Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[AZlawyer]

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.

RK said at some point that he lifted the bag a few feet in the air--but the skull was on the ground, not in the bag.

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!

He can't declare a mistrial on any count after she's been acquitted on that count.

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?

If there is anything else to see, I suppose we'll see it if and only if someone makes a proper public records request.

As for the texts between Casey and Cindy in June and July, we have already seen all the ones that LE was able to retrieve (just a handful from the few days before July 15).

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.

They are not supposed to take into account at all her failure to provide an explanation. Yes, this is due to the 5th Amendment.

They can take into account her lies and cover-up activities, though.

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?

I would have to see exactly what Baez said about Kronk in public (not in court) before I could answer that question. My impression has always been that Baez is VERY aware of what he needs to do to avoid a defamation claim.

The courtroom privilege would not extend to media interviews.

 

[TakingALook]

I would like to ask a question if I might. TIA

I have been disappointed in CM's NOT having a bigger role in this case. (Not that I really wanted to hear more - sry - but because of his death penalty qualification).

And, I will never forget when he signed on, everyone thought that he was going into retirement and he was quoted as saying something to the effect the reason that he committed to the case was because he 'thought it would be FUN' -- maybe not the exact words but close.

CAN (he) - CM write a book about this case after it is over??????

 

[AZlawyer]

I would like to ask a question if I might. TIA

I have been disappointed in CM's NOT having a bigger role in this case. (Not that I really wanted to hear more - sry - but because of his death penalty qualification).

And, I will never forget when he signed on, everyone thought that he was going into retirement and he was quoted as saying something to the effect the reason that he committed to the case was because he 'thought it would be FUN' -- maybe not the exact words but close.

CAN (he) - CM write a book about this case after it is over??????

Sure. Obviously he can't reveal privileged information, though.

 

[xin]

Hi & Thanks! Sorry if this has been asked, but what happens if the jury votes guilty on all counts but one, and hangs on one charge? Is there a new trial, or if a they hang on a *lesser* charge, does it just end?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi & Thanks! Sorry if this has been asked, but what happens if the jury votes guilty on all counts but one, and hangs on one charge? Is there a new trial, or if a they hang on a *lesser* charge, does it just end?

If they hang on any count, there could be a retrial as to that count.

 

[Linda03]

If there is an appeal trial, is it possible that KC could get an even harsher conviction/sentence than the first trial (assuming she gets less than first degree this time)? In other words, is there actually a risk of pursuing an appeal?

 

[Lucylu7]

Sorry if this has been asked,if thereis a conviction on lesser charge than 1st degree,is there still a sentencing hearing or does the judge decide the sentence himself?

 

[cleo612]

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!

He can't declare a mistrial on any count after she's been acquitted on that count.

I have a feeling that hoosier_mama was trying to ask if Judge Perry could withhold his ruling on the Motion for Mistrial that Ann Finnell filed the other day. (I am basing the aforementioned "feeling" on the fact that I have had the same question and am not assuming that I know for certain what hoosier_mama is thinking. I even asked another attorney on WS if the following is a possibility.)

In other words, Ann Finnell filed a Motion for Mistrial. Judge Perry has withheld his ruling until some later time.

Since he has to make his ruling before the end of the trial, can he wait until the jury reaches a verdict, he reviews the verdict, and THEN issue his ruling prior to publishing the verdict?

For example, he has withheld the ruling. Jury reaches a verdict. Court Clerk hands him the jury verdict forms. He reads the verdict. He has not yet published the verdict to the defendant.

Maybe he sees verdicts for acquittal that would permit the inmate to go free, so he decides instead to issue his ruling by granting the Motion for Mistrial--thereby ensuring that the inmate remains incarcerated.

Conversely, he receives the verdict forms that show the inmate is guilty, and then issues his ruling on the Motion (by denying it).

Can he do this?

Is it ethical?

Is it legal? (I recall him stating in open court that he could do something along those lines, but I am not sure that the above scenario is what he meant.)

 

[allycat1208]

Originally posted by AZlawyer:

IMO the theory does not have to come from the defendant. The lawyer can present a theory consistent with the evidence, and sometimes that can be pretty indistinguishable from making up a story.

My response:

Sorry, I don't mean to be so adamant and insistent, but I am basically confused now because I have been under the impression for quite some time, that KC had to tell Baez the drowning story on her own, for him to defend her with this theory. I was under this impression because of what I read somewhere in these lawyer threads...I thought I read somewhere here that the defense theory for the most part had to come from the defendant. My opinion came to be that KC told Baez she was molested by George, Caylee drowned and George decided to cover the drowning up. I thought the only thing that was a speculation by JB was the Roy Kronk extended story of moving Caylee for the reward. Are you basically saying that even if KC never told JB that Caylee drowned, he could have just speculated on that himself based on perhaps Cindy's statements alone about the pool ladder and decided that was a good defense, if KC would agree to it!!?? I could imagine JB said to KC at some point that we cannot defend you with the Nanny story because if there was any evidence that she ever existed we would have found it by now, and would have asked KC to tell the truth. After conceding about Zani, KC still does not explain to JB what happened to Caylee and just let JB come up with what he thought sounds reasonable? I mean could this whole defense theory come about llike this? If so, I'm astonished!

