Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[TxLady2]

It is difficult to know what Casey's rights are with regard to the tax lien, because we don't know whether she filed ANY tax return for 2008 or what was on it. There are endless possibilities i.e. she could have filed no tax return, she could have filed a timely, accurate tax return but failed to pay some/all of the taxes due, she could have filed a late tax return, etc. Income tax information is generally confidential; the only reason we know about the tax lien is because the lien itself is public.

Generally speaking, it is difficult (and expensive!) to appeal tax liens especially after the time limits have expired. However, the IRS is usually open to negotiations that result in a large portion of the taxes being paid sooner or later.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Why would she have filed a tax return in 2008, if she wasn't working? She had not had a job in 2 years from what I understand.

 

[rotterdam]

Would KC's legal fees qualify as a deductible partially or in whole also in view of the NG verdict?

 

[allycat1208]

I heard that KC had a million dollar interview offer if she agrees to do a polygraph. I was wondering if she was requested to take one before she went to jail? I read that Jesse Grund took a lie detector test and he was ruled out as a suspect immediately and KC's parents refused to take them. How often are polygraph used and why are they used if they are not totally accurate? How valid are the results?

 

[DesSands]

partial quote:


Sorry I overlooked this part.

I don't think you are confused here. Nope. Uh uh. I think what has happened relative to the probation is what is confused, at best.

The whole idea of supervised probation is that the probationer is not incarcerated.

That's why a sentence which imposes a penalty of jail time to be followed up by probation (the deal with the check fraud plea) is called a
"split sentence." i.e.
It's not all jail time. Some of the sentence is served after release.
Yeah, that would be the probation part.

So as to what on earth has happened here, I can't say.

The idea that the period of supervised probation just "poofed" is hard to accept.:banghead:

MH
sharing an opinion, as always:seeya:

So I'm still NOT happy, but Thank you for all the time you spent breaking this down. Can I WRITE to Judge Perry and kind of remind him to look this over again? I think they mis calculated her time served as 4 yrs. equates to 1,460 days. Even with time off for good behavior and gain time, like Dr. Lee would say," Someting Not Wight here." + JP forgot to notice that she's supposed to be on probation for 1 yr. :woohoo:

 

[Sustained]

AZ - in regards to the possible contempt charges against Baez for the discovery violations ...

1) Should we have seen these charges filed already ?
2) Is HHJP the one who would actually charge Baez with contempt or would the case be reviewed by someone else before charging ?
3) What would be the possible punishment should Baez be convicted of said charges ?
4) Is there a time limit as to when the charges could be filed ?
5) Would HHJP base his decision on whether the defense team won the case or not ?

Thanks, as usual, for any help.

 

[atthelake]

For our many lawyers, this article was an excellent read for me and others I've discussed with. Are you, as a lawyer, allowed to write such thoughts/opinions due to limitations of lawyers or current court officials? (I believe I recall reading somewhere in links that current lawyers aren't supposed to question jurors such as this) Do you agree with author Adam H. Kurland, who is a former assistant U.S. attorney is a professor of law at Howard University School of Law in Washington? Just looking for multiple lawyers thoughts and opinions, thanks!


http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&Reasonable_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

"In Casey's case, the prosecution clearly provided more than enough evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of some form of murder. ....The Anthony case, in my view, can be encapsulated with the following third scenario. You go to bed at night and it is dry outside. You wake up in the morning and the grass is wet, the pavement is wet and there is what only can be described as the aftermath of raindrops on your car parked outside. Up the street 25 yards is a fire hydrant. Last summer, during a heat wave, the fire department opened the hydrant and water sprayed all over the place. You even have a picture of that event. This does not create a reasonable doubt about whether it rained last night. The suggestion that the fire hydrant was opened last night and was the source of all the water is speculation that is devoid of any evidentiary support. The conclusion that it rained last night has been established beyond a reasonable doubt...The Anthony trial was an intricate circumstantial evidence case, but it shouldn't have flummoxed a jury of even borderline intelligence.

 

[Katprint]

Why would she have filed a tax return in 2008, if she wasn't working? She had not had a job in 2 years from what I understand.

There are ways to earn taxable income other than working at a job.

I believe the current IRS tax lien is for the $200,000+ Casey received from selling photos/movies of Caylee in fall 2008. Presumably ABC (or whoever paid the money) claimed the "licensing fees" on their taxes as a business deduction and filed a 1099 miscellaneous income from reporting that payment to Casey. Casey owed taxes on that income and, apparently per the tax lien, didn't pay the taxes she owed.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Katprint]

Would KC's legal fees qualify as a deductible partially or in whole also in view of the NG verdict?

