Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[SoCalSleuth]

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?

No, the forensics show the computer user activity, not the website activity.

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

The same rules apply. Depositions have nothing to do with it.

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?

The possible results of the evaluation were: (1) Casey found competent, so nothing changes (which is what happened), or (2) Casey found incompetent, so has to be restored to competency, which takes too long for the jury to wait, so there's a mistrial and everything starts from scratch when she's restored. The only possible result JB might have been "afraid of," I suppose, would be the mistrial. I don't see how either result would affect whether Casey ultimately testifies.

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.

Yes, if it can be shown that she was aware of the sequestration order.

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

See above.

 

[mobius99]

AZ, how long has the State been working on their cross examination of Casey in the event she takes the stand. Surely the State has been working out some strategy. What approach do you think they will take? TIA

 

[Nova24]

How do you think they will go about the CA issue in regards to timecards as 2 people from Gentiva have been added to State witness list? Call them up and then CA again or just the 2 and let it speak for itself?

 

[ziggy]

Man I love this thread...keeping all the rules of evidence planted firmly in my brain. Yes UKlaw; although the Federal Rules state that a party admission is exempt, meaning it's just treated as non-hearsay, and many state rules treat a party admission as an exception to the hearsay rule - there is basically no difference...party admissions are coming in. I am not a lawyer and I apologize for answering - I'm a 3L and did just pass my evidence final with a pretty darn good grade I appreciate the opportunity any opportunity reiterate any evidence issues because I found it one of the hardest classes ever, but most necessary for the job!

SoCalSleuth: indeed a second year law student would recognize that trying to introduce KC's statements about Lee molesting her through Jesse is obvious inadmissible hearsay.

I caught the end of the trial session today and heard the defense offer up something like a state of mind exception? Then the state countered by schooling them that past events recalled and told to Jesse by KC does not qualify as a then existing state of mind, it is statement of remembered facts and inadmissible hearsay... (I was coming out of a nap so it could have been a lucid dream)

So my question to the attorneys here is: aren't the state's attorneys correct in that the state of mind exception does not apply because it was simply a narration of past events? If so, I though I heard HJP tell both parties to find the applicable case law on that issue and I'm wondering why he would have them go to that extent and not just rule that it is inadmissible.

 

[hpvdr]

If Cindy's testimony is impeached what happens to "And it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car?"
It's not possible for the DT to prove innocence where Casey is concerned so if everything Cindy has said gets thrown out, George looked like he was hiding an affair yesterday, & Kronk can go either way with each jury member, I'm concerned that the Cindy/Lee performance yesterday on the stand might just be what the DT needed. (On one of the threads, last night, I read that ICA handed a document to JB during testimony of either Lee or Cindy as if precisely on cue, where impeaching Cindy's testimony is concerned.)
Thank you for all of the answers all of you attorney's provide.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

When the State puts on their rebuttal case, does the DT have or get the opportunity to cross examine witnesses, if any?

Can someone have charges levied against them for perjury or obstruction of justice charges from their testimony during this trial?

It appears many lies were told and some differ from the depos done...

Thank you AZ and SoCal for your time in answering our lawyering questions...:giggle:

 

[RoKa]

This is a wonderful thread !! thank-you !:blowkiss:

 

[believe09]

Two questions please:
During a recess can the state approach GA to coach him regarding the sexual abuse questioning to come?

Why did Baez let George talk so long when answering Baez questions? I mean, George was skewering Baez.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Man I love this thread...keeping all the rules of evidence planted firmly in my brain. Yes UKlaw; although the Federal Rules state that a party admission is exempt, meaning it's just treated as non-hearsay, and many state rules treat a party admission as an exception to the hearsay rule - there is basically no difference...party admissions are coming in. I am not a lawyer and I apologize for answering - I'm a 3L and did just pass my evidence final with a pretty darn good grade I appreciate the opportunity any opportunity reiterate any evidence issues because I found it one of the hardest classes ever, but most necessary for the job!

SoCalSleuth: indeed a second year law student would recognize that trying to introduce KC's statements about Lee molesting her through Jesse is obvious inadmissible hearsay.

I caught the end of the trial session today and heard the defense offer up something like a state of mind exception? Then the state countered by schooling them that past events recalled and told to Jesse by KC does not qualify as a then existing state of mind, it is statement of remembered facts and inadmissible hearsay... (I was coming out of a nap so it could have been a lucid dream)

So my question to the attorneys here is: aren't the state's attorneys correct in that the state of mind exception does not apply because it was simply a narration of past events? If so, I though I heard HJP tell both parties to find the applicable case law on that issue and I'm wondering why he would have them go to that extent and not just rule that it is inadmissible.

JP already ruled it was inadmissible. JP stated there was no hearsay exception and JB responded that he wanted to do further research on the issue and JP said fine. No biggie. Just preserving the record for appeal.

If Cindy's testimony is impeached what happens to "And it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car?"
It's not possible for the DT to prove innocence where Casey is concerned so if everything Cindy has said gets thrown out, George looked like he was hiding an affair yesterday, & Kronk can go either way with each jury member, I'm concerned that the Cindy/Lee performance yesterday on the stand might just be what the DT needed. (On one of the threads, last night, I read that ICA handed a document to JB during testimony of either Lee or Cindy as if precisely on cue, where impeaching Cindy's testimony is concerned.)
Thank you for all of the answers all of you attorney's provide.

Again, all impeachment means is that the SA (or DT) impeached a witness' credibility via showing bias, a prior inconsistent statement, etc. It is up to the jury to determine if that puts into question any of the witnesses' other testimony--the testimony is not thrown out. I don't think GA was hiding an affair yesterday, he specifically testified that CA was aware of his visits and the reason therefore and I don't believe it was lost on the jury that the DT didn't ask CA to confirm or deny that when she followed GA to the stand. Even if he did lie about it, so what? Has nothing to do with him disposing of Caylee's body which is extremely far-fetched. The DT is in big trouble here. They haven't established squat that was mentioned in their opening (other than the Anthony family is dysfunctional.)

When the State puts on their rebuttal case, does the DT have or get the opportunity to cross examine witnesses, if any?

Can someone have charges levied against them for perjury or obstruction of justice charges from their testimony during this trial?

It appears many lies were told and some differ from the depos done...

Thank you AZ and SoCal for your time in answering our lawyering questions...:giggle:

Yes, the DT can always cross-examine witnesses--the right to confront witnesses is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. Yes, someone can be charged with perjury if they intentionally provided false testimony at trial, very rarely does this happen however. I will state again that just because someone's testimony differs at trial from their depo testimony doesn't mean they lied at their depo or at trial.

Two questions please:
During a recess can the state approach GA to coach him regarding the sexual abuse questioning to come?

Why did Baez let George talk so long when answering Baez questions? I mean, George was skewering Baez.

The SA can't coach any witnesses. Baez called GA on direct--that means he has to ask him open ended questions--so GA is permitted to answer the way he did.

 

[Marigold]

Can an attorney object to questions from members of their own team? For example, if Baez is in the middle of asking a question that could "open the door," could CM or one of the other attorneys jump up and object, or ask that the question be stricken? Or if JA starts to say something that might trigger a mistrial, can another prosecuting attorney interrupt him and stop him before he says too much? Fwiw,I don't think it's allowed, but then again, there are a few things in this trial that have me scratching my head, so I thought I would ask.

TIA

All of you attorneys are the bees knees!

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Can an attorney object to questions from members of their own team? For example, if Baez is in the middle of asking a question that could "open the door," could CM or one of the other attorneys jump up and object, or ask that the question be stricken? Or if JA starts to say something that might trigger a mistrial, can another prosecuting attorney interrupt him and stop him before he says too much? Fwiw,I don't think it's allowed, but then again, there are a few things in this trial that have me scratching my head, so I thought I would ask.

TIA

All of you attorneys are the bees knees!

No, attorneys can't object to questions posed by their own team. In the circumstances you just mentioned, normally what would happen is the other team member would try to get the questioning attorney's attention and if that fails, interrupt him/her in some manner and request a conference with counsel.

 

[Katprint]

No, attorneys can't object to questions posed by their own team. In the circumstances you just mentioned, normally what would happen is the other team member would try to get the questioning attorney's attention and if that fails, interrupt him/her in some manner and request a conference with counsel.

I envision CM groaning loudly, clutching his chest and keeling over, crawling to Baez, grabbing Baez' suit to pull himself up, and then as Baez puts an arm around CM to help support him, CM whispers in his ear "Stop asking questions about XYZ!"

But seriously... I have passed notes to co-counsel, and have had notes passed to me. No biggie. OTOH I have never had co-counsel as arrogant and incompetent as Baez. I have no confidence that he would heed helpful advice nor provide useful information.

Katprint
Who is curious about what in the world Casey might be writing constantly
although she doubts anything Casey writes could possibly be helpful
Always only my own opinions

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I envision CM groaning loudly, clutching his chest and keeling over, crawling to Baez, grabbing Baez' suit to pull himself up, and then as Baez puts an arm around CM to help support him, CM whispers in his ear "Stop asking questions about XYZ!"

But seriously... I have passed notes to co-counsel, and have had notes passed to me. No biggie. OTOH I have never had co-counsel as arrogant and incompetent as Baez. I have no confidence that he would heed helpful advice nor provide useful information.

Katprint
Who is curious about what in the world Casey might be writing constantly
although she doubts anything Casey writes could possibly be helpful
Always only my own opinions

Oh yeah, note passing is very common. Only once did I ever have to literally jump out of my seat and physically and verbally shut my co-counsel up. She was the world's most clueless lawyer--yes, even worse than JB.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, how long has the State been working on their cross examination of Casey in the event she takes the stand. Surely the State has been working out some strategy. What approach do you think they will take? TIA

Oh, I'm sure they have the cross all worked out by now. I think they will take the approach of showing that she is a BIG FAT LIAR.

How do you think they will go about the CA issue in regards to timecards as 2 people from Gentiva have been added to State witness list? Call them up and then CA again or just the 2 and let it speak for itself?

They won't bother calling CA back on that point--they'll just prove her wrong and then tie it all together in closing.

 

[AZlawyer]

I envision CM groaning loudly, clutching his chest and keeling over, crawling to Baez, grabbing Baez' suit to pull himself up, and then as Baez puts an arm around CM to help support him, CM whispers in his ear "Stop asking questions about XYZ!"

But seriously... I have passed notes to co-counsel, and have had notes passed to me. No biggie. OTOH I have never had co-counsel as arrogant and incompetent as Baez. I have no confidence that he would heed helpful advice nor provide useful information.

Katprint
Who is curious about what in the world Casey might be writing constantly
although she doubts anything Casey writes could possibly be helpful
Always only my own opinions

Oh yeah, note passing is very common. Only once did I ever have to literally jump out of my seat and physically and verbally shut my co-counsel up. She was the world's most clueless lawyer--yes, even worse than JB.

A little note-passing from someone on the defense team with a passing familiarity with the evidence rules might have helped JB out during this trial.

 

[faefrost]

Regarding JB's examination of GA and RK today. is being a complete and utter "barsturd" to one or more witnesses in front of the jury something that ever works? Especially for a defense attorney? Or is it more one of those TV drama lawyer things that almost always guarantees failure in reality?

 

[Nova]

Sorry AZ, I did it again!

Please don't worry about duplicating answers. I often find I learn quite a bit from reading the same question answered twice. I know you both (or all if there are more than two lawyers answering) are saying the same thing, but often the slight differences in wording make the issue much clearer.

And thanks again for all the hard work answering questions. I feel like I'm getting a free course in "Law for the Layman."

If you or AZ or any of the other lawyers here ever want to teach, I'm sure you can get hundreds if not thousands of letters of recommendation!

 

[AZlawyer]

Regarding JB's examination of GA and RK today. is being a complete and utter "barsturd" to one or more witnesses in front of the jury something that ever works? Especially for a defense attorney? Or is it more one of those TV drama lawyer things that almost always guarantees failure in reality?

Well. I think you've answered your own question. Jurors don't like, um, "modsnips" for lack of a better word any more than you do.

And there are a WHOLE LOT of things that work better on TV shows than in reality.

 

[mombomb]

What is a charging conference and is that something that we will get to watch/listen to?