Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
What type of sentence does perjury carry? Like can Cindy be looking at 30 days or something minuscule and be willing to take that time so her kid doesn't get the DP? Seems like a month or a year would be worth it to someone like her given the alternative...
 
Can CA's mention of KC's arrest for check fraud charges be grounds for or be likely to cause a mistrial?
Can the prosecution ask CA on rebuttal if she would lie to save her daughter's life?
 
can this be brought up by Jeff Ashton:

State crime-lab chief to resign
Barry Logan, the embattled chief of the state Crime Laboratory, will step down in March.
By Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporter

Originally published February 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM | Page modified February 15, 2008 at 12:42 AM

"The embattled director of the State Patrol crime labs has resigned, accepting responsibility for allegations of sloppy work and fraud that jeopardized more than 100 DUI breath-test results in the past year."

and

"Logan's resignation comes just two weeks after a panel of King County judges ruled that the state toxicology lab — one of the two labs overseen by Logan — engaged in "fraudulent and scientifically unacceptable" practices while preparing and analyzing breath tests used to prosecute suspected drunken drivers. The judges called for the suppression of the tests and laid much of the blame on Logan, finding he bore "a good deal of the responsibility for [the lab's] shortcomings.""

There is much more. I don't understand why this guy is testifying about anything.

This kind of thing could come in (maybe) only if Logan were accused of doing something similar in this case.

Pulling this over from another post by AlwaysShocked, for some lawyer-take on it:

Not being familiar with "lawyerspeak" I will be awaiting hearing what both our "board lawyers" and the experienced lawyers on the TV shows have to say about the Lippman/Tuckman brouhaha.

Being very familiar with "doctorspeak" I can say that oftentimes when a doctor speaks to a patient/family members about a serious condition, it is often extremely significant what the doctor DOESN'T say.

Ex: When the CAT scan indicates what appears to be a cancerous tumor, if the doctor says "This is a highly treatable cancer. We will begin treatment immediately" that is different than the doctor saying "This is a cancerous tumor. We will begin treatment immediately". See the subtle difference?

If you have not been standing there listening to doctors making these kind of statements to patients/families for a long time you are not going to pick up on the difference.

I think lawyerspeak is similar and we will need to have another experienced attorney or two or three to decipher Mr. Lippman's latest statement.

What I suspect is going on is that Mr. Lippman went very, very close to the line in his conversation with Reporter Tuckman and now does not want to be accused of betraying client confidentiality.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6739763&postcount=373"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.06.22 - Breaking News Folks! George and Cindy Anthony think Casey is guilty!!![/ame]

My reading of that "clarifying" statement (LOL) was that Mr. Lippman "indicated" somehow to Tuckman that the As did not think Casey was innocent (of what, though? who knows?) but didn't exactly "say" it because he was trying to convey the information without technically revealing A/C privileged information. Just an educated guess based on the information left out of the statement.

CA did not testify today as to what was in her depo, can she be charged with perjury?

Sure, she "can" be charged. But she won't be charged, because it would be impossible to prove that she actually LIED either time vs. misspoke, was misunderstood, was on medication, newly remembered, blah blah blah. In addition, if prosecutors charged everyone who testified in court contrary to their deposition testimony with perjury, every significant trial in the country would result in multiple spin-off trials for perjury. It would be madness.

Mark Lippman has stated that his clients just want to know the truth. And while they do not agree with anything the defense said in their opening statement, they do not want the State to obtain their ultimate goal, which is the death penalty for their daughter. They also said they would do whatever they could to keep the State from obtaining their goal.... or words to that effect.

What I would like to know is can the State, in rebuttal, ask Cindy if she made the comment that she would do whatever she could to keep Casey from receiving the death penalty? Since Mark Lippman repeated it, I "assume" that it is no longer privileged information between attorney and client. And can LDB ask her, if her answer if yes, "Does that include lying?" (Or something like that :) )

ETA: I tried to find the article that included Lippman's comments, but I was unable to find it. Maybe someone has a link to it.

TIA!!!

I don't think Lippman said they would "do anything" to prevent the death penalty. But in any event, Cindy will not be asked this question. There are hearsay and A/C privilege problems (and Lippman does not have the power to waive the privilege)--and besides, the SA have no idea what Cindy would say in answer to the question so they will certainly not ask it.

When testifying for the prosecution, did Cindy really say anything that helped them? Wasn't it more to put identified items into evidence? If they can prove she impeached her testimony, I know it will hurt the defense, but will it hurt the prosecution too?

In other words, is there any way the prosecution can reasonably get around Cindy's testimony today???

Yes, I think Cindy helped the prosecution the first time she took the stand. Just as one example, she said that the laundry bag was kept in the garage inside a black garbage bag (meaning it was empty, accessible to Casey, and already in a garbage bag for convenient body-disposal purposes).

