the trial on TV nor to discuss the case with anyone. They *can* violate the court's order, same as people *can* put false information on their tax returns or on their mortgage application, or steal their friends/relatives checks and fraudulently forge their friends/relatives' signature, or murder their child, or otherwise do things against the law.

As far as a sequestered witness having to deal with some busybody who insisted on telling them about the trial testimony, I would expect the witness to respond the same as if excessively persistent religious zealots or political extremists were trying to tell them all about something they didn't want to hear about. Plus, the witnesses have all had their depositions taken so there really isn't all that much danger of their testimony being changed by such a busybody.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[LEFT-COASTER]

It's basically the honor system, like filing an income tax return or submitting a mortgage application to a bank. The sequestered witnesses who have not yet testified are excluded from the courtroom itself and are ordered not to watch the trial on TV nor to discuss the case with anyone. They *can* violate the court's order, same as people *can* put false information on their tax returns or on their mortgage application, or steal their friends/relatives checks and fraudulently forge their friends/relatives' signature, or murder their child, or otherwise do things against the law.

As far as a sequestered witness having to deal with some busybody who insisted on telling them about the trial testimony, I would expect the witness to respond the same as if excessively persistent religious zealots or political extremists were trying to tell them all about something they didn't want to hear about. Plus, the witnesses have all had their depositions taken so there really isn't all that much danger of their testimony being changed by such a busybody.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Do you think JP will do anything to river cruz if her interviews tonite with news people are shown to him that she watched GA testify

 

[jordibcbc]

RE: The difference between the back to back testimony of LA & CA today.

Many commentators, while saying that this shows one of them is lying, and seem shocked, no one seems to have considered whether this was deliberate on JB's part. (CA has talked to him in recent days and maybe LA has also.)

I've been wondering if this discrepancy in testimony was deliberately presented by JB today as a means to show how untrustworthy this family is so he can use it later to show that the family cannot be trusted when and if they testify about Casey not being abused.

I know it is not OK for a lawyer to put their client on the stand if they know they will lie, but is it OK to put a witness on the stand if you know they will lie? It would seem that someone was lying - LA or CA. I don't see how JB didn't know how and why this testimony discrepancy would happen since he has been talking to the family.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Does Florida have laws and evidence guidelines that seem to be stricter and more slanted toward the prosecution that most or does it just seem that way to me? It does seem very difficult for the defense to get anything or anyone in to testify. I know a lot of that is due to the quality of the defense, but just wondered if the laws are tougher, being that Florida is known to be a tough-on-crime DP state.

No, the rules of evidence in every state are pretty much the same. Since the inception of the trial the defense has attempted to get evidence in that simply is not admissible--that is why it looks that way to you, imho. Today was a perfect example: Jessie Grund testifying what CA told him about LA. That is classic hearsay --seriously, a second year law student would know this.

RE: The difference between the back to back testimony of LA & CA today.

Many commentators, while saying that this shows one of them is lying, and seem shocked, no one seems to have considered whether this was deliberate on JB's part. (CA has talked to him in recent days and maybe LA has also.)

I've been wondering if this discrepancy in testimony was deliberately presented by JB today as a means to show how untrustworthy this family is so he can use it later to show that the family cannot be trusted when and if they testify about Casey not being abused.

I know it is not OK for a lawyer to put their client on the stand if they know they will lie, but is it OK to put a witness on the stand if you know they will lie? It would seem that someone was lying - LA or CA. I don't see how JB didn't know how and why this testimony discrepancy would happen since he has been talking to the family.

Just because people testify differently about the same events doesn't mean either one of them is lying. In California we have a standard jury instruction that is given in every trial about "innnocent misrecollection". There's no question that JB knew that CA and LA would testify differently--that doesn't mean he knew one of them was lying --how would he know--he wasn't there.