No. The deductibility (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the verdict.

If she were a model who worked for a modeling agency which charged fees as a percentage of the job, she would be able to deduct those modeling agency fees. They would be considered a cost of doing business. Same as union dues are deductible, or my state bar dues.

Casey had already killed/dumped Caylee and had already hired Baez to defend her in the criminal case when she sold the photos/videos. The attorney's fees to defend the criminal case were not incurred negotiating the sale of the photos/videos.

Also, $90,000 is WAY TOO MUCH for an attorney to charge to negotiate such a licensing fee; something in the neighborhood of $1,000 would be fair, assuming $200/hour for five hours of an attorney's time (a generous assumption - really it should take much less time than that.) Attorneys are prohibited by Professional Rules of Conduct from charging exorbitant fees. In Florida, the applicable regulation is http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/A8644F215162F9DE85257164004C0429 quoted below in part:

"RULE 4-1.5 FEES AND COSTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES
(a) Illegal, Prohibited, or Clearly Excessive Fees and Costs. An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost ... . A fee or cost is clearly excessive when:
(1) after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a definite and firm conviction that the fee or the cost exceeds a reasonable fee or cost for services provided to such a degree as to constitute clear overreaching or an unconscionable demand by the attorney;"

If Casey could prove that some small part of Baez' $90,000 fee was attributable specifically to the $200,000 licensing fee negotiation, maybe with phone records showing how much time Baez spent on the phone with ABC or something like that, then she probably could deduct that part.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Katprint]

For our many lawyers, this article was an excellent read for me and others I've discussed with. Are you, as a lawyer, allowed to write such thoughts/opinions due to limitations of lawyers or current court officials? (I believe I recall reading somewhere in links that current lawyers aren't supposed to question jurors such as this) Do you agree with author Adam H. Kurland, who is a former assistant U.S. attorney is a professor of law at Howard University School of Law in Washington? Just looking for multiple lawyers thoughts and opinions, thanks!

Lawyers in the US still retain their First Amendment rights and can write about their thoughts/opinions. We can question the judgment, intelligence, laziness, failure to follow jury instructions, etc. of jurors.

The irony of the Casey Anthony jury's failure to follow the jury instructions (for example, their statements that they considered George's supposed "accident" statement to his mistress as substantive evidence that an accident really occurred instead of as impeachment evidence only relevant to George's truthfulness as a witness) is that jury misconduct most often results in improper convictions, not improper acquittals. Jurors who hear about the defendant's seven prior convictions for armed robbery decide the defendant is a bad person thus they are more likely to convict him of unrelated welfare fraud charges. Or they believe that police officers never lie. Or they disbelieve alibi witnesses because those witnesses must be "biased" due to being friends of the defendant - nevermind that people generally spend time in the company of their friends rather than their enemies and there is nothing suspicious about perfectly normal behavior. Or they believe "where there's smoke, there's fire" and the defendant wouldn't have been arrested/charged/on trial if he weren't guilty. I could go on and on. I cringe when I hear people talking about how the system should be changed so that juries will convict more often, just because there weren't big enough guilty verdicts in this one freakish case.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[TxLady2]

There are ways to earn taxable income other than working at a job.

I believe the current IRS tax lien is for the $200,000+ Casey received from selling photos/movies of Caylee in fall 2008. Presumably ABC (or whoever paid the money) claimed the "licensing fees" on their taxes as a business deduction and filed a 1099 miscellaneous income from reporting that payment to Casey. Casey owed taxes on that income and, apparently per the tax lien, didn't pay the taxes she owed.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Yes, I forgot about that. But didn't she give that money to Baez for his fees? And if so, shouldn't he have taken care of the taxes for her?

 

[Katprint]

Yes, I forgot about that. But didn't she give that money to Baez for his fees? And if so, shouldn't he have taken care of the taxes for her?

In a nutshell: No, only part of the money went to Baez for attorneys' fees; the rest supposedly went to defense costs. No, attorneys don't have to pay their clients' taxes from proceeds the attorneys receive on their clients' behalf. Yes, Baez should have advised Casey that taxes were owed on this income - and for all we know, he did advise her of that and Casey chose not to pay the taxes and instead chose to use ALL the money for the capital murder case and deal with the tax issue after the capital murder case was over. If Casey had been convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life in prison or death, owing taxes would be the least of her worries.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[MiraclesHappen]

So I'm still NOT happy, but Thank you for all the time you spent breaking this down. Can I WRITE to Judge Perry and kind of remind him to look this over again? I think they mis calculated her time served as 4 yrs. equates to 1,460 days. Even with time off for good behavior and gain time, like Dr. Lee would say," Someting Not Wight here." + JP forgot to notice that she's supposed to be on probation for 1 yr. :woohoo:

You are welcome, Des!!!

