Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[larryphx]

Can LBD ask cindy if she has been in contact with the defense team in the past 2 days and....
?
DO YOU think Cindy met with the defense team recently to go over her testimony?

 

[wvjules]

What happens if a witness is impeached? Does the judge announce it to the jury? Is the witness charged with perjury? What officially happens when a witness is impeached? TIA!

 

[bonniez451]

With the rule of witnesses not being allowed to talk to one another about the case how does that get around with the anthonys' going to dt office with supposed new info?

 

[BG4pip]

Can someone explain why Mason elicted testimony from a law enforcement officer that he handcuffed Casey for a brief time on July 15, the night Cindy reported Caylee missing? I don't see how that fact could possibly help the defense.

Mason's a bright guy. He must have anticipated the proseuction would ask the officer the obvious question that the jury no doubt was asking itself -- why he handcuffed her. He certainly knew that the answer -- that Cindy wanted to press charges for unauthorized use of her credit card -- would be prejudicial to Casey. He may have thought he could keep that testimony out on hearsay grounds [though it seems clear to me his testimony about Cindy's statement was not hearsay, since it was offered, not to prove that Casey used Cindy's credit card witout permission, but to explain his conduct].

But even so, why take the risk he might lose that legal argument. What was to be gained by proving Casey was briefly handcuffed?

 

[BG4pip]

Another defense tactic that has me scratching my head. As I understand it, they wanted to call a law enforcement officer to testify that he asked an acquaintance of George and Cindy to wear a hidden microphone and engage George and Cindy in conversation, in an effort to obtain incriminating statements from them, but the acquaintance refused to do so.

I can't see what conceivable relevance that has. Mason's answer, as I understood it, was that it shows the police considered George and Cindy to be suspects. But that is csimply not true. The police may have considered Casey the only suspect and thought George and Cindy had information that would incriminate their daughter.

More importantly, even if you could draw that inference from that evidence, what is the relevance of the fact that the police considered George and Cindy to be possible suspects?

 

[Merry1]

Can George's Grand Jury testimony be used to impeach George's testimony if necessary?

 

[Beccaboo]

What exactly was HHJP trying to get across to the DT when he was talking about theory of defense? I think it is because they have yet to address the theory they put forth during OS. I know it is ill advised not to address what they said in OS but does that present a legal issue? What if they never mention it again?

 

[pinkfly]

If the mixed up computer programs that did the computer use searches are figured out and it does turn out that it was 1 chloroform search on the 84th day of the year instead of 84 searches will it be damaging since it was a tech mistake? TIA

 

[BG4pip]

What exactly was HHJP trying to get across to the DT when he was talking about theory of defense? I think it is because they have yet to address the theory they put forth during OS. I know it is ill advised not to address what they said in OS but does that present a legal issue? What if they never mention it again?

The "theory of the defense" involves the issue of relevance. In a case where the prosecution accuses the defendant of murder through asphyxiation by duct tape or by poisoning with chloroform or both, the judge wants to know why we should bother hearing evidence that that victim enjoyed being in her grandparents' pool.

 

[strawberry]

Is there only a penalty phase if she is found guilty of capital murder or is there one if she is found guilty of anything?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Sorry if this is a silly question but how many more days is the trial likely to last before verdict? I haven't been able to find this info

Today JB estimated that he would be done next Thursday and SA estimated they would need 1/2 to full day for rebuttal.

Can LBD ask cindy if she has been in contact with the defense team in the past 2 days and....
?
DO YOU think Cindy met with the defense team recently to go over her testimony?

Yes and Yes.

What happens if a witness is impeached? Does the judge announce it to the jury? Is the witness charged with perjury? What officially happens when a witness is impeached? TIA!

Impeachment just means that you are calling the credibility of the witness into question via showing bias, a prior inconsistent statement, etc. It's merely a legal evidentiary term, therefore the Judge doesn't announce it, the witness is not charged with perjury, and nothing happens to the witness.

With the rule of witnesses not being allowed to talk to one another about the case how does that get around with the anthonys' going to dt office with supposed new info?

There is no rule precluding the Anthonys from speaking with the defense team.

Can someone explain why Mason elicted testimony from a law enforcement officer that he handcuffed Casey for a brief time on July 15, the night Cindy reported Caylee missing? I don't see how that fact could possibly help the defense.

Mason's a bright guy. He must have anticipated the proseuction would ask the officer the obvious question that the jury no doubt was asking itself -- why he handcuffed her. He certainly knew that the answer -- that Cindy wanted to press charges for unauthorized use of her credit card -- would be prejudicial to Casey. He may have thought he could keep that testimony out on hearsay grounds [though it seems clear to me his testimony about Cindy's statement was not hearsay, since it was offered, not to prove that Casey used Cindy's credit card witout permission, but to explain his conduct].

But even so, why take the risk he might lose that legal argument. What was to be gained by proving Casey was briefly handcuffed?

Nothing. It was a mistake.

Another defense tactic that has me scratching my head. As I understand it, they wanted to call a law enforcement officer to testify that he asked an acquaintance of George and Cindy to wear a hidden microphone and engage George and Cindy in conversation, in an effort to obtain incriminating statements from them, but the acquaintance refused to do so.

