Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[rotterdam]

I have another question for our much appreciated lawyers.
Should jury deliberations be recorded? And become public record after the trial. Probably a very slippery slope but if I was a juror and had nothing to hide, I would not mind..
What is your professional opinion on that.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

AZlawyer, simply can't thank you enough for all the time and effort and answers that you provide us with ... my very best to you.

 

[AZlawyer]

During the trial, Judge Perry offered to hold an expert witness ( Dr R) in jail until he testified if the DT deemed his testimony crucial and believed that he would not return if the judge let him leave. Is this why Mr Morgan filed his new motion...hoping the judge would hold ICA in custody to insure that she would be available for depo?

If he wanted the judge to do that, he would have asked. You don't get an order without asking for it.

Forgive me if this is a repeat question, but:

In your opinion, when ICA failed to call 911 after Caylee's "pool accident," did she violate the terms of Charge Three on her laundry list of possible infractions?

IMO, this question boils down to the correct way of interpreting the precise language and intent of the related statute. In my paraphrase (consistent with the original, I hope) Charge Three seems to say, in effect:

"Casey willfully or by culpable negligence, while a caregiver to Caylee, failed or omitted to provide Caylee with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain Caylee’s physical and mental health, or failed to make a reasonable effort to protect Caylee from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of Caylee."

I'm not sure if the final, bolded phrase relates to both underlined parts that are separated by "or," or just to the second underlined part, after "or."

Perhaps the state had to prove that ICA's failure to call 911 caused Caylee's injury or death. Or, that her failure to keep Caylee out of the pool to start with violated Charge Three.

Assuming the jury knew for a fact that ICA failed to call 911, I hope they examined this point.
Thanks.

hdear:hdear:hdear:

This is the charge (agg. manslaughter of a child) that I thought the jury would go with. But keep in mind that they were not presented with any EVIDENCE of a pool accident, or a failure to call 911. IF there had been any such evidence, the questions would then be whether Caylee could have been saved by calling 911 and whether Casey should have known that.

What reason is there for not using Robyn Adams as a witness, such as to the reaction ICA gave to the body being found? She was able to contrast that reaction with the reaction of other remains being found earlier, and it was very compelling. Also that ICA said she gave "stuff" to help Caylee sleep sometimes.

(about a third of the way through this interview):

http://www.wesh.com/r/26650233/detail.html

The reason not to use Robyn Adams is that her testimony was not credible, in part because she was a criminal looking to trade the information for a benefit to herself.

Since the state is apparently investigating witness tampering and if such incident(s) could be substantiated, could the Feds come in and utilize the RICO Act on the individuals responsible for witness tampering?

Probably not, if it was just the one incident with LB and the TES document. RICO requires a pattern of multiple incidents over a period of time.

The jury foreman who is saying terrible things about George can he be held liable if George decided to sue him? or is he protected from a lawsuit? TIA

No. The juror is saying that he THINKS certain things. This is presumably a true statement of what he THINKS. He can't be sued any more than WS'ers can be sued for saying that they think Casey is a baby killer.

I have another question for our much appreciated lawyers.
Should jury deliberations be recorded? And become public record after the trial. Probably a very slippery slope but if I was a juror and had nothing to hide, I would not mind..
What is your professional opinion on that.

I think that would be a terrible idea. The whole point is for the jury to feel free to discuss/argue/cry/whatever until they come out with a nice clean verdict. We don't need to watch them making the sausage.

 

[rotterdam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rotterdam View Post
Since the state is apparently investigating witness tampering and if such incident(s) could be substantiated, could the Feds come in and utilize the RICO Act on the individuals responsible for witness tampering?

AZlawyer:
Probably not, if it was just the one incident with LB and the TES document. RICO requires a pattern of multiple incidents over a period of time.


Thank you so much for your answer AZlawyer , since it is not a definite "NO".
You left that door open a little bit. You gave this reader a ray of faint hope for justice.
That said , the Feds are sometimes guilty of grandstanding in high profile cases, good PR. Do you think they could be chomping at the bit for an opportunity to get involved?
Example;Michael Vick trial. RICO Act was used as the proverbial big stick when the State of Va was going to let it slide.
I also like to add that this thread surely added to the appreciation of J.D's/lawyers in general. And I venture to say there is an equal amount of seedy prosecutors vs seedy defense lawyers. Sometimes( or many?) winning a case trumps ethical objections.
Both are hopefully rare in a well balanced judicial system.

 

[AZlawyer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rotterdam View Post
Since the state is apparently investigating witness tampering and if such incident(s) could be substantiated, could the Feds come in and utilize the RICO Act on the individuals responsible for witness tampering?

AZlawyer:
Probably not, if it was just the one incident with LB and the TES document. RICO requires a pattern of multiple incidents over a period of time.