Don't waste a stamp, my friend.

The defendant's sentence has been imposed. What you would be asking is for the defendant to be "un-sentenced" and then re-sentenced using a different calculation to determine how much time should be credited as "served."

That isn't done.


I am not in any way suggesting you are wrong in thinking something could be wrong. (as in not wight)

It's one of those over & done with things we wish we could go back and do over. But it "aint gonna happen."

MH:seeya: and :wolf:
sharing an opinion

 

[twomanywords]

If it comes to light that GA was coerced to go along with the molestation theory, does that break any laws? If its admitted that it was a ploy to get KC acquitted?
Thx

 

[rotterdam]

When HHJP in August decides how much KC owes the State/County as a result of her lying convictions, could the State reduce any JAC payments, if there are still unpaid bills, by such awarded amounts?
Or will it be collected on an elaborate 20 years or so payment schedule like her fine.

 

[logicalgirl]

When HHJP in August decides how much KC owes the State/County as a result of her lying convictions, could the State reduce any JAC payments, if there are still unpaid bills, by such awarded amounts?
Or will it be collected on an elaborate 20 years or so payment schedule like her fine.

I have in the back of my mind that HHJP warned Baez about unnecessary charges to the JAC being charged back to the lawyer who requested them. Will there be any playback for this case do you think, now that he went through a whole trial pretending Caylee was kidnapped, missing, investigating searchers, etc., when all along he "apparently" knew the child was dead on June 15/16?

 

[What'sThatClue]

If Judge Stan Strickland signs his clarification on Monday of his prior order to place FCA on probation, and FCA is placed on probation at this point, can it be legally challenged?

(I mean, successfully challenged and overturned?)

 

[Pattymarie]

If KC is ordered to serve a year of probation in Orlando and she doesn't report, what are the legal ramifications?

 

[MiraclesHappen]

If KC is ordered to serve a year of probation in Orlando and she doesn't report, what are the legal ramifications?

The legal ramifications of failing to comply with probation can be bad for the defendant...very bad.

I haven't been keeping up with the news relative to Casey's journey through the judicial system.


That said,

In general, when a probationer fails to comply with probationary terms,
the system will respond with a proceeding which is called a VOP.

That's a violation of probation.
Rights are limited in a VOP because the case is already into the disposition phase.
For example, in this case, casey already entered a plea of guilty.

Anyway, the defendant can be ordered to appear and answer to the VOP.
The defendant can also be arrested and brought in to answer to the VOP.
And yes, the defendant can be held.

I am not saying that will happen here. I don't know what's been going on recently and need to catch up.

In general, when a violation of probation is found by the Court, the defendant's probation can be revoked, or modified, or continued. It's up to the Judge.

I am guessing you will want to know: , "When a violation of probation is found, can a jail sentence be imposed?"

Yes, that jail sentence would be on the charge which generated the probation in the first place.

I have seen defendants who were sentenced to relatively easy probationary terms then fail to take it seriously and thus, fail to meet those terms.
They were then hauled into Court, VOP found by the Court, probation revoked , and the maximum allowable jail sentence imposed.


Remember, there was already a guilty finding when the probation was originally ordered. That part of the case is done.

There can be probation without that type of adjudication but that isn't the case with Casey, as I recall.

One more thing. I believe Casey already was ordered to do the probation.
I just do not know where it went...

Those are some of the basics.
Hope I've ansered the question!
MH & CO. :wolf::seeya:
sharing an opinion

 

[LambChop]

Judge Strickland asked JB if he or his client was involved in any way with a book deal or interviews with the media regarding this case. He answer no. Before the ink was dry on KC's fingerprinting JB was off to NYC to try and broker a deal. Did JB lie to Judge Strickland when he said there were no plans. After most trials the defense attorneys just go back to their office and work on other cases. Would the court consider this an ethics violation?

 

[AZlawyer]

This has probably been asked and answered but if they prosecute CA and they win, does the Son of Sam law kick in and prevent her from making money for anything related to Caylee's death, to include taking a salary from a foundation she made up?

She lied about the chloroform searches, knew they could prove she was at job, so she had another lie ready. I don't see how perjury gets any worse than that during a capital murder case.

I wonder if they're aren't prosecuting her because of the flub of over the 84 searches -vs- once. Opinions?

