Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[magnolia]

There are so many people,including politicians,dismayed about the"not guilty verdict. I know prosecution of Casey Anthony on a federal level is possible. Any chance at all this might happen? Sorry, if this has been asked before.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ- isn't that how Los Angeles got around the Double Jeopardy rules with the officers who were originally acquitted of beating Rodney King? The Feds came back and charged them with violating his civil rights IIRC....?

Yes, but there ARE civil rights laws prohibiting law enforcement officers from beating people without good reason. There are NOT as far as I am aware any civil rights laws prohibiting mothers from killing their children.

I must first apologize if this has been specifically asked before. I did spot one poster who kind of skirted my question, but didn't ask directly the same thing.

Like many here, I'm more upset by the jurors' seeming lack of understanding of their role and the laws related to deliberation than I am about the verdict itself, actually. I feel if they had come out and said that they reviewed all the evidence, and there was this or that argument and after asking a bunch of questions of the Court, etc., they reached this verdict I'd feel more respectful to them. I'd disagree, but I'd not feel the kind of fear of this kind of jury hearing criminal trials all over the U.S. moving forward, falling for lies and showmanship instead of evidence.

So my question is this: some here on WS have suggested that perhaps juror questionnaires/questioning should be tightened to verify that jurors in criminal trials like this must demonstrate that they fully understand reasonable doubt, what is and is not evidence, how to determine quality of forensic science, etc. Is there some where/some way those of us who feel this is the strongest way to go after this verdict can encourage adoption of these kinds of examination of potential jurors?

Thanks for ALL the hard work all of you verified attorneys do here. It doesn't go unnoticed or unappreciated. We're very fortunate to have you all here!!

There is no way you could restrict juries to people who understand all those things before receiving the jury instructions. Pretty much no one who has not been to law school understands those things. Lots of people who HAVE been to law school do not understand those things.

I think it is insulting to the jury to say they didn't understand reasonable doubt. It sounds like they took the reasonable doubt requirement very seriously. This was NOT a slam-dunk case as I have said many many times on the lawyer threads. If I had been on the jury, I would have voted for first-degree murder DESPITE the nagging doubts I have had from time to time over the last three years, because I believe very strongly that Casey killed her daughter. This would, of course, have been a violation of the jury instructions I would have received regarding reasonable doubt. Mason's chart was absolutely correct, but I would have ignored it because I would not have been able to stand letting Casey Anthony get away with murder. It sounds like the jurors were more committed to following the reasonable doubt instruction than I would have been.

I am wondering how an attorney (Baez) can stand there and make statements such as, "Roy Kronk is a morally bankrupt person" and get away with it. Can a defense attorney say anything he/she wants, even if it is not true, and possibly ruin someone's reputation? Doesn't seem right to me.

Yes, as long as he says it in court.

There are so many people,including politicians,dismayed about the"not guilty verdict. I know prosecution of Casey Anthony on a federal level is possible. Any chance at all this might happen? Sorry, if this has been asked before.

I don't see any possible way she can be prosecuted on a federal level for what happened to Caylee.

 

[martea]

"Yes, but there ARE civil rights laws prohibiting law enforcement officers from beating people without good reason. There are NOT as far as I am aware any civil rights laws prohibiting mothers from killing their children."

"Yes, as long as he says it in court."

These two statements from AZlawyer (thanks AZ!) scare me. I had no idea.

 

[AZlawyer]

"Yes, but there ARE civil rights laws prohibiting law enforcement officers from beating people without good reason. There are NOT as far as I am aware any civil rights laws prohibiting mothers from killing their children."

"Yes, as long as he says it in court."

These two statements from AZlawyer (thanks AZ!) scare me. I had no idea.

I can understand the frustration people feel about what would otherwise be defamation being allowed in court. There are public policy arguments to be made on both sides.

But it is not scary that civil rights laws don't cover murder (at least murder unconnected with a violation of civil rights). Lots of laws don't cover murder. For example, securities laws don't cover murder. Tax laws don't cover murder. There are plenty of good laws outlawing murder--the civil rights laws don't need to cover that issue as well.

 

[jordibcbc]

When discussing various legal procedures etc., one often hears any of the following phrases: due diligence, reasonable care, etc. How do these principles apply to jury deliberations?

