Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[MidAtlanticNative]

I know this will sound slightly nuts, but I've wondered more than once about female inmates and what permissions they're granted in the way of personal grooming.

I mean, in "real" life, there's the shaving, flossing, waxing, pumicing, moisturizing, tweezing, trimming, exfoliating, highlighting, clipping, polishing, etc. It's a grind, man.

So, is it literally a soap/shampoo/conditioner and water situation? Are the inmates allowed razors at each shower? At all? Are blowdryers allowed? What about, ahem, the lady-type maintenance? Is it just the '70s all over again?

Casey's probably an atypical custodial situation, so feel free to answer generally if that makes more sense.

I know this is a silly question, but I really have wondered. I can't be the only one. Right?

 

[USARDOG]

AZ, I would think ICA could be charged in Federal Court with depriving Caylee of: Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Aren't these guaranteed by the constitution, and wouldn't deprivation of these be a Federal Crime?

Thanks,
USARDOG

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

Yes.

I know this will sound slightly nuts, but I've wondered more than once about female inmates and what permissions they're granted in the way of personal grooming.

I mean, in "real" life, there's the shaving, flossing, waxing, pumicing, moisturizing, tweezing, trimming, exfoliating, highlighting, clipping, polishing, etc. It's a grind, man.

So, is it literally a soap/shampoo/conditioner and water situation? Are the inmates allowed razors at each shower? At all? Are blowdryers allowed? What about, ahem, the lady-type maintenance? Is it just the '70s all over again?

Casey's probably an atypical custodial situation, so feel free to answer generally if that makes more sense.

I know this is a silly question, but I really have wondered. I can't be the only one. Right?

Here's the inmate handbook: http://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/Resources/Internet/DEPARTMENTS/Corrections/docs/InmateHandbookEnglish0609.pdf. Page 4 mentions razors and clippers.

Here's a document listing items available from the commissary:
http://www.wesh.com/r/24246817/detail.html. Items include shampoo, conditioner, moisturizers, etc. I don't see tweezers on the list but it's hard to see. I'm sure electrical items like blowdryers are not permitted.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, I would think ICA could be charged in Federal Court with depriving Caylee of: Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Aren't these guaranteed by the constitution, and wouldn't deprivation of these be a Federal Crime?

Thanks,
USARDOG

If Casey were a government agent, the answer would be yes. But she isn't.

 

[Shadow5618]

I hear today that Casey is being summoned to give a deposition in the ZFG case where they want her to tell the truth about what she did with Caylee before she leaves jail. I also hear that she is planning to take the 5th. How can she do this (ie, take the 5th) since she has already been acquitted of the crime?

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

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.

I understand fully what you're saying is suppose to happen & what the jurors are suppose to be told but, isn't it very clear by the jurors interviews that they did put a lot of credibility in what he said in his OS? And, having said that, I'm sure the answer to "there's nothing that can be done about that is no", along with the jury foreman or foreperson saying that DP was on the form when you say it wasn't....again, nothing can be done, I'm sure....guess I keep grasping at straws. Thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

I hear today that Casey is being summoned to give a deposition in the ZFG case where they want her to tell the truth about what she did with Caylee before she leaves jail. I also hear that she is planning to take the 5th. How can she do this (ie, take the 5th) since she has already been acquitted of the crime?

She can take the 5th regarding anything that would incriminate her on the lying charges (which would include anything anyone wants to know) until the time expires for her to appeal (or, if she actually appeals, until the verdict is affirmed on appeal or reversed and retried).

I understand fully what you're saying is suppose to happen & what the jurors are suppose to be told but, isn't it very clear by the jurors interviews that they did put a lot of credibility in what he said in his OS? And, having said that, I'm sure the answer to "there's nothing that can be done about that is no", along with the jury foreman or foreperson saying that DP was on the form when you say it wasn't....again, nothing can be done, I'm sure....guess I keep grasping at straws. Thanks

I do not find it clear that the jurors put a lot of credibility in the opening statement. I think at least one of them has said that they completely understood it was not evidence and could not be considered as evidence. One or two have said that it was disturbing and hard to forget. I think the theme from the jurors has been that they just couldn't figure out for sure WTH happened to Caylee June 15-16.

Again, as you say, nothing could be done about it even if the jurors ignored this instruction, which I don't think they did.

I read the transcript and the foreman did not say the death penalty was on the form. But again, nothing could be done if he said it was.