Thanks for your help here. I am grateful to a resource as this lawyers thread, so its my fault if I
misunderstood.

 

[galvino]

maybe this has been asked and answered but as everything is moving so quickly...

If the juror who has a European rental on 7/7/11 is able to deliberate as to guilt, and 1st degree is reached by all by 7/611, will he/she have to stay and listen to arguments during the penalty phase and be forced to go thru that deliberation process?

Or can an alternate be brought in to determine penalty?

Are the alternates just released into the wind at the start of deliberations after being sequestered, exposed to media, then if needed allowed to step in and deliberate (in either phase)?

 

[Mohabi]

bumping up

 

[tragco]

Thank you so much to the attorneys on this thread.

Baez said he has found indication that the statement about 84 chloroform searches is wrong and that it didn't happen. He asked that LDB say this in her closing arguments; LDB said that the DT has already finished their closing and HHJP said: file a motion at the appropriate time but not now.

Could this cause a verdict to be overthrown or is it much ado about nothing? What did HHJP mean at the appropriate time?

 

[rabidstoat]

Why do jury instructions and verdict forms have to be hashed out for every trial? What I mean is, why isn't there an 'officially sanctioned' set of jury instructions pertaining to all the possible charges, such that just the name have to be substituted in as appropriate? Why do they have to hash out on a case-by-case basis about whether they're going to define words like 'willfully' in a legal sense?

It just seems like by varying it from trial to trial, it's inviting problems later in appeal. It also seems like the definitions shouldn't vary from case to case, so why isn't there just a 'blessed' version to read from?

 

[hoosier_mama]

I have a feeling that hoosier_mama was trying to ask if Judge Perry could withhold his ruling on the Motion for Mistrial that Ann Finnell filed the other day. (I am basing the aforementioned "feeling" on the fact that I have had the same question and am not assuming that I know for certain what hoosier_mama is thinking. I even asked another attorney on WS if the following is a possibility.)

In other words, Ann Finnell filed a Motion for Mistrial. Judge Perry has withheld his ruling until some later time.

Since he has to make his ruling before the end of the trial, can he wait until the jury reaches a verdict, he reviews the verdict, and THEN issue his ruling prior to publishing the verdict?

For example, he has withheld the ruling. Jury reaches a verdict. Court Clerk hands him the jury verdict forms. He reads the verdict. He has not yet published the verdict to the defendant.

Maybe he sees verdicts for acquittal that would permit the inmate to go free, so he decides instead to issue his ruling by granting the Motion for Mistrial--thereby ensuring that the inmate remains incarcerated.

Conversely, he receives the verdict forms that show the inmate is guilty, and then issues his ruling on the Motion (by denying it).

Can he do this?

Is it ethical?

Is it legal? (I recall him stating in open court that he could do something along those lines, but I am not sure that the above scenario is what he meant.)

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about....thank you, Cleo, for wording it better than I did.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Is a jury required to deliberate? In the OJ case it seemed the jury went in for deliberations, chose a foreperson and then took a vote. In that case the vote was not guilty.

If this jury picks a foreperson then conducts a vote to see where everyone stands and all votes are guilty - must they "debate" or "deliberate" the evidence?

 

[Amil]

Did the Perry vs state decision that Judge Perry mentioned on Sunday at close of court indicate that the death penalty is still legal in FL as of Thursday last week?

 

[gem198]

First, thanks to the lawyers who help us understand the details. I'm a longtime reader, first time poster. Linda Baden just said on HLN that she thinks that there is reversible error from LDB's closing since she implied that the drowning story was a lie, and that this would imply that the defense team knowingly presented what they knew to be untrue.
I know what reversible error is, but I don't know why that statement would imply that the defence team are lying.
I'm very concerned in general that if a guilty verdict that one of the very many mistrial motions from the defense. I fear that one of them might stick.
So, was there reversible error in LDB's closing argument?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Is there a specific order in which the Jury must consider the charges- ie take the most serious first?

 

[Boodles]

Is it theoretically possible for a plea deal to be negotiated during jury deliberation? If so, at what point does that possibility legally cease (e.g., when it's announced that the jury has reached a verdict, after the reading of the verdict, or some other time)?

 

[KikiWanBaniki]

Could one of our verified lawyers please take the time to settle a heated debate on this thread?
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115684&page=14

TIA--lots of legal discussion going on over there with no verification, legal citings, etc...

ETA: Thread got closed because tensions were high, but the basic question was: can a defense attorney leave a case if he/she knows for sure the client is guilty, and if so, is this an amazingly difficult thing to do, what would the conditions be, etc.

Thanks again to anyone who can help with this!