For instance, what if it could be proven that someone in the jury room said something like: “OK, this is July 4th week-end. Lets get this thing over with fast.” and the others agreed that this was their main goal.

Can jurors be questioned under oath to determine just what happened by asking them (individually) specific questions about what happened in the jury room, specifically whether getting this done to get on with their holidays was a highly influential priority.

Under the above scenario, are there any outcomes when due diligence or reasonable deliberation wasn't practiced?

 

[AZlawyer]

When discussing various legal procedures etc., one often hears any of the following phrases: due diligence, reasonable care, etc. How do these principles apply to jury deliberations?

For instance, what if it could be proven that someone in the jury room said something like: “OK, this is July 4th week-end. Lets get this thing over with fast.” and the others agreed that this was their main goal.

Can jurors be questioned under oath to determine just what happened by asking them (individually) specific questions about what happened in the jury room, specifically whether getting this done to get on with their holidays was a highly influential priority.

Under the above scenario, are there any outcomes when due diligence or reasonable deliberation wasn't practiced?

No. This verdict is final.

 

[catnron]

Can this happen or is it to good to be true? People are trying to get enough signitures to petition the supreme court to have Casey retried?
The U.S Supreme Court: Try Casey Anthony in Federal Court:The U.S Supreme Court: Try Casey Anthony in Federal Court
www.change.org
The Fifth Amendment does not protect a person from being tried by two or more separate governments. Thus, both the federal government and the state government are able to charge and prosecute one person for the same criminal act, which is often the case for drug related crimes. As well, two or more states can prosecute and try a person for the same criminal act. People need to start a website for FBI to file murder charges against Casey Anthony on the federal level!!!! FBI HAS JURISDICTION TO REFILE MURDER CHARGES AGAINST ANTHONY WITHOUT IT BEING DOUBLE JEOPARDY PLEASE GET THIS INFO OUT TO EVERYONE.







If this case is brought before the Federal court it will be a exception to double jeopardy and from the moment Casey Anthony lied to the FBI she was.....

 

[manorlady]

Thanks for answering so many questions! I have two that I hope have not already been "asked and answered".

Why didn't Casey just plead guilty to the lying charges right up front?

Hypothetical: Suppose LE decides to charge somebody else in the Anthony family based on the defense's "reasonable doubt" twisting of the facts. Then Casey confesses or has already confessed to Baez/Mason/whoever, or somehow gives them information that would clear that person. Are they obligated to hand over that information to clear George or Lee or whoever was now in jail?

 

[Nikki 01]

I can understand the frustration people feel about what would otherwise be defamation being allowed in court. There are public policy arguments to be made on both sides.

What is your opinion on this? Personally I am disheartened lawyers can get up there, lie, and accuse people of crimes they didn't commit with no evidence to back it up.

 

[manatee]

Can this happen or is it to good to be true? People are trying to get enough signitures to petition the supreme court to have Casey retried?
The U.S Supreme Court: Try Casey Anthony in Federal Court:The U.S Supreme Court: Try Casey Anthony in Federal Court
www.change.org
The Fifth Amendment does not protect a person from being tried by two or more separate governments. Thus, both the federal government and the state government are able to charge and prosecute one person for the same criminal act, which is often the case for drug related crimes. As well, two or more states can prosecute and try a person for the same criminal act. People need to start a website for FBI to file murder charges against Casey Anthony on the federal level!!!! FBI HAS JURISDICTION TO REFILE MURDER CHARGES AGAINST ANTHONY WITHOUT IT BEING DOUBLE JEOPARDY PLEASE GET THIS INFO OUT TO EVERYONE.





If this case is brought before the Federal court it will be a exception to double jeopardy and from the moment Casey Anthony lied to the FBI she was.....

lawyers, AZ? what about not providing medical treatment or calling for ems? can this be prosecuted at the federal level? The defense admittted that Caylee was not given CPR, or medical treatment was not sought.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can this happen or is it to good to be true? People are trying to get enough signitures to petition the supreme court to have Casey retried?
The U.S Supreme Court: Try Casey Anthony in Federal Court:The U.S Supreme Court: Try Casey Anthony in Federal Court
www.change.org
The Fifth Amendment does not protect a person from being tried by two or more separate governments. Thus, both the federal government and the state government are able to charge and prosecute one person for the same criminal act, which is often the case for drug related crimes. As well, two or more states can prosecute and try a person for the same criminal act. People need to start a website for FBI to file murder charges against Casey Anthony on the federal level!!!! FBI HAS JURISDICTION TO REFILE MURDER CHARGES AGAINST ANTHONY WITHOUT IT BEING DOUBLE JEOPARDY PLEASE GET THIS INFO OUT TO EVERYONE.