She was certainly impeached by the prosecution today, but I don't think it will hurt her earlier testimony, because the jury will say (IMO), "Wow. It seemed like she was reluctantly honest earlier, but now she's lying for her daughter." IOW, the jury is not required to label a witness "TRUTH-TELLER" or "LIAR"--they can pick and choose which testimony to believe if there is some reason to think a witness is sometimes being truthful and sometimes lying.

"Is there any way the prosecution can reasonably get around Cindy's testimony today?" Yes, I think they've already done it by forcing her to jabber on and on about her fictional Google searches, and they can do more on rebuttal and in closing.

I recently had a mother on the stand who was equally ridiculous in the lengths she would go to to protect her daughter from facing any consequences for her actions. She said sometimes she would go in her daughter's room in the middle of the night and play with her daughter's phone and maybe accidentally sent text messages to a number that maybe she accidentally put in her daughter's phone if she was just trying to enter a number to remember it later but maybe entered it wrong.... Mothers have an instinct to protect, and it takes a certain strength of character to overcome that when necessary. The jurors will understand this.

I'm wondering if the State can argue to bring in Cindy's work records at this late date due to JP's ruling with regard to disclosure. Can they argue that Cindy changed her testimony from what she said in her depo as a reason to allow them to bring in this new evidence in order to impeach her?

They have already entered her work records as evidence. And it would not be a "late date" even if they entered them as evidence during the rebuttal phase--it would be exactly the right time.

Could the prosecution move to hold CA in Contempt, charge her with Perjury, or would it simply be easier to Impeach her?

We know that Cindy's work records are already part of the evidence the state has, but if they can prove her testimony today was an outright lie by subpoena of further records (i.e. time cards, computer activity, meeting schedules, phone records, or security entry/exit records), wouldn't they have enough to charge her with either Contempt or Perjury ?

Would the value of doing so outweigh the resources or amount of effort required?

Thank you so much for all of your time, assistance, and patience with non legal eagles like me !

I answered the question about perjury above. Contempt is not applicable here.

IMO the State may try to gather more evidence from Gentiva ASAP to present in rebuttal to completely decimate Cindy's claims, but they still won't charge her with perjury.

How are the measurements of the duct tape in relation to Caylee's skull not material? The State published to the jury hypothesized superimposed images of the tape in relation to her skull & face before decomposition.

I was really surprised by HHBP's ruling. Will this issue be revisited?

Hopefully someone who saw this part of the video will respond to you (I didn't see it). Whatever the ruling was, I am certain HHJP did not say that the measurements of the duct tape in relation to Caylee's skull were not material.

During Cindy Anthony's testimony today she brought up Casey being charged with Check Fraud. Did that open the door for the State to bring in Casey's previous convictions?

No. To "open the door" to that, the defense would have to bring out something like "Casey has never been in trouble with the law." Besides, if Cindy said it on her own, without being asked, there would be no "door opening" IMO.
 
The lawyer on WFTV...can't remember his name....said that even if the SA can prove that CA was at work at the times she claims she did the computer searches...they can't use it. Judge won't allow it because the SA should have anticipated that CA may lie and should have covered all those bases. I don't understand. It's ok to lie?
 
Can Lippman get in trouble for letting Cindy lie on the stand today? I can't imagine any lawyer would let their client do something like that.
 
AZ I think we all understand what you are saying people lie and we can't put them all in jail. This trial is being watched by the world. It is going to look pretty bad for the state if they just watch a flat out lie and nothing is done about it. People that supported CA have done a 180. You don't think context changes anything?
 
I am confused in that "everyone" is saying that Cindy's testamony today casts a doubt on "premeditation' and therefore the death penalty can not be sentenced. I understood that another reason for murder one in Florida is death of a child under 12. What are the individual, not all together reasons Murder One can be found in Florida? Thank you in advance.
 
After the jurors were dismissed today, they continued and argued whether the testimony/evidence of Nick Savage and the other FBI lady there would be allowed. CM argued/strongly insinuated, that the State and the FBI conspired when it came to the duct tape, and the fact that the ME didn't take a scale photo for comparison. Paraphrasing the testimony, there was an apparent email that basically said they 'we'll just tell them we don't have any pictures', yet they used this info to make the superimposed duct tape/face/skull video.

If they prove there was some pseudo-conspiracy involving the data that video was made from, can the prosecution and the investigators get in serious trouble over that?? And will that video made from this data be thrown out now??
 
Can CA plead the 5th if she is put back on the stand during rebuttal by the state because she knows she is lying and the state will prove it?
Can she do that since she has already testified?
 
So Cindy cannot be arrested for perjury if the police find evidence that Cindy NEVER left work on those two days and she lied and said she did?

