Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[allycat1208]

When attorneys are searching for witnesses that uphold their theories, is there a limit to how many witnesses they can use? For instance, if the defense attorneys want a botanist to uphold the theory that Caylee was in the spot in the woods where she was found for 2 weeks, they can just keep searching for one botanist that says this and use this expert? Does the opposing side know about all the other botanists that did not agree with this finding? If so, can the State bring in every one of those botanists and ask each one: "How long was Caylee left in the spot in the woods where she was found?" If only 1 out of 5 botanists said she was there 2 weeks this would be a majority, so perhaps the jury would go with the majority? The reason I'm asking, is because often when you read about opinions shared by scientists....example: many times its stated something like: "30 out of 100 anthropologists believe so and so." I know in the court it would get out of hand to bring in more than a few experts in a specific subject, but on the other hand if one or two botanists were used and they were picked to hold up a certain argument, the jury and the rest of us does not see the whole picture.

 

[dani]

Is the child of a teenaged father that died eligible for the Social Security benefit?

Where I'm going with this is that surely CA would have wanted ICA to get the monthly benefit if, in fact, Eric Baker was Caylee's father. I'm sure there would have to have been a DNA test for proof. I just don't know if teenagers without a work history would qualify. (I read that Eric was 17 when Casey was 19 at the time of conception.)

Note: I don't believe EB is the father, based on my belief that ICA cannot tell the truth. It's just one more curiosity re: Caylee's paternity.

(I posed this question on the "Questions & Answers List" thread before I thought of asking our legal eagles. Sorry.)

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks, SoCal, for handling so many questions!!

If Cheney Mason became aware that Baez or one of the other defense attorneys was somehow attempting to suborn perjury, or was in some other way making an attempt at witness tampering, would he (Mason) be required to notify the Court of this behavior?

If he would be required to notify the Court, would the State be privvy to this notification, or would this be held in an in camera ex parte meeting?

ETA: If such actions (witness tampering or suborning perjury) were brought up to the Court, what actions could Judge Perry undertake? Would sanctions or some sort of punishment be doled out at that time, or at a later date? Would both parties be present for any of this?

IMO if CM learned of something like that he would put a stop to it. He would not need the judge's help. There are too many people on the team for anyone to risk blatantly unethical behavior that might be reported by someone else on the team.

Can witnesses discuss the case between themselves ?

In this case, the rule of sequestration of witnesses is in effect, so witnesses cannot discuss the case between themselves until after both have finished testifying. LA, CA and GA have been released from this rule, however.

This is about as general a question as it gets, but thought if anyone could shed some light onit, one of our legal eagles could:

http://ow.ly/1u72ty

What the heck happened?

I can't bring up this page either.

Is this Interview not evidence of witness tampering

In an interview with Greta on Fox her Mr Lippman the Anthony's attorney said
"The Idea was presented to her that she was doing a search and a popup came from a UTube site with a skateboarder breaking his neck or something along those lines but she did not write break neck into the search bar...."


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html at about 6mins and 40sec

this is a quote from her testimony
"you suggested Google engine suggested change to Chloroform because chlorophyl was spelled incorrect...yes or no...did you type in on search bar on Google How to Make Chloroform...I did type in the word chlrofom....did you search for self-defense, house holding, neckbreaking - did not -I dO recall there was a pop up there was a skateboarder on rails....recall it saying a neckbreaking feat....is this something you are recalling now since changed medication in 2009?"

This statement in itself isn't really evidence of witness tampering--it might just be a careless way of speaking--but I sure wish he had been asked some follow-up questions!

By all the post I guess if George gets on the stand and changes his testimony that he did molest Casey seems like nothing will happen to him. What if he gets on the stand and says he was there when she drowned in the pool and helped cover? Will there be a mistrial? Will they both get a slap on the wrist? Nothing tomorrow would surprise me...

No mistrial, and Casey still might be convicted of murder. The jurors are not obligated to believe George.

George IMO would not be charged with anything even if the jury does believe him. Offhand, I can't think what the charge would be for covering up an accidental death. Mishandling a corpse or something like that maybe?

When attorneys are searching for witnesses that uphold their theories, is there a limit to how many witnesses they can use? For instance, if the defense attorneys want a botanist to uphold the theory that Caylee was in the spot in the woods where she was found for 2 weeks, they can just keep searching for one botanist that says this and use this expert? Does the opposing side know about all the other botanists that did not agree with this finding? If so, can the State bring in every one of those botanists and ask each one: "How long was Caylee left in the spot in the woods where she was found?" If only 1 out of 5 botanists said she was there 2 weeks this would be a majority, so perhaps the jury would go with the majority? The reason I'm asking, is because often when you read about opinions shared by scientists....example: many times its stated something like: "30 out of 100 anthropologists believe so and so." I know in the court it would get out of hand to bring in more than a few experts in a specific subject, but on the other hand if one or two botanists were used and they were picked to hold up a certain argument, the jury and the rest of us does not see the whole picture.

