Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Silly question, but JB said KC was being painted as a sl*t, then just said it straight out later that KC is a sl*t. That word, or any close to it, have not been uttered in Court before. What kind of problem does this create if any?
It has attorney ethics ramifications, but it can't be used as a basis for a defamation lawsuit. Other than that, no problem. Essentially, it is a non-issue. Nobody will pursue it.
 
If I heard him correctly, Baez said something about "checkbook prosecution." His remark made me wonder, what do juries think when each side is made up of a team of lawyers? Come to think of it, how common is it for there to be more than one attorney on either side of the aisle? TIA
 
Are the jurors allowed to use either video recordings of the testimony when they deliberate? Or are they able to refer to transcripts?
 
Can ICA be found guilty of say Man or Agg Man and Agg Child Abuse? That coul add up to quite a bit.
 
If I heard him correctly, Baez said something about "checkbook prosecution." His remark made me wonder, what do juries think when each side is made up of a team of lawyers? Come to think of it, how common is it for there to be more than one attorney on either side of the aisle? TIA

It is extremely common to have more than one attorney on each side in a trial of even moderate importance.

Are the jurors allowed to use either video recordings of the testimony when they deliberate? Or are they able to refer to transcripts?

No. They can ask to review transcripts, but it is up to HHJP whether they get to review them or not.

Can ICA be found guilty of say Man or Agg Man and Agg Child Abuse? That coul add up to quite a bit.

I don't see how the sentences could run consecutively, as they all arise out of the same alleged act. IMO if she does not get LWOP or death the most she can get is 34 years.
 
Two Qs:

1) Why is the media allowed to be texting and taking photos? I thought the judge said no phones or they will be confiscated. Is that really allowed?

2) If no one is allowed to show emotion, then why does Casey keep doing so via nodding, mouthing, etc.? Is she exempt from this rule?
 
Are contempt charges by attorneys common and some charges not a big deal or is this very unusual?
 
Two Qs:

1) Why is the media allowed to be texting and taking photos? I thought the judge said no phones or they will be confiscated. Is that really allowed?

2) If no one is allowed to show emotion, then why does Casey keep doing so via nodding, mouthing, etc.? Is she exempt from this rule?

There were separate rules for the "public" and for the "media." I honestly don't remember if media were allowed to take cell phone photos, but I think texting was ok.

Are contempt charges by attorneys common and some charges not a big deal or is this very unusual?

Very unusual.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boodles View Post
Two Qs:

1) Why is the media allowed to be texting and taking photos? I thought the judge said no phones or they will be confiscated. Is that really allowed?

2) If no one is allowed to show emotion, then why does Casey keep doing so via nodding, mouthing, etc.? Is she exempt from this rule?

What about Q2.? TIA!
 
What about Q2.? TIA!

Sorry. No, Casey is not exempt from the rule not to show expressions/emotions etc. but HHJP is not going to do anything about it. He has to assume she's innocent, in which case it would be pretty close to impossible to sit there on trial for your life with no reaction to the proceedings.
 
If Closing Arguments are supposed to only be based on evidence, how is it that Jose Baez got away with all of that stuff about George and the swimming pool? There was absolutely no evidence of that.
 
If Closing Arguments are supposed to only be based on evidence, how is it that Jose Baez got away with all of that stuff about George and the swimming pool? There was absolutely no evidence of that.

They can be based on the evidence or on arguments that the jury can make inferences from the evidence.

Why is Mason giving jury instructions?
Thanks

He is not giving jury instructions. He is continuing the defense closing argument. He is just talking about what the instructions will be when the judge gives them.
 
Baez said that Roy Kronk lifted the bag with skull in it four feet up in the air. I know nothing of that. Can you help or WAS THAT JUST AN OUTRIGHT LIE by Baez. I have never heard that. I heard that he said put his stick in the the eye of the skull and gently lifted it and gently put it back - this is quite a bit different than LIFTING THE BAG FOUR FEET IN THE AIR AND THE SKULL DROPPED out. Can you clarify? Thanks.
 
Why is Mason giving jury instructions?
Thanks
Different judges allow different things. Some judges don't want the lawyers to talk that much about the law others give much leeway. In closing attorneys present the law and argue how the facts of a case fit or don't fit. They are just trying to put their spin on it. HHJP's jury instructions are much more detailed. Sometimes it is hard for jurors to take it all in. Quite often the jury will ask for certain instructions to be read again e.g. the elements of first degree murder vs second degree and manslaughter.
 
:scale:May Justice Prevail

Live long and prosper. :seeya:
 
I posted this question back on 6/15, in a fast moving thread, and I don't know if I ever got an answer:

The defense has made many motions for mistrial along the way. Did I understand it correctly that the judge can put off deciding about a mistrial until he reads the verdict? Meaning that if the verdict comes back as not guilty, he can then declare a mistrial?

Thanks in advance!
 
I don't know if this is the right place to ask my question but when this case is over are we gonna see the evidence that has not yet come out? Like the text messages between Casey and Cindy in June and July of 2008?
 
I have been following this thread and see the attorneys are getting a 'workout', so I thank you in advance for your time :) Love this thread.

I understand the jury cannot infer anything or draw any conclusions from ICA not testifying at trial. And perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but are the jurors allowed to consider the fact she's never come out and adequately explained to the police or anyone else a plausible version of the actual circumstances or events surrounding the death of her daughter (other than lies)?

Can they in any way take into consideration there's been no reasonable explanation, or a lack of explanation in their deliberations? Especially considering it's been made clear (even by JB) that we will NEVER really know the truth, and further we know ICA is the only one who truly does know the truth.

Or does this completely fall under her 5th amendment rights?

I guess in a nutshell I'm wondering if the jurors can infer guilt by her lies, cover-up (my words), and lack of plausible explanation?

I hope I'm conveying this in a way that's understandable. Again, thank you.
 
There have been numerous questions asked regarding Baez's audacious attacks on George and Roy Kronk during trial.

From what I can gather, these questions have revolved on Baez voicing these allegations in court. None of these questions have focused on statements that Baez has made to the media, especially in regards to Kronk. (I don't think, as yet, that Baez has made these outrageous allegations against George in the media.)

Since Baez has publically, in non-courtroom arenas--namely the media, accused Kronk of doing something unbelievable with Caylee's remains, does Kronk have any legal remedy against him for smearing his reputation with no evidence of wrongdoing?

What will happen if Baez begins to lay claim to the same allegations against George (and Lee) in a public, non-courtroom arena (if he has not already done so)? Would George (and/or Lee) have any legal remedies against Baez?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
1,977
Total visitors
2,075

Forum statistics

Threads
600,151
Messages
18,104,665
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top