Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[RR0004]

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:

Does this have any teeth, AZ? It does appear to have merit.

 

[RR0004]

AZ, I know this isn't a legal question...but how are you? I know you've been just as vested in this case as the rest of us. It's been difficult for me to post because of all that I'm feeling...but here you are...ever so diligent...answering all our questions. Bless you for being here.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Oh, can you imagine her walking out of jail only to be hit with another arrest warrant? Why am I smiling?

 

[missm]

Why isn't a jury allowed to have transcripts of the case in their deliberations? Why must they only rely on notes taken?

If they can review physical evidence & photographs and video footage, I can't understand why they aren't allowed transcripts of what was actually stated in court. Or have I misunderstood something?

 

[GiantPickle]

I think because a transcript has to be signed off on by both sides and that takes too long.

 

[missm]

If that's true, that is crazy. I can think of nothing more important than witness testimony in a court case- especially if there is later disagreement or uncertainty about what a witness said on the stand!

If transcripts require "signing off" to ensure both sides agree on accuracy of content, could the jury request to watch the filmed testimony of court witnesses? Do they even do that? Sort of an instant-replay for something said or done in the courtroom while they *were* there in the first place, right? Why would this not be allowed?

I would trust my own eyes & ears before I'd ever trust the subjective notes of a fellow juror.

 

[Caligram]

I admit that I haven't gone back to see if this has already been addressed:

If the defense was so insistent about SA following the rules of discovery, why aren't they held to the same rules. How could they remain silent all this time and then in front of the jury JB stated that Caylee Anthony drowned in the Anthony pool on June 16th.
Why was the drowning reason okay to keep it a secret? It seems that the entire trial should have been halted at that point.

 

[AZlawyer]

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:

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????

Yes, for the last couple of pages on here I've been saying that the feds could attempt to charge her under what some people call the Martha Stewart Law--lying to the feds. But the only "lie" she told the feds was "I feel in my gut that Caylee is alive," which is not a provable lie really as she might be a nutcase and in denial. So they would have to go with the theory that, when Casey lied to local LE about a kidnapping--which MIGHT ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARILY have been a federal crime depending, e.g., on where and how ZFG traveled with Caylee--she should have known that info would be passed on to the feds. And then when she found out the feds WERE involved, she made no effort to correct those lies.

I haven't done any research to find out if this theory would work, and I don't plan to, because I just honestly don't care if she is convicted on anything else. I wanted her to be convicted for hurting Caylee, not for lying etc.

Anyway, there would be a possible 5-year sentence for the lying to feds charge. I suppose 5 years for each lie, and who knows how many lies they could stack up out of her statements to local LE.

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

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone conspired with Casey. Plus Casey could not be charged with a conspiracy that arises out of the same facts as the crimes for which she was already tried.

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.

I completely understand what he is saying and do not think anything needs to be investigated. It sounds like the jury really took seriously the reasonable doubt requirement. I personally would not have had the strength to say, "I believe Casey killed Caylee. However, I can see some room for reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is my duty to find her not guilty even though I believe she is a disgusting, unremorseful baby killer."

AZ, I know this isn't a legal question...but how are you? I know you've been just as vested in this case as the rest of us. It's been difficult for me to post because of all that I'm feeling...but here you are...ever so diligent...answering all our questions. Bless you for being here.

I was disappointed and shocked by the verdict. But then I realized that I had spent time trying to figure out accident theories, and why would I have done that? I had to admit that it was because I could see some room for doubt. I would have ignored those doubts and voted for 1st degree murder if I had been on the jury, but that's because I would not have been able to live with letting Casey get away with murder--not because I would have been strictly following the jury instructions.

Why isn't a jury allowed to have transcripts of the case in their deliberations? Why must they only rely on notes taken?

If they can review physical evidence & photographs and video footage, I can't understand why they aren't allowed transcripts of what was actually stated in court. Or have I misunderstood something?

In Florida, they can ask for transcripts, but it is up to the judge to decide whether or not to grant that request.

I agree with you. But not too long ago, jurors were not even allowed to take notes!! Give it time--the justice system will eventually come to its senses and allow transcripts in the jury room. Remember when instant replays first came out?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Thankyou AZ - just in case I just wrote a letter to Pam Bondi, Fla Attorney General .
I want ICA to get any punishment available at this stage,since she got away with murder. I will feel better if she at least gets punished for something!
One can only hope...

 

[AZlawyer]

If that's true, that is crazy. I can think of nothing more important than witness testimony in a court case- especially if there is later disagreement or uncertainty about what a witness said on the stand!

If transcripts require "signing off" to ensure both sides agree on accuracy of content, could the jury request to watch the filmed testimony of court witnesses? Do they even do that? Sort of an instant-replay for something said or done in the courtroom while they *were* there in the first place, right? Why would this not be allowed?

I would trust my own eyes & ears before I'd ever trust the subjective notes of a fellow juror.

A transcript would not require signing off.

I suppose that a Florida jury could ask for a replay of trial video, IF the video came from official court video cameras rather than from the media. Again, it would be up to the judge to decide whether to grant that request.

I admit that I haven't gone back to see if this has already been addressed:

If the defense was so insistent about SA following the rules of discovery, why aren't they held to the same rules. How could they remain silent all this time and then in front of the jury JB stated that Caylee Anthony drowned in the Anthony pool on June 16th.
Why was the drowning reason okay to keep it a secret? It seems that the entire trial should have been halted at that point.

The defense is not required to disclose how it thinks the evidence fits together or its strategy for defense. Technically, neither is the state, although the state's theory is pretty obvious because of the charges alleged.

The state does have a MUCH greater disclosure obligation, and there is an extremely good reason for that: the defendant is the only one with constitutional rights at stake!