Here's the transcript:

VAN SUSTEREN: Did -- was there ever any discussion, either during the trial or during deliberation or anything, about the fact that she might be executed, that you might be called upon to make that decision?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: Never -- never took that into account? You never looked across the courtroom and thought, I'm going to have to decide whether she lives or dies?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, we went on -- when we -- are you talking about when we were into deliberation or...

VAN SUSTEREN: No, just any...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: ... during the course of the trial.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Oh, yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, you know, looking across the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a thought. Absolutely. Absolutely. When we went into deliberation, no, because the punishment is not something that's in our -- the punishment is written right down there on paper as what we were able -- the punishment's on the paper. It's the verdict. So we didn't take it into consideration.

This comment was badly worded, for sure, but as I interpreted it, he was saying they didn't take into consideration the ultimate sentence--that the only "punishment" they had on their paper was the verdict (guilty or not guilty).

 

[Hot Dogs]

What is the order in which Casey would have to pay her actual and potential debts?

IRS lien ($68,520 actual)
State of Florida reimbursement of investigative costs (potential)
Civil suits - ZG, TES, LP, etc. (potential)

Does the IRS and State have to be paid off first before any civil suits can begin to be paid, or what?

 

[allycat1208]

Although the prosecution was not required to prove a motive for the alleged murder of Caylee in the trial, they did attempt to prove a motive. I'm just curious why motive does not have to be proved? I'm assuming its because motives do not always make sense.

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

She can take the 5th regarding anything that would incriminate her on the lying charges (which would include anything anyone wants to know) until the time expires for her to appeal (or, if she actually appeals, until the verdict is affirmed on appeal or reversed and retried).



I do not find it clear that the jurors put a lot of credibility in the opening statement. I think at least one of them has said that they completely understood it was not evidence and could not be considered as evidence. One or two have said that it was disturbing and hard to forget. I think the theme from the jurors has been that they just couldn't figure out for sure WTH happened to Caylee June 15-16.

Again, as you say, nothing could be done about it even if the jurors ignored this instruction, which I don't think they did.

I read the transcript and the foreman did not say the death penalty was on the form. But again, nothing could be done if he said it was.

Here's the transcript:

VAN SUSTEREN: Did -- was there ever any discussion, either during the trial or during deliberation or anything, about the fact that she might be executed, that you might be called upon to make that decision?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: Never -- never took that into account? You never looked across the courtroom and thought, I'm going to have to decide whether she lives or dies?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, we went on -- when we -- are you talking about when we were into deliberation or...

VAN SUSTEREN: No, just any...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: ... during the course of the trial.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Oh, yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, you know, looking across the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a thought. Absolutely. Absolutely. When we went into deliberation, no, because the punishment is not something that's in our -- the punishment is written right down there on paper as what we were able -- the punishment's on the paper. It's the verdict. So we didn't take it into consideration.

This comment was badly worded, for sure, but as I interpreted it, he was saying they didn't take into consideration the ultimate sentence--that the only "punishment" they had on their paper was the verdict (guilty or not guilty).

For those who haven't seen the actual verdict forms that have been discussed, this is what they look like/what they had/what was read in court.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Verdict Forms.pdf

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

Any idea why you can view every motion, response, etc. in the Casey Anthony case on the special section they have on Orange County Clerk's website with the exception of the Jury Instructions Casey Anthony.pdf 06/04/11 under the Miscellaneous Section? Or, why it would be removed?

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/orders&motions.shtml

 

[rotterdam]

I am confused about the State going after FCA for more monies in addition to the fine for lying to LE. Is that common? Are there any other cases where such monies were successfully recovered from convicted folks with the misdemeanor of lying to LE? Will it result in another court case (civil?) before monies will be awarded to the State?
I find it somewhat unusual since such a precedent could apply to many other minor cases too IMO and open the flood gates. Sorry to be so ignorant.

 

[AZlawyer]

What is the order in which Casey would have to pay her actual and potential debts?

IRS lien ($68,520 actual)
State of Florida reimbursement of investigative costs (potential)
Civil suits - ZG, TES, LP, etc. (potential)

Does the IRS and State have to be paid off first before any civil suits can begin to be paid, or what?

Whoever gets a judgment and gets to her assets first gets paid first.

Although the prosecution was not required to prove a motive for the alleged murder of Caylee in the trial, they did attempt to prove a motive. I'm just curious why motive does not have to be proved? I'm assuming its because motives do not always make sense.