That doesn't seem like a oh, I forgot, I'm on medication issue. It just seems more serious..... TIA
 
Mark E. said on one of the shows tonight that it is too late for the state to come back with new evidence that proves Cindy was at work...that if the evidence could have been obtained back then, it can't be brought in now...that they are SOL...(he said "Lady Justice is crying...)
Is this correct? Sounds plausible to me.

Thanks.
 
Does Casey get any outside news? Does she get the newspaper, internet access or TV in the jail or while she is in the courthouse?
 
Again, I disagree, there was only one inquiry, which was at the behest of Ashton regarding financial conflicts: Video Link

With that said, please point out links to any videos or articles that suggest there were other inquiries.

I'm not sure if it qualifies as a direct inquiry of the defendant. But the root point of all of that discussion was very early on when Judge Strickland ordered Casey to be present for all hearings in order to insure that she was being fully informed and was fully appraised as to the competency and the effectiveness of her chosen council.
 
rhornsby,
Do you think the Florida Sunshine Laws are in contradiction to the defendants 6th amendment rights?
 
After the jurors were dismissed today, they continued and argued whether the testimony/evidence of Nick Savage and the other FBI lady there would be allowed. CM argued/strongly insinuated, that the State and the FBI conspired when it came to the duct tape, and the fact that the ME didn't take a scale photo for comparison. Paraphrasing the testimony, there was an apparent email that basically said they 'we'll just tell them we don't have any pictures', yet they used this info to make the superimposed duct tape/face/skull video.

If they prove there was some pseudo-conspiracy involving the data that video was made from, can the prosecution and the investigators get in serious trouble over that?? And will that video made from this data be thrown out now??

Not exactly sure if I agree with your characterization of the proffer after court today. In any event, JP ruled that the testimony they were trying to elicit was irrelevant on any issue in the case--so there will be no evidence at all on the subject--so no one can get in trouble, and the video is not going to be thrown out.

Can CA plead the 5th if she is put back on the stand during rebuttal by the state because she knows she is lying and the state will prove it?
Can she do that since she has already testified?

I agree with AZ that it would be very difficult to prove CA perjured herself on this issue today. How would the SA prove it? Even if they can prove CA was definitely at work at this time, CA can come back and say she was confused, her medication, etc. I don't think CA would even be called on rebuttal on this issue--it would be someone from Gentiva, YM and the other LE who CA didn't mention the searches to when asked, etc.

So Cindy cannot be arrested for perjury if the police find evidence that Cindy NEVER left work on those two days and she lied and said she did?

That doesn't seem like a oh, I forgot, I'm on medication issue. It just seems more serious..... TIA
It's actually very difficult to prove perjury. She could blame it on medication or a number of other things.

Mark E. said on one of the shows tonight that it is too late for the state to come back with new evidence that proves Cindy was at work...that if the evidence could have been obtained back then, it can't be brought in now...that they are SOL...(he said "Lady Justice is crying...)
Is this correct? Sounds plausible to me.

Thanks.
Not sure I agree with Mark E. It depends. SA had CA's work records--her time cards which clearly indicated that she was at work during that time. Was CA asked by LE or in her depo whether or not her time cards were accurate? Did they ask her if she was at work that day during that time? If they did, did she lie? If they didn't will JP think they should have asked? It depends on what was done and what wasn't done and why. It's JP's call based on that information. Personally, I don't think they are going to do anything about this testimony in rebuttal or at least not much. The testimony helped them. CA's story wasn't credible. It showed the jury where KC's fantasy life and lying came from. CA testified she didn't do any of the searches which were done on the 21st and those were the damning ones & GA was at work.
 
I am confused in that "everyone" is saying that Cindy's testamony today casts a doubt on "premeditation' and therefore the death penalty can not be sentenced. I understood that another reason for murder one in Florida is death of a child under 12. What are the individual, not all together reasons Murder One can be found in Florida? Thank you in advance.

A death of a child under the age of 12 is not a reason for murder one -the death of a child under the age of 12 is an aggravating circumstance to support the death penalty in Florida.
 
Can Lippman get in trouble for letting Cindy lie on the stand today? I can't imagine any lawyer would let their client do something like that.

I'm sure he didn't tell her to lie. I'm sure, assuming he worked with her to prepare for her testimony at all, that she said this was the truth.

AZ I think we all understand what you are saying people lie and we can't put them all in jail. This trial is being watched by the world. It is going to look pretty bad for the state if they just watch a flat out lie and nothing is done about it. People that supported CA have done a 180. You don't think context changes anything?

Famous people are definitely more likely to be charged with perjury (e.g. President Clinton). But Cindy is just not famous enough IMO. ;)

Does Casey get any outside news? Does she get the newspaper, internet access or TV in the jail or while she is in the courthouse?

I know she can watch TV once a day, according to her letters to Robyn.
 
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?
 
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
 
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!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
201
Total visitors
306

Forum statistics

Threads
609,576
Messages
18,255,747
Members
234,695
Latest member
jko80
Back
Top