Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[AZlawyer]

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

No, not at the trial level. Something like that might be possible at the appellate level, assuming there are any interesting legal issues raised.

 

[aeneas1]

to the verified attorneys that have contributed so much of their valuable, another sincere thanks!

 

[Tennessean]

Originally Posted by Tennessean

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!
==========================

AZlawyer said:

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


To AZLAWYER, IMO George could take the 5th. He could simply speak the words ... 'I take the 5th'.

I think it could have major advantages for the defense, as I described at length in my post. My question to the attorneys here, is what would happen if he says the words 'I take the 5th' in the presence of the jury, under direct exam by Baez, .

Do you know?

Thanks a lot!

 

[TxLady2]

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.

Or could it be that the defense is simply making the point that Caylee loved the pool and could climb in the pool by herself, which would support their theory that an accidental drowning was very possible, since someone apparently left the ladder up. I am a bit confused why JP thought this testimony was irrelevant to the drowning theory, any other ideas?

 

[Patty G]

Can Baez recuse himself from the case?

Thank you.

 

[Decatur Doll]

Under what circumstances would the judge have an ex parte communication with just one legal team of a murder trial?

 

[Peachy Keen]

Are there restrictions on what the SA can say/do during their rebuttal?

Thanks for everything to our wonderful lawyers!

 

[gitana1]

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).

Snipped by me for space. I'll add my opinion of juror 4. Her statement that she does not like to judge is not what set off alarm bells for me. Perhaps I am different from everyone else in this regard but what concerned me was
her level of life experience and resultant cognitive ability, plus her personality. It was the way she said things, the answers to the questions posed to her.

In my experience, this may be a lady who cannot understand more than mildly complex concepts and she is unlikely to admit if she cannot understand because she probably would not see it that way. People like this often reject totally what the person making the complicated statement is saying. They cling to what they know which may not be multi-layered and complex. Life is simple so judging a situation is also simple.

In this case it could lead to a scenario in which Juror 4 thinks: "Well I don't know about all that science mumbo jumbo but casey looks too sweet to hurt her child. And I saw a video of her playing with her baby. She wouldn't hurt her."

True, it could go the other way as well: "That young lady was dancing when her baby was dead. Dancing! She's guilty."

But my sense from listening to her voir dire is that she is a dangerous wild card and I would not want her on any jury for any case of mine.

Originally Posted by Tennessean

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!
==========================

AZlawyer said:

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


To AZLAWYER, IMO George could take the 5th. He could simply speak the words ... 'I take the 5th'.

I think it could have major advantages for the defense, as I described at length in my post. My question to the attorneys here, is what would happen if he says the words 'I take the 5th' in the presence of the jury, under direct exam by Baez, .

Do you know?

Thanks a lot!

He would be instructed to answer and could be held in contempt if he didn't. That's because having answered these questions previously, he is ineligible for the privilege at this point.

IMO, the effect would not be great if he did that. His answers were credible previously. It would just appear that he is trying to save his daughter's life.

Can Baez recuse himself from the case?

Thank you.

Attorneys cannot quit in the middle of a trial unless the client agrees and there is a new attorney who can take over. Even under those facts, a judge would still have to agree to it.

Under what circumstances would the judge have an ex parte communication with just one legal team of a murder trial?

In my field it's only when notice cannot be given to the other side to be there or if it would be dangerous to give notice. I find it odd that one side would go in chambers alone with HHJP.

Are there restrictions on what the SA can say/do during their rebuttal?

Thanks for everything to our wonderful lawyers!

They can only present evidence/testimony that contradicts what the defense tried to present during their case. But that is a pretty wide area. So much can be argued to rebut the defense case so the state has a lot of latitude here.

 

[Kelley]

If JB files a complaint against JA. like he said he was going to do, the FL Bar investigates and finds that there was no basis for the complaint and it was basically done for spite, can the FL Bar do anything to JB?

Thanks so much

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Under what circumstances would the judge have an ex parte communication with just one legal team of a murder trial?

If it does not involve a matter currently pending before that judge. With notice to and permission from the other side. In an emergency, when it is impossible or impractical to give notice to the other side. Here, I can't fathom what happened, I didn't see any response or inquiry of the SA before they went in together without the SA. My gut tells me that KC was having some sort of issue, physical or mental, perhaps she is claiming she can no longer sit in on the trial or she has an issue with a member of her team.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

No, unless he filed it during the trial in order to gain a tactical advantage at trial.

 

[4Jacy]

Why, why, why was juror #4 allowed? She scares me to death! :maddening:

 

[AZlawyer]

Or could it be that the defense is simply making the point that Caylee loved the pool and could climb in the pool by herself, which would support their theory that an accidental drowning was very possible, since someone apparently left the ladder up. I am a bit confused why JP thought this testimony was irrelevant to the drowning theory, any other ideas?

He didn't think that testimony was irrelevant to the drowning theory; he thought the question about CA and GA having marital problems was irrelevant to the drowning theory. I think. :waitasec:

Under what circumstances would the judge have an ex parte communication with just one legal team of a murder trial?

Well, that's the question of the day, isn't it??

My first thought was that it was an issue with the defense team--someone leaving for some reason. But no one acted like the team was breaking up, and HHJP said it was a "legal issue," and what did he need with the court reporter at the end? :waitasec:

Then I thought maybe a plea, but I'm not sure how that gets you an ex parte meeting.

Then I thought maybe the defense was asking to sever the "lying to police" counts from the other counts so that Casey could testify about what happened to Caylee without having to essentially admit guilt on the other counts. That might explain the ex parte hearing. But the fact that she lied to the police is so dang OBVIOUS whether or not she testifies--what would be the point of this??

Then I thought maybe the point of it would be to delay things in order to get rid of the jurors who couldn't stay past July 1 or so and get into the alternate list. I remember thinking the alternate list looked a lot better for the defense...but I can't remember how many and which jurors were not able to stay past which dates. I thought there was a thread but I'm not finding it. :banghead:


ETA: Weren't there tweets about HHJP laughing with the jury afterward? If so, the court reporter comment could just be because he wants anything he says to the jury, even about scheduling issues, to be recorded for appellate purposes.

 

[smartsass]

The following is quoted from an wftv article and was posted on websleuths (links are below).

What is the significance of this? Am I just overly hopeful or does this mean "get something and stick with it"...if that's what it means, what happens if Baez doesn't? Does the defense have to have a set theory of defense or can they just refute and/or cast sufficient reasonable doubt on anything the prosecution says?

Judge Belvin Perry questioned Baez about the defense's theory.


"If your theory of defense is ever-changing, maybe you just need to tell me what your theory of defense is," Perry said to Baez. "At least somebody try and explain it to me."


(TY all for your help, I have been dreaming of a community like this for a long time after being beheaded, tarred, feathered, and boiled in hot oil alive on other sites for merely stating I can *see* how someone would have doubts. :woohoo: )
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14156"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

http://www.wftv.com/news/28342780/detail.html

 

[AZlawyer]

The following is quoted from an wftv article and was posted on websleuths (links are below).

What is the significance of this? Am I just overly hopeful or does this mean "get something and stick with it"...if that's what it means, what happens if Baez doesn't? Does the defense have to have a set theory of defense or can they just refute and/or cast sufficient reasonable doubt on anything the prosecution says?

Judge Belvin Perry questioned Baez about the defense's theory.


"If your theory of defense is ever-changing, maybe you just need to tell me what your theory of defense is," Perry said to Baez. "At least somebody try and explain it to me."


(TY all for your help, I have been dreaming of a community like this for a long time after being beheaded, tarred, feathered, and boiled in hot oil alive on other sites for merely stating I can *see* how someone would have doubts. :woohoo: )
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

http://www.wftv.com/news/28342780/detail.html

In context, I think what he meant was that, if they are going to keep changing their theory of defense (which is OK), they needed to tell him what (new) theory their seemingly irrelevant questions were related to.

 

[AZlawyer]

Why, why, why was juror #4 allowed? She scares me to death! :maddening:

The SA didn't question her thoroughly enough to find out if she REALLY couldn't judge and could be excused for cause. Instead they tried to use a "free" strike against her after very little questioning. The DT objected that the SA was really striking her because of her race. The SA said it was because she said she couldn't judge (or whatever she said exactly); HHJP said they didn't question her enough for that to have been the real reason and so he would assume it was because of her race and allow her to stay.

 

[tragco]

There is another speculation that the DT is asking for HHJP to recuse himself because they think HHJP is biased. Could this be a reason for the court to recess today?

Also would just love to hear some more opinions as to why court was recessed early. I know none of you were there and won't hold you to it but would love to hear your ideas. (Thanks AZLawyer/SoCalSleuth for letting us know your thoughts).

 

[AZlawyer]

There is another speculation that the DT is asking for HHJP to recuse himself as HHJP is biased. Could this be a reason for the court to recess today?

Also would just love to hear some of your opinions as to why court was recessed early. I know none of you were there and won't hold you to it but would love to hear your ideas. (Thanks AZLawyer for letting us know your thoughts).

That wouldn't explain the ex parte meeting between HHJP and the defense team, or the laughter from CM behind closed doors.

 

[MissJames]

If HHJP decides to hold JB in contempt because he ignored the Court Order pertaining to expert witnesses,will that be like a trial? Are we likely to see it on TV?

 

[pip]

Any ideas about what HHJP would need to do with the court reporter after he announced the recess? He asked the court reporter to come with him somewhere because they had 'something they needed to do'.