IMO

CA is Cindy, I'm assuming.

If she was prosecuted and convicted for perjury, perhaps she would not be permitted to keep profits relating to the PERJURY, but she would not be prohibited from profiting from interviews, etc. relating to CAYLEE.

I think they aren't prosecuting her for the same reason they aren't prosecuting the other 49,573 people who lie in court every week (OK, I made up that number ). No one has the time or resources. Plus it would be kind of embarrassing for the state if Cindy was in jail for perjury and Casey was running around free after doing whatever she did to Caylee (IMO, allegedly, etc.).

Thanks AZ for answering the questions I had about KC's appeal ... :seeya:

Kind of bummed out that it could take a year, though ...

Can the civil suits go forward ? In particular, the Zenaida suit ? Or are these going to be dependent on the outcome of the appeal ?
It seems Zenaida and TES suits are based on the lies that she told, and like the costs of investigating the lies would depend on if the appellate court upholds her conviction on the lying charges

Guess I'm getting frustrating thinking she could hold up all of this for quite an extended period of time ...

The civil suits can go forward regardless of the criminal appeal. Even if her convictions for lying are reversed, a civil jury could still find that she lied about Zenaida. Just like OJ, remember?

Would KC's legal fees qualify as a deductible partially or in whole also in view of the NG verdict?

I don't think criminal legal fees are ever deductible.

I heard that KC had a million dollar interview offer if she agrees to do a polygraph. I was wondering if she was requested to take one before she went to jail? I read that Jesse Grund took a lie detector test and he was ruled out as a suspect immediately and KC's parents refused to take them. How often are polygraph used and why are they used if they are not totally accurate? How valid are the results?

Casey was not asked to take a lie detector test, but of course would have had a 5th Amendment right to refuse. These tests are used by LE basically to rule out suspects. IMO they are crap.

Will Jose still have possible contempt charges brought by HHJP because of actions during the trial? HHJP said he would adress them when the trial was over. TIA.

AZ - in regards to the possible contempt charges against Baez for the discovery violations ...

1) Should we have seen these charges filed already ?
2) Is HHJP the one who would actually charge Baez with contempt or would the case be reviewed by someone else before charging ?
3) What would be the possible punishment should Baez be convicted of said charges ?
4) Is there a time limit as to when the charges could be filed ?
5) Would HHJP base his decision on whether the defense team won the case or not ?

Thanks, as usual, for any help.

I don't think we should expect any actual "charges" to be filed at all. I hope that HHJP holds a sanctions hearing regarding Baez's discovery violations, but it's been a while now. The discovery violations are not made any better by the defense winning the case, but maybe HHJP is just sick of the whole thing.

If it comes to light that GA was coerced to go along with the molestation theory, does that break any laws? If its admitted that it was a ploy to get KC acquitted?
Thx

He didn't go along with the theory, so if he was coerced the coercer didn't do a very good job of it. If he had been coerced to do so, that would have been witness tampering.

When HHJP in August decides how much KC owes the State/County as a result of her lying convictions, could the State reduce any JAC payments, if there are still unpaid bills, by such awarded amounts?
Or will it be collected on an elaborate 20 years or so payment schedule like her fine.

I don't see why they would reduce payments to court reporters, investigators, etc. just because Casey owes money to the state. Those people are not Casey.

I have in the back of my mind that HHJP warned Baez about unnecessary charges to the JAC being charged back to the lawyer who requested them. Will there be any playback for this case do you think, now that he went through a whole trial pretending Caylee was kidnapped, missing, investigating searchers, etc., when all along he "apparently" knew the child was dead on June 15/16?

First of all, there is no indication that Baez was given the "Caylee is dead" story from the beginning. Second, he still had to explore all defense avenues, including "reasonable doubt" avenues that would not involve admitting the death.

If Judge Stan Strickland signs his clarification on Monday of his prior order to place FCA on probation, and FCA is placed on probation at this point, can it be legally challenged?

(I mean, successfully challenged and overturned?)

Yes, it could and would be successfully challenged IMO, because she has already served the probation in jail. Even if that was a mistake on the part of the DOC, she can't be made to serve it again.

Judge Strickland asked JB if he or his client was involved in any way with a book deal or interviews with the media regarding this case. He answer no. Before the ink was dry on KC's fingerprinting JB was off to NYC to try and broker a deal. Did JB lie to Judge Strickland when he said there were no plans. After most trials the defense attorneys just go back to their office and work on other cases. Would the court consider this an ethics violation?

No. Strickland was only concerned about any book or interview deal being in the works during the pretrial period.