Motive does not have to be proved, because even if you commit a crime for no reason whatsoever you still have committed that crime. I suppose the exception would be "hate crimes."

Any idea why you can view every motion, response, etc. in the Casey Anthony case on the special section they have on Orange County Clerk's website with the exception of the Jury Instructions Casey Anthony.pdf 06/04/11 under the Miscellaneous Section? Or, why it would be removed?

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/orders&motions.shtml

Looks like a bad link, that's all.

Try this one:
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

I am confused about the State going after FCA for more monies in addition to the fine for lying to LE. Is that common? Are there any other cases where such monies were successfully recovered from convicted folks with the misdemeanor of lying to LE? Will it result in another court case (civil?) before monies will be awarded to the State?
I find it somewhat unusual since such a precedent could apply to many other minor cases too IMO and open the flood gates. Sorry to be so ignorant.

It is not uncommon and is provided for by statute. There will not be a separate lawsuit--it will be handled by HHJP.

In most minor cases, no one has spent much money investigating them.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Can a convicted felon legally change their name and leave no trace of the original name ?

 

[eleni777]

Good morning AZlawyer,

I'm not sure if this has been asked already and I don't have time to go back and read the entire thread:

Why would Morgan and Morgan ask about how, when, why and where Caylee died?
Is that necessary for a defamation suit?

 

[Sustained]

AZ - Jim Hammer on GVS mentioned last night that Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the State of Florida, could file a wrongful death suit in the name of Caylee Anthony thus preventing FCA from collection any monies from the death of her child. Sound right to you ?

 

[Rhyme & Reason]

AZ or Kat, what do you think her chances are of winning this appeal on the 4 lying convictions?

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28558632/detail.html

 

[AZlawyer]

Can a convicted felon legally change their name and leave no trace of the original name ?

The laws of every state are different. As long as she's residing in Florida (which perhaps won't be for long), she can't change her name unless and until her civil rights are restored (minimum approx. 5 years).

Good morning AZlawyer,

I'm not sure if this has been asked already and I don't have time to go back and read the entire thread:

Why would Morgan and Morgan ask about how, when, why and where Caylee died?
Is that necessary for a defamation suit?

For this one, it is. Casey said she left Caylee with ZFG at Sawgrass Apts. on June 9 (or 16). If Caylee actually died on June 16 by drowning in the A. family pool, or was murdered by Casey, then Casey's statement about ZFG was a lie. And proving a lie is step one in proving a defamation case.

AZ - Jim Hammer on GVS mentioned last night that Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the State of Florida, could file a wrongful death suit in the name of Caylee Anthony thus preventing FCA from collection any monies from the death of her child. Sound right to you ?

Sounds like nonsense to me.

AZ or Kat, what do you think her chances are of winning this appeal on the 4 lying convictions?

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28558632/detail.html

Approx. zero percent. There is some possibility of winning on the argument that the sentences should have run concurrently, but IMO HHJP was within his discretion to have them run consecutively.

I'm sure the appeal was filed just to prevent Morgan from taking any useful deposition on the 19th.

 

[uklaw]

AZ, could you help me here?

The answer seems obvious to me but I am assuming that Morgan & Morgan and the talking heads are not totally clueless.

Surely, even is ZG is given permission to take the video deposition in jail tomorrow KC could still take the 5th so the whole thing would be pointless? Would any "motion to compel" before the depo be able to circumvent the 5th Amendment privilege?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, could you help me here?

The answer seems obvious to me but I am assuming that Morgan & Morgan and the talking heads are not totally clueless.

Surely, even is ZG is given permission to take the video deposition in jail tomorrow KC could still take the 5th so the whole thing would be pointless? Would any "motion to compel" before the depo be able to circumvent the 5th Amendment privilege?

You are correct--the 5th Amendment problem is still there until the appeal on the lying convictions is resolved. IMO Casey could take the 5th to almost every question Morgan wants to ask. He can't have it both ways: either the questions about Caylee's fate are irrelevant to whether Casey lied about ZFG (and therefore irrelevant to his defamation case and can't be asked) or the questions about Caylee's fate are relevant to whether Casey lied about ZFG (and therefore relevant to the conviction for lying about ZFG and Casey can take the 5th until the appeal is resolved).

IMO the second option is the correct one, BTW. But my point is ONE of those options has to be correct, and either way his deposition is not going to get very far until the appeal is resolved.