If this case is brought before the Federal court it will be a exception to double jeopardy and from the moment Casey Anthony lied to the FBI she was.....

First of all, the US Supreme Court can't make the federal prosecutors charge someone! Second, this would only work IF Casey had committed some federal crime. Murder is not always a federal crime, and I know of no reason it would be considered a federal crime in this case.

Thanks for answering so many questions! I have two that I hope have not already been "asked and answered".

Why didn't Casey just plead guilty to the lying charges right up front?

Hypothetical: Suppose LE decides to charge somebody else in the Anthony family based on the defense's "reasonable doubt" twisting of the facts. Then Casey confesses or has already confessed to Baez/Mason/whoever, or somehow gives them information that would clear that person. Are they obligated to hand over that information to clear George or Lee or whoever was now in jail?

If she was going to have to go to trial on a murder charge anyway, there wasn't much point in pleading guilty on the lying charges. Besides, as a matter of defense strategy, it gave the jury something to say "guilty" on to make themselves feel better if they found her not guilty of murder/manslaughter/child abuse.

What is your opinion on this? Personally I am disheartened lawyers can get up there, lie, and accuse people of crimes they didn't commit with no evidence to back it up.

I guess, on balance, I think it is a good thing to have immunity for in-court statements, because otherwise lawyers would constantly be dealing with satellite defamation lawsuits. But I think the privilege is abused by people like JB.

 

[Nikki 01]

I guess, on balance, I think it is a good thing to have immunity for in-court statements, because otherwise lawyers would constantly be dealing with satellite defamation lawsuits. But I think the privilege is abused by people like JB.

Thanks for your response. It helps keep things in perspective when I realize he is just the minority of lawyers that abuses the system.

 

[manatee]

lawyers, AZ? what about not providing medical treatment or calling for ems? can this be prosecuted at the federal level? The defense admittted that Caylee was not given CPR, or medical treatment was not sought.

Sorry to quote myself, AZ. But I would really like to find a way for the federal courts to go after ICA simply because I feel she will profit from this murder if not

 

[AZlawyer]

lawyers, AZ? what about not providing medical treatment or calling for ems? can this be prosecuted at the federal level? The defense admittted that Caylee was not given CPR, or medical treatment was not sought.

No, this is not a federal crime.

 

[catnron]

No, this is not a federal crime.

AZ I just wanted to say Thank You for all you are doing answering questions. I love just sitting back reading your post, there is so much I don't understand but you bring light to a lot of answers. Thanks Again

 

[manatee]

No, this is not a federal crime.

darn! what about obstruction of justice while investigating a kidnapping? that is why the FBI was brought in because of the alleged kidnapping.
Thanks so much AZ. your rock!:rocker:

 

[mikeysmommom]

I just heard on nancy grace that juror 12 said he is sick and disgusted by their verdict ???Can someone please explain how this is possible????He was the foreman for GS other jurors have said similar things! I just do not understand WTH is going on!This whole Jury needs investigated IMO Something is just not right here.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Unless I'm confused, NG just said that ICA could still be charged with obstruction of justice.... and the penalty is much greater than the charges she was found guilty of- is that correct?
I'm assuming that since she wasn't originally charged with it there wouldn't be any double jeopardy.

 

[manatee]

Unless I'm confused, NG just said that ICA could still be charged with obstruction of justice.... and the penalty is much greater than the charges she was found guilty of- is that correct?
I'm assuming that since she wasn't originally charged with it there wouldn't be any double jeopardy.

i think the FBI can do this for the kidnapping investigation. kidnapping is a federal crime...AZ????

 

[Beyond Belief]

Can we find any conspiracy charges in this any where? They would be charged separate from an actual crime. And could be federal.