There is no limit to how many experts you can consult with and then decide not to use, and no obligation to disclose that information to the other side.

 

[uklaw]

(1) Further to Richard Hornsby's commentary tonight, are we sure that Cheney Mason is the lead attorney for KC? The statute that he referred to (on the show and previously on his website) simply states the need for there to be A death qualified attorney on the team. It doesn't say it has to be the lead attorney who is death qualified.

(2) What is the likelihood that KC would get consecutive sentences on, for example, Agg Manslaughter and Agg Child Abuse? I realize that AZLawyer opined that she thought they would run concurrent, however, Bill Shaeffer's commentary has recenlty suggested they could run consecutive.

(3) What are the proper channels for sub-poening a Federal Employee? It seems highly unfair if you are unable to compel testimony from a federal witness to impeach the state's case or (if they were called by the state) question them further about the evidence they gave during the state's case. I notice there were no end of issues with this and Baez trying to obtain research data that the FBI had over the hair-banding science.

TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

Is the child of a teenaged father that died eligible for the Social Security benefit?

Where I'm going with this is that surely CA would have wanted ICA to get the monthly benefit if, in fact, Eric Baker was Caylee's father. I'm sure there would have to have been a DNA test for proof. I just don't know if teenagers without a work history would qualify. (I read that Eric was 17 when Casey was 19 at the time of conception.)

Note: I don't believe EB is the father, based on my belief that ICA cannot tell the truth. It's just one more curiosity re: Caylee's paternity.

(I posed this question on the "Questions & Answers List" thread before I thought of asking our legal eagles. Sorry.)

The specific Eric Baker named in the "obituary" document found on Casey's computer does not even exist, so I can guarantee he was not the father.

You would have to have a number of years of work history (not sure how long) for your children to receive Soc Sec survivor benefits.

 

[JBounds]

How hard is it to prove perjury?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Is the child of a teenaged father that died eligible for the Social Security benefit?

Where I'm going with this is that surely CA would have wanted ICA to get the monthly benefit if, in fact, Eric Baker was Caylee's father. I'm sure there would have to have been a DNA test for proof. I just don't know if teenagers without a work history would qualify. (I read that Eric was 17 when Casey was 19 at the time of conception.)

Note: I don't believe EB is the father, based on my belief that ICA cannot tell the truth. It's just one more curiosity re: Caylee's paternity.

(I posed this question on the "Questions & Answers List" thread before I thought of asking our legal eagles. Sorry.)

In order to collect Social Security death benefits, the deceased would have had to pay into Social Security enough to qualify for benefits. Would depend on the teen father's work/pay history, but at 19 years old, I doubt it.

 

[AZlawyer]

(1) Further to Richard Hornsby's commentary tonight, are we sure that Cheney Mason is the lead attorney for KC? The statute that he referred to (on the show and previously on his website) simply states the need for there to be A death qualified attorney on the team. It doesn't say it has to be the lead attorney who is death qualified.

(2) What is the likelihood that KC would get consecutive sentences on, for example, Agg Manslaughter and Agg Child Abuse? I realize that AZLawyer opined that she thought they would run concurrent, however, Bill Shaeffer's commentary has recenlty suggested they could run consecutive.

(3) What are the proper channels for sub-poening a Federal Employee? It seems highly unfair if you are unable to compel testimony from a federal witness to impeach the state's case or (if they were called by the state) question them further about the evidence they gave during the state's case. I notice there were no end of issues with this and Baez trying to obtain research data that the FBI had over the hair-banding science.

TIA

1. "Lead attorney" is a meaningless term, really. The "lead attorney" doesn't have to actually question any witnesses, etc., for example. But the intent behind the Florida rule was for there to be a death penalty qualified attorney who is really, seriously, actively involved in the defense. I think that's what Mr. Hornsby is upset about.

2. I don't see how those sentences could possibly run consecutively. That would make sense if Casey were charged with child abuse on some occasion separate from the murder, but AFAIK the theory is that she abused Caylee ONCE, in the same series of events that led to Caylee's death.

3. The channels are, you send them a subpoena. Why is it unfair??? :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

How hard is it to prove perjury?

Really hard!! SoCal and I have answered this at more length probably 3 or 4 times in the last few pages of this thread.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

(1) Further to Richard Hornsby's commentary tonight, are we sure that Cheney Mason is the lead attorney for KC? The statute that he referred to (on the show and previously on his website) simply states the need for there to be A death qualified attorney on the team. It doesn't say it has to be the lead attorney who is death qualified.

Don't know what Richard said but it doesn't appear to me that CM is the lead attorney here. The statute, as it reads now, states that when an attorney is retained in a capital case where death penalty on the table, the attorney so retained has to be death penalty qualified. Not sure how the statute read when JB was retained. Clearly, however, he is not death penalty qualified, and frankly, