Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[Themis]

while deliberating does the jury get transcripts of the jailhouse phone calls, depos, police interviews, etc... for refer back to during their deliberations? or do they have to rely solely on the notes they may or may not have taken during the trial?

They rely on their notes of the testimony. They do not get transcripts, depos, police interviews etc.. They have the admitted physical evidence, their notes and their memories. They can come back and ask that some particular testimony be read back to them, but that is not common.

 

[megsy]

This is my favorite thread here. Thank you guys so much for taking the time to answer.

I keep getting stuck on hearsay. How was Krystal Holloway's testimony about what George said to her not considered hearsay? Is there an exception when it goes to impeaching a testimony? Is this why the stipulation was made/read to the jury?

 

[Themis]

Will HHJP ask ICA if she wants to testify after the defense rests? Can he ask her again after the state does the rebuttal case?

That is kind of a local practice question but I would expect to see HHJP ask JB if he has any more witnesses. It would be before defense rests. Then, after any state rebuttal witnesses, defense may be offered a chance to present another witness but only relevant to what was in the rebuttal, not for their case in chief. The term for that is "surrebuttal." Surrebuttal is only in response to the rebuttal and not for new issues that should have been presented in a case-in-chief. If that happens and it is new information, the judge could allow the case-in-chief to be reopened. Again, any of those are not common.

 

[Themis]

This is my favorite thread here. Thank you guys so much for taking the time to answer.

I keep getting stuck on hearsay. How was Krystal Holloway's testimony about what George said to her not considered hearsay? Is there an exception when it goes to impeaching a testimony? Is this why the stipulation was made/read to the jury?

Hi Megsy,
Here's the rule.

Statement of the rule: The rule against hearsay prohibits out-of-court statements from being offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Most people get stuck on the first part of the definition, that it prohibits out-of-court statements. It does that but only if that statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. That is why there was an instruction from the judge that the statements could not be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement -- that the mode and manner of the death was that it was an accident that spun out of control with the cover-up. So, if it didn't meet that definition, it is not hearsay. Because the statement was being used to impeach George Anthony, and the jury is prohibited from using it to prive the mode and manner of death, it is not hearsay.

 

[bonniez451]

As the end is near I just want to give an heartfelt Thank You for the time you have taken to answer questions.
Thank You!

 

[megsy]

Hi Megsy,
Here's the rule.

Statement of the rule: The rule against hearsay prohibits out-of-court statements from being offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Most people get stuck on the first part of the definition, that it prohibits out-of-court statements. It does that but only if that statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. That is why there was an instruction from the judge that the statements could not be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement -- that the mode and manner of the death was that it was an accident that spun out of control with the cover-up. So, if it didn't meet that definition, it is not hearsay. Because the statement was being used to impeach George Anthony, and the jury is prohibited from using it to prive the mode and manner of death, it is not hearsay.

I think this finally clicked for me. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer that.

Can you explain what you think Baez was nitpicking about over that stipulation?

 

[Themis]

I think this finally clicked for me. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer that.

Can you explain what you think Baez was nitpicking about over that stipulation?

JB was arguing there was evidence in the case of accidental death. JA said there was not. I'm sorry, I was out of the room at the time so I can't be more specific.

 

[beachbumming]

Thanks,

Just as an addendum. Didn't the defense HAVE to ensure that she didn't speak to ICA first of all because otherwise any opinion would be based upon what Casey told her and inadmissable as based on hearsay?

I think that was one of the issues that came up with the two psychiatrists IIRC.

The admission of grief expert testimony in the DT's CIC seemed a bit strange. I would think it more likely to come up during the penalty phase. Whether or not the expert could testify as to an opinion based on examining the defendant would depend. Would this judge view it as some type of "syndrome" testimony e.g. BWS even though there is no affirmative defense in this case? I don't know. I would have to look at FL law on this.

 

[TxLady2]

Hi Megsy,
Here's the rule.

Statement of the rule: The rule against hearsay prohibits out-of-court statements from being offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Most people get stuck on the first part of the definition, that it prohibits out-of-court statements. It does that but only if that statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. That is why there was an instruction from the judge that the statements could not be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement -- that the mode and manner of the death was that it was an accident that spun out of control with the cover-up. So, if it didn't meet that definition, it is not hearsay. Because the statement was being used to impeach George Anthony, and the jury is prohibited from using it to prive the mode and manner of death, it is not hearsay.

THANK YOU!! I think I asked a similar question awhile back and never saw the answer, although I may have missed it. You've explained it pretty well, that was one thing I've never been clear on.

This is my favorite thread, too, because we can't argue with the lawyers and you all are so good at explaining things, it really helps me understand.

 

[believe09]

Follow up-I noticed the DT surrounded Holloway during the recess that was called. One member of the DT had a laptop. Were they coaching her?

And was Ashton deliberately walking in front of her and around her during that same recess?

 

[concentric]

What's going on with the AF document that ICA agreed with yesterday a.m.?

 

[smartsass]

What's Casey's 11th hour for giving testimony? If everyone has wrapped and things are about to be handed over to the jury, can she at the last moment, say she wants to speak?

 

[LinasK]

Forgive me if this has already been asked but, why is Krystal Holloway's testimony as to what George told her allowed? Isn't that considered Hearsay??:waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

Was a decision reached in regards to Jesse? I read on here that it wasn't allowed in but all the news shows are acting like a decision wasn't made as of yet. I don't however think he was at courthouse today so maybe they really were told it wasn't admissable. I know judge wants to give DT some leeway but his testimony really shouldn't be allowed.

I'd like to see River not be able to testify but I think the judge will let it in regardless. I am curious to see if State fights it knowing she listening to his testimony.

I haven't heard any ruling on Jesse yet, but the defense has rested, so I assume a ruling was made (quite properly) precluding his testimony and we just missed it.

When Baez questioned George yesterday, about molesting his daughter, and George answered the question, by saying, I would never do something like that to my daughter, and Baez said, " you would never admit it would you". If George answered, by saying, "Sir, that is a complete fabrication by my daughter, and even you Mr. Baez have admitted that my daughter is a liar" Would there have been repercussions to that statement? I know they had a sidebar, as someone mentioned, that if George said, "I think my daughter is guilty", it would have been grounds for a Mistrial.

If the Defense knows they are on a sinking ship, wouldn't it be easy for them to purposely provoke circumstances, to declare a Mistrial? As one of the legal TH's mentioned last night, Their best scenario, would be for her, not to take the stand, have a mistrial, and get to do it all over again, without the lame OS by Counsel.

Thanks to all our Legal Experts here. What a great resource, to have you on board!

It wouldn't cause a mistrial if George said Casey was a liar or that he thought she was guilty. He certainly implied those things. If he had said them outright, there is some possibility that HHJP would have instructed the jury to disregard the statements as irrelevant.

I agree that a mistrial would be the best result for the defense team at this point, because the opening statement was so idiotic. But HHJP is making it his #1 goal to avoid a mistrial, and thus far he is doing a good job. Presumably, the defense team will not intentionally and obviously cause a mistrial, because they like having law licenses and not being in jail.

Follow up-I noticed the DT surrounded Holloway during the recess that was called. One member of the DT had a laptop. Were they coaching her?

And was Ashton deliberately walking in front of her and around her during that same recess?

By "coaching" I don't know if you mean what I mean. I'm sure they might have been reviewing her testimony with her, asking clarifying questions, etc. That's not coaching and is not improper.

And Ashton might have been subtly pointing out that he was gonna "own" that witness just like the others, but that might be subconscious on his part.

What's going on with the AF document that ICA agreed with yesterday a.m.?

No ruling yet. Probably we won't hear a ruling on that one until the bitter end.

What's Casey's 11th hour for giving testimony? If everyone has wrapped and things are about to be handed over to the jury, can she at the last moment, say she wants to speak?

I guess she could. HHJP would not be required to agree at that point, but IMO he would probably let her testify and give the state a "mini-rebuttal" afterward if anything new came up. Actually, looking back at your question, it sounds like you're talking about after closing arguments. After closing, I don't think he would allow her to testify.

Forgive me if this has already been asked but, why is Krystal Holloway's testimony as to what George told her allowed? Isn't that considered Hearsay??:waitasec:

Themis answered this one earlier on this same page.

 

[CarolinaWoman]

When the State has their rebuttal is the Defense allowed to rebut the State's rebuttal calling witnesses again?

Thank you for your help to any dumb question I may ask.

 

[cluciano63]

What would happen if the defense did cause a mistrial? I mean, CM seems to be ready to retire and JB can only do the world of crime a favor by changing careers. If they paid a fine and spent a few weeks in jail...maybe it would be worth it to JB? Especially if he pretended he did it in error, which might fly since he is so incompetent? If he were to blurt something out in front of the jurors even now that was extreme and ridiculous, or if Casey did, for example?

 

[AZlawyer]

When the State has their rebuttal is the Defense allowed to rebut the State's rebuttal calling witnesses again?

Thank you for your help to any dumb question I may ask.

Very unlikely but technically possible if something new comes up in rebuttal.

What would happen if the defense did cause a mistrial? I mean, CM seems to be ready to retire and JB can only do the world of crime a favor by changing careers. If they paid a fine and spent a few weeks in jail...maybe it would be worth it to JB? Especially if he pretended he did it in error, which might fly since he is so incompetent? If he were to blurt something out in front of the jurors even now that was extreme and ridiculous, or if Casey did, for example?

I just really don't think this is going to happen at this point. The defense team must have known for a long time now that the opening statement was a dumb move. CM said as much in a sidebar. They are attempting to make the best of it.

 

[uklaw]

I was reading Angrand v. Key a Florida case quoted about Grief experts and read this comment:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?about=16333454381525465298&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1

[W]e recognize that the experience, age, and other relevant information about the jurors or the facts in a particular case could provide a basis for the trial judge to conclude that [an expert] or person with similar expertise, training and education would assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in deciding the appropriate damages.

The trial court should exercise its discretion so that only expert testimony which will assist the trier of fact is admitted. An expert's testimony should not be admitted merely to relay matters which are within the common experience of the jurors or to summarize what the expert has been told by lay witnesses.

QUESTION: Do courts in Florida/America base there decision on whether or not to allow expert testimony on a particular matter on whether or not the jurors in that particular case have experience in the witnesses area of expertise? I.e. will the court say "these jurors all state they have experience of a dead body, I will not allow this expert to testify" or "some haven't dealt with grief I will allow this witness to testify"?

Sorry, it just seems weird. Especially coming from the UK where don't have jury selection like you guys do.

 

[AZlawyer]

I was reading Angrand v. Key a Florida case quoted about Grief experts and read this comment:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?about=16333454381525465298&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1






QUESTION: Do courts in Florida/America base there decision on whether or not to allow expert testimony on a particular matter on whether or not the jurors in that particular case have experience in the witnesses area of expertise? I.e. will the court say "these jurors all state they have experience of a dead body, I will not allow this expert to testify" or "some haven't dealt with grief I will allow this witness to testify"?

Sorry, it just seems weird. Especially coming from the UK where don't have jury selection like you guys do.

Considering the experience of the specific jurors is rare. The only way it would normally come up is if the judge is going to refuse the expert testimony ANYWAY and then, as just one of the reasons to justify his decision, he might say, "In addition, these jurors were asked about their experience with XYZ in voir dire, so we know we have jurors with experience with that situation."

 

[JBounds]

How will the appeals process work in this case? Meaning if the jury comes back with, say 1st degree murder or whatever will ICA immediately go to prison and then the appeals process begins? How long would that even take? I'm not for ICA getting out, I'm just curious how it works. Thanks