Thank you so much for your answer AZlawyer , since it is not a definite "NO".
You left that door open a little bit. You gave this reader a ray of faint hope for justice.
That said , the Feds are sometimes guilty of grandstanding in high profile cases, good PR. Do you think they could be chomping at the bit for an opportunity to get involved?
Example;Michael Vick trial. RICO Act was used as the proverbial big stick when the State of Va was going to let it slide.
I also like to add that this thread surely added to the appreciation of J.D's/lawyers in general. And I venture to say there is an equal amount of seedy prosecutors vs seedy defense lawyers. Sometimes( or many?) winning a case trumps ethical objections.
Both are hopefully rare in a well balanced judicial system.

I wouldn't be too surprised if there are some federal prosecutors brainstorming ideas just like you guys are.

 

[3doglady]

AZ,

I'm assuming that during deliberations of the guilt phase the jury has a paper verdict listing all the charges. Is the punishment for each charge listed on that verdict?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ,

I'm assuming that during deliberations of the guilt phase the jury has a paper verdict listing all the charges. Is the punishment for each charge listed on that verdict?

No, the jury is not told the range of possible sentences for each charge.

 

[Controversialist]

"This is the charge (agg. manslaughter of a child) that I thought the jury would go with. But keep in mind that they were not presented with any EVIDENCE of a pool accident, or a failure to call 911. IF there had been any such evidence, the questions would then be whether Caylee could have been saved by calling 911 and whether Casey should have known that."


This is a shocker to me. IMO the jury should have considered it self-evident that ICA never called 911.

Had she done so, a 911 responder would of course have seen Caylee after the pool accident. JB would then surely have called this eye-witness responder to testify and corroborate ICA's pool story. IMO, ICA's entire trial defense logically requires that she never called 911.

It seems even ICA's previous, 30 month "Zanny" fable depended on her never having called 911. A 911 responder could have simply contradicted her by noting that he had seen Caylee, drowned, at the A's home at precisely 2:15 PM, etc.

I'm surprised the State didn't introduce this evidence (from 911 phone logs, etc.) to get it on the table, so to speak, so the jury could apply it to Charge Three.

And I'm guessing that there is no existing Florida law requiring a parent to call 911 to professionally confirm a child's death.

Thanks.:websleuther::websleuther::websleuther:

 

[SleuthTheTruth]

When KC walks, she will have the four thousand to pay before she can leave the jail. How will that be handled?

If she does not have the money to pay, will they let her make payments?

If so, HOW, she has no job…unless she will work for JB or CM.

 

[AZlawyer]

"This is the charge (agg. manslaughter of a child) that I thought the jury would go with. But keep in mind that they were not presented with any EVIDENCE of a pool accident, or a failure to call 911. IF there had been any such evidence, the questions would then be whether Caylee could have been saved by calling 911 and whether Casey should have known that."


This is a shocker to me. IMO the jury should have considered it self-evident that ICA never called 911.

Had she done so, a 911 responder would of course have seen Caylee after the pool accident. JB would then surely have called this eye-witness responder to testify and corroborate ICA's pool story. IMO, ICA's entire trial defense logically requires that she never called 911.

It seems even ICA's previous, 30 month "Zanny" fable depended on her never having called 911. A 911 responder could have simply contradicted her by noting that he had seen Caylee, drowned, at the A's home at precisely 2:15 PM, etc.

I'm surprised the State didn't introduce this evidence (from 911 phone logs, etc.) to get it on the table, so to speak, so the jury could apply it to Charge Three.

And I'm guessing that there is no existing Florida law requiring a parent to call 911 to professionally confirm a child's death.

Thanks.:websleuther::websleuther::websleuther:

What I meant is, there was no evidence that she failed to call 911 after some accident...because there was no evidence of an accident. The jury would have needed some evidence of an accident, plus evidence that calling 911 would have helped to actually save Caylee.

There is no Florida law that I can find that a parent has to call 911 after an accidental death of a child. But of course, as you point out, it MIGHT be manslaughter to fail to do so....IF calling 911 would have helped and the parent should have known that it would have helped.

 

[Controversialist]

What I meant is, there was no evidence that she failed to call 911 after some accident...because there was no evidence of an accident. The jury would have needed some evidence of an accident, plus evidence that calling 911 would have helped to actually save Caylee.

There is no Florida law that I can find that a parent has to call 911 after an accidental death of a child. But of course, as you point out, it MIGHT be manslaughter to fail to do so....IF calling 911 would have helped and the parent should have known that it would have helped.

Thanks for your response. I understand your stance to be that even though JB tried to present evidence for a pool accident (e.g., the pic of Caylee opening the patio door), the jurors themselves concluded after the trial that there was no credible evidence for a pool drowning.

But assume GA had affirmed the pool story on the stand, saying, "There was a drowning, but both ICA and I failed to call 911." Then assume the jury had responded, "There is our evidence. We believe GA. There was a pool accident and 911 wasn't called."

At that point, I assume the jury could have examined the 911 questions about ICA (and perhaps about GA, for that matter).

:cowboy::cowboy::cowboy:

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks for your response. I understand your stance to be that even though JB tried to present evidence for a pool accident (e.g., the pic of Caylee opening the patio door), the jurors themselves concluded after the trial that there was no credible evidence for a pool drowning.

But assume GA had affirmed the pool story on the stand, saying, "There was a drowning, but both ICA and I failed to call 911." Then assume the jury had responded, "There is our evidence. We believe GA. There was a pool accident and 911 wasn't called."

At that point, I assume the jury could have examined the 911 questions about ICA (and perhaps about GA, for that matter).

:cowboy::cowboy::cowboy:

If George had affirmed the story, IMO the jury should have convicted her of agg. manslaughter of a child for failing to call 911--IF there was evidence that Caylee could have been saved by calling 911 and Casey should have realized that.

 

[stmarysmead]

Is it clearly explained to jurors that the Defense is permitted to lie to them during the opening statement?

Baez stated emphatically that Caylee drowned and the Casey was molested. He did not call this his "theory." It was stated emphatically...as fact.

Shouldn't the jury be notified prior to the start that it is legal for defense attys to lie in the opening statement?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it clearly explained to jurors that the Defense is permitted to lie to them during the opening statement?

Baez stated emphatically that Caylee drowned and the Casey was molested. He did not call this his "theory." It was stated emphatically...as fact.

Shouldn't the jury be notified prior to the start that it is legal for defense attys to lie in the opening statement?

The defense is not permitted to "lie" but is permitted to tell a story about what the defense thinks the evidence will show--and if the evidence doesn't turn out that way, that's ok, but then they can't tell the same story in closing, as we saw.

It is clearly explained to the jurors that the statements made by the attorneys are not evidence and cannot be considered in their deliberations as proof of anything.

 

[RR0004]

Hi AZ! I know that we've spoken about Federal charges...and I've read your opinion on it. My question is, can anyone contact a federal prosecutor (is there such a thing?) and inquire if this is or isn't being pursued? Not that they would acknowledge it if that was the case, but maybe they would state "NO" and give reasons why not. (???)

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZ! I know that we've spoken about Federal charges...and I've read your opinion on it. My question is, can anyone contact a federal prosecutor (is there such a thing?) and inquire if this is or isn't being pursued? Not that they would acknowledge it if that was the case, but maybe they would state "NO" and give reasons why not. (???)

Sure, anyone could do that. I doubt that they would say yes or no, except maybe to get people off their cases if there were continuing requests for information.

 

[RR0004]

Sure, anyone could do that. I doubt that they would say yes or no, except maybe to get people off their cases if there were continuing requests for information.

I just read material related to US vs Ayers. Defendant was aquitted of more serious charges against him...then the Feds went after him and got a conviction. Because he was already a convicted felon they were able to add on to his sentencing. I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand all of it...but I would think that there must be some charge they can levy against her. I know...I'm reaching, but I am getting the feeling that something is up. Can't put my finger on it. Sleep may cure me...lol.

ETA: would one look up the number under the US Dept. of Justice?

 

[AZlawyer]

I just read material related to US vs Ayers. Defendant was aquitted of more serious charges against him...then the Feds went after him and got a conviction. Because he was already a convicted felon they were able to add on to his sentencing. I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand all of it...but I would think that there must be some charge they can levy against her. I know...I'm reaching, but I am getting the feeling that something is up. Can't put my finger on it. Sleep may cure me...lol.

ETA: would one look up the number under the US Dept. of Justice?

US Attorneys' Office in Orlando:

501 West Church Street, Suite 300
Orlando, FL 32805
(407)648-7500
(407)648-7643

 

[Controversialist]

If George had affirmed the story, IMO the jury should have convicted her of agg. manslaughter of a child for failing to call 911--IF there was evidence that Caylee could have been saved by calling 911 and Casey should have realized that.

I appreciate your insights. Just a final observation, then I'll slowly back away from the keyboard.

Assume the jury had believed the pool theory, and had examined whether Caylee might have benefited by ICA's 911 call:

Then, my posture as a juror, for purposes of Charge Three, would be:

[]--- Did ICA have any medical credentials or training to decide the potential of a 911 call?

[]--- If not, ICA should have automatically placed that 911 call.

[]--- If not, ICA was irresponsible and culpably negligent to take that life-and-death decision into her own hands.

[]--- ICA, if innocent, had everything to gain and nothing to lose with that 911 call.

[]--- If ICA claims she failed to call 911 because she was certain that Caylee was beyond help, then she must justify her medical credentials for taking that stance. Otherwise, she was negligent.

[]--- I would carefully scrutinize ICA's claim that she, as a competent, 22 year old parent, was utterly unaware of the 911 service and its potential to assist Caylee. I would not accept a mere plea of ignorance.

That's just me as a juror. I would have gone to the mat on this point and hung the jury if necessary.

Thanks again for your kind assistance.

:talker::talker::talker:

 

[uklaw]

The defense is not permitted to "lie" but is permitted to tell a story about what the defense thinks the evidence will show--and if the evidence doesn't turn out that way, that's ok, but then they can't tell the same story in closing, as we saw.

It is clearly explained to the jurors that the statements made by the attorneys are not evidence and cannot be considered in their deliberations as proof of anything.

Weren't the Defense permitted to give the drowning story during closing arguments on the basis that it was a reasonable inference?

IIRC, only the Sexual Abuse theory wasn't permitted.