I can't see what conceivable relevance that has. Mason's answer, as I understood it, was that it shows the police considered George and Cindy to be suspects. But that is csimply not true. The police may have considered Casey the only suspect and thought George and Cindy had information that would incriminate their daughter.

More importantly, even if you could draw that inference from that evidence, what is the relevance of the fact that the police considered George and Cindy to be possible suspects?

There is no relevance, that's why JP didn't allow the testimony.

Can George's Grand Jury testimony be used to impeach George's testimony if necessary?

GA's grand jury testimony can only be used to impeach his trial testimony if he testifies inconsistently on a significant issue. JP already ruled he had not so DT wasn't allowed to see his GJ testimony.

If the mixed up computer programs that did the computer use searches are figured out and it does turn out that it was 1 chloroform search on the 84th day of the year instead of 84 searches will it be damaging since it was a tech mistake? TIA

March 17th wasn't the 84th day. The SA's computer expert clearly testified there were 84 searches or visits to the web page. Assuming it was a tech mistake, it would only be damaging, imho, if a juror thought that 1 web search meant the search was innocuous.

 

[Aqua_Green_Bean]

When, and if, she is convicted will Casey be permitted to do interviews from prison?

 

[Sabrina2011]

What would her punishment be if she said this when Det Yuri Melich interviewed her that fateful night at Universal:

I was frustrated, I wanted her to go to sleep, I wanted to go out, I gave her Chloroform (insert whatever sedative you like, Benadryl, Wine, Xanax) and then I realized I gave her too much and she would not wake up. I panicked after trying to revive her, I drove back to my parents house hoping I would figure out what to do, Caylee was in the car seat unconscious but possibly dead, I could not tell. I was crying and I realized she was dead. Again, I was just panicked, not thinking so I got the duct tape and a plastic bag, and a laundry bag and I decided to make it look like she had been taken and killed by her babysitter. I taped her up and put her in the bags. I did not know where to take her so I put her in the trunk and I left and went to Tony's.

After a few days, the car smelled, people noticed, I had to do something so I drove home and I was going to bury her in my yard but could not. So I placed her in the brush near my home, I wanted her close to home. Then I just left. I didn't know what to do and days and weeks passed and then my mom came with Amy.

What would the charges be?

 

[YellowDog]

If Caylee did drown, as the defense contends, why wouldn't GA be just as culpable as CMA since he was also at home? He, in fact, stated as a witness for the state that he and Caylee spent time together before he went to work in the morning.

 

[AZlawyer]

If Caylee did drown, as the defense contends, why wouldn't GA be just as culpable as CMA since he was also at home? He, in fact, stated as a witness for the state that he and Caylee spent time together before he went to work in the morning.

Well, first, he was not Caylee's parent and so not responsible for her while her parent was there. Second, he has not been charged with anything and no one will charge him because the story was clearly invented.

What would her punishment be if she said this when Det Yuri Melich interviewed her that fateful night at Universal:

I was frustrated, I wanted her to go to sleep, I wanted to go out, I gave her Chloroform (insert whatever sedative you like, Benadryl, Wine, Xanax) and then I realized I gave her too much and she would not wake up. I panicked after trying to revive her, I drove back to my parents house hoping I would figure out what to do, Caylee was in the car seat unconscious but possibly dead, I could not tell. I was crying and I realized she was dead. Again, I was just panicked, not thinking so I got the duct tape and a plastic bag, and a laundry bag and I decided to make it look like she had been taken and killed by her babysitter. I taped her up and put her in the bags. I did not know where to take her so I put her in the trunk and I left and went to Tony's.

After a few days, the car smelled, people noticed, I had to do something so I drove home and I was going to bury her in my yard but could not. So I placed her in the brush near my home, I wanted her close to home. Then I just left. I didn't know what to do and days and weeks passed and then my mom came with Amy.

What would the charges be?

The most appropriate charge would be aggravated manslaughter of a child (causing the death of a child through culpable negligence). 13-30 years in Casey's case.

When, and if, she is convicted will Casey be permitted to do interviews from prison?

Yes.

Is there only a penalty phase if she is found guilty of capital murder or is there one if she is found guilty of anything?

Only for capital murder.

Thank you to the attorneys here! I have a trial strategy question.

I am convinced, so far, that Casey alone is responsible for Caylee's death, and that George had nothing to do with any of the charges leveled at him by Baez in opening. I think her defense is barely perceptible and that Casey will be convicted in the guilt phase.

Having said that, could George, on new direct questioning from the defense in the presence of the jury, simply take the 5th on any questions concerning his molestation or cover-up involvement that Baez asks him? Senor Baez has accused him of very serious crimes. By taking the 5th, not that the judge or prosecutors would be happy about it, he could cast very serious doubt in the jurors' mind about the single perp theory of the prosecution. I think the judge would bring a pretty quick halt to his direct non-testimony, excuse the jury, and read Baez (and George) the riot act. Mistrial may be discussed. Sanctions may be discussed, but George will have single-handedly placed the single-perp theory in doubt, in my opinion. It may only mitigate Casey's involvement in the jury's mind, not excuse it, but it might accomplish the goal of getting Casey a -much- reduced level of conviction. Cindy would be so proud of him ...