 

[ynotdivein]

OCSO indicated during their presser today that there is an ongoing investigation into witness tampering in this case. Can you expound a bit on the following:

- Where is the burden of proof in such an investigation? IOW, is there a Grand Jury called, or does the SA make the decision?

- To what penalty or penalties might the defendant's lawyers be subject, if they are found guilty of witness tampering?

- When and to what extent does the FL Bar get involved when such accusations are levied?

- What penalty/ies would the potentially-tampered-with potential witness face if it is decided that s/he was complicit in the tampering?

 

[AZlawyer]

OCSO indicated during their presser today that there is an ongoing investigation into witness tampering in this case. Can you expound a bit on the following:

- Where is the burden of proof in such an investigation? IOW, is there a Grand Jury called, or does the SA make the decision?

- To what penalty or penalties might the defendant's lawyers be subject, if they are found guilty of witness tampering?

- When and to what extent does the FL Bar get involved when such accusations are levied?

- What penalty/ies would the potentially-tampered-with potential witness face if it is decided that s/he was complicit in the tampering?

The burden of proof, of course, is beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe a grand jury would not be required in Florida for witness tampering charges.

Witness tampering in Florida is a third-degree felony (5 years, $5000).

If a lawyer were convicted of witness tampering, the Bar would get involved and the lawyer would likely lose his license.

The witness could be charged with providing false information to LE. I believe we are all pretty familiar with that charge (1 year, $1000).

 

[allycat1208]

Many pundit lawyers have stated that KC should have taken the stand, since she would have been the only witness to the allegations of sexual molestation of George and she would have been the only one besides George to know about the drowning. I agreed because there was obviously no evidence of this other than George stating that this was not true. Why is it that defendants are not ordered to take the stand if he or she may be the only one that may possess certain knowledge that nobody else has, as long as he is competent?

 

[AZlawyer]

Many pundit lawyers have stated that KC should have taken the stand, since she would have been the only witness to the allegations of sexual molestation of George and she would have been the only one besides George to know about the drowning. I agreed because there was obviously no evidence of this other than George stating that this was not true. Why is it that defendants are not ordered to take the stand if he or she may be the only one that may possess certain knowledge that nobody else has, as long as he is competent?

Because of the 5th Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination.

 

[ZsaZsa]

AZ- Tim Miller is on JVM now and he has filed suit to recover costs of his searches for Caylee. They plan to serve ICA tomorrow in jail.
What is next for ICA? Does that affect her ability to leave Florida?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ- Tim Miller is on JVM now and he has filed suit to recover costs of his searches for Caylee. They plan to serve ICA tomorrow in jail.
What is next for ICA? Does that affect her ability to leave Florida?

She will have to file an Answer.

This Complaint would not prevent her from leaving Florida.

 

[grammieto5]

Do I have this wrong or right. Wasn't FCA charged with Aggrivated Child Abuse? Wasn't that her 3rd charge, with First Degree murder #1, and Aggrivated Manslaughter of a Child her 2nd count. And each count if found guilty carried the sentence of LWOP or the DP ?
Thanks

 

[TxLady2]

If that's true, that is crazy. I can think of nothing more important than witness testimony in a court case- especially if there is later disagreement or uncertainty about what a witness said on the stand!

If transcripts require "signing off" to ensure both sides agree on accuracy of content, could the jury request to watch the filmed testimony of court witnesses? Do they even do that? Sort of an instant-replay for something said or done in the courtroom while they *were* there in the first place, right? Why would this not be allowed?

I would trust my own eyes & ears before I'd ever trust the subjective notes of a fellow juror.

When I was on a jury, we had a question about someone's testimony while we were deliberating. We sent a note to the judge and he called us back to the courtroom and had the clerk read the part that pertained to our question. Then he sent us back to continue deliberating. I am pretty sure this is the way it is done pretty much everywhere.
I have also heard that they don't always have all the testimony transcribed yet, and in paper form. Their notes that come out of their machine are shorthand. They can read them but the jury probably couldn't... unless they've been trained in shorthand.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Why isn't a jury allowed to have transcripts of the case in their deliberations? Why must they only rely on notes taken?

If they can review physical evidence & photographs and video footage, I can't understand why they aren't allowed transcripts of what was actually stated in court. Or have I misunderstood something?

While deliberating, the jurors can ask for any testimony to be read back to them anytime they like.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do I have this wrong or right. Wasn't FCA charged with Aggrivated Child Abuse? Wasn't that her 3rd charge, with First Degree murder #1, and Aggrivated Manslaughter of a Child her 2nd count. And each count if found guilty carried the sentence of LWOP or the DP ?
Thanks

The counts were:
1st degree murder (LWOP or death) (this would include felony murder based on agg. child abuse)
Aggravated manslaughter of a child (30 years max)
Aggravated child abuse (15 years max IIRC)
Lying to LE x 4 (1 year max each count)

When I was on a jury, we had a question about someone's testimony while we were deliberating. We sent a note to the judge and he called us back to the courtroom and had the clerk read the part that pertained to our question. Then he sent us back to continue deliberating. I am pretty sure this is the way it is done pretty much everywhere.
I have also heard that they don't always have all the testimony transcribed yet, and in paper form. Their notes that come out of their machine are shorthand. They can read them but the jury probably couldn't... unless they've been trained in shorthand.

It is not done that way everywhere. But it's getting more common. IMO it will become normal procedure within a few years.

You are correct that the transcript is not normally in a readable, paper form during jury deliberations unless the attorneys have been ordering partial transcripts during trial (which I do a lot). But the court reporter should be able to read back portions.

While deliberating, the jurors can ask for any testimony to be read back to them anytime they like.

They can ask, but the judge doesn't have to say yes.