IANAL.

It would offer Baez an out for his ridiculous opening statement and couldn't do anything but help the defense in the jury's eyes, no matter what curative instruction(s) are given. Bell=Rung.

Mistrial? Sanctions? Proffer George's further direct exam? George doesn't have immunity so he would be forced by the judge to testify, does he?

In a desperate situation, desperate people may do desperate things. For George, maybe a perjury trial. Small potatoes compared to what Casey faces with no defense whatsoever for what she definitely did, IMO.

Why wouldn't it work? And think of the TV ratings!! Cindy could fall in love with George all over again and heck, she might even get a talk show! Wheeee..

Would it work?

Thanks for being here!

I don't see how George can take the 5th after he already answered these questions on the stand (which he did).

Since the State is seeking the death penalty can the State appeal if Casey is sentenced to LWOP for murder or if she is only convicted of manslaughter? Is it likely that the State would appeal? Also, can acquittals be appealed?

The State can't appeal a jury's decision to acquit or to convict only on a lesser charge (impliedly acquitting on the greater charge).

 

[GracieLu]

just wondering......

suppose the state were to have CA's past employer testify to the fact that she was at work on the days ICA made computer searches for chloroform. Maybe they have some type of proof like CA's signature on something, etc. suppose by doing this the state shows that CA may in fact lie to save ICA's life....

fast forward, the jury now has in their heads that CA may in fact lie.... could the state at this point call CA on the stand and question her about the supposed fight on the 15th (ICA stealing grandma/grandpa's money, CA supposedly strangled ICA, threatens to take Caylee away)? I actually think this would be brilliant because the state has previously shown CA lies, she'll of course deny the fight, but the jury might not accept her denial and this may scream MOTIVE big time in their heads!

can the state do this? lol and THANKS, YOU GUYS ROCK!

 

[AZlawyer]

just wondering......

suppose the state were to have CA's past employer testify to the fact that she was at work on the days ICA made computer searches for chloroform. Maybe they have some type of proof like CA's signature on something, etc. suppose by doing this the state shows that CA may in fact lie to save ICA's life....

fast forward, the jury now has in their heads that CA may in fact lie.... could the state at this point call CA on the stand and question her about the supposed fight on the 15th (ICA stealing grandma/grandpa's money, CA supposedly strangled ICA, threatens to take Caylee away)? I actually think this would be brilliant because the state has previously shown CA lies, she'll of course deny the fight, but the jury might not accept her denial and this may scream MOTIVE big time in their heads!

can the state do this? lol and THANKS, YOU GUYS ROCK!

No, because the state has zero admissible evidence of this alleged fight.

 

[smartsass]

Perhaps I am over-focusing on this but do you feel that JA made it clear that Huntington's replication of a body decaying in a trunk differed in every way imaginable from it first, being a pig which simply due to diet will smell different than anything else, but also bc of location (NW state in winter, right?) temperature, time of year?

I know they'll remember the pig wasn't in a blanket but I'm concerned this could raise reasonable doubt for at least one juror.

Also, do you feel juror #4 will be problematic bc of her supposed stance that she (basically) doesn't feel it's her place to judge? I know this is conjecture, if it's okay, I would love to hear opinions the lawyers bc they deal w/ jurors and have first-hand knowledge of various broad profiles jurors can fit. Part of me wonders if juror #4 said that for appearances' sake? As if she said that bc she viewed it as something that would set her apart and cause people to believe she'd be overly reserved in passing any sanctions? Something smells rotten in Denmark about her stance (I don't mean to sound rude or libelous, if that's inappropriate, pls let me know).

 

[AZlawyer]

Perhaps I am over-focusing on this but do you feel that JA made it clear that Huntington's replication of a body decaying in a trunk differed in every way imaginable from it first, being a pig which simply due to diet will smell different than anything else, but also bc of location (NW state in winter, right?) temperature, time of year?

I know they'll remember the pig wasn't in a blanket but I'm concerned this could raise reasonable doubt for at least one juror.

Also, do you feel juror #4 will be problematic bc of her supposed stance that she (basically) doesn't feel it's her place to judge? I know this is conjecture, if it's okay, I would love to hear opinions the lawyers bc they deal w/ jurors and have first-hand knowledge of various broad profiles jurors can fit. Part of me wonders if juror #4 said that for appearances' sake? As if she said that bc she viewed it as something that would set her apart and cause people to believe she'd be overly reserved in passing any sanctions? Something smells rotten in Denmark about her stance (I don't mean to sound rude or libelous, if that's inappropriate, pls let me know).

Yes, I think JA did a good job on that subject.

I am still somewhat worried about juror #4. I think she meant what she said, although I'm not sure we quite understood her correctly. I hope I didn't understand her correctly.

 

[Lightchaser]

Given the high profile and wide reaching attention this case is getting would an "amicus curiae" be something that could surface? If so why would it? Because a precedent may be set or there is some far reaching effect the verdict could have?
I looked up this term after seeing in another thread and it is something I had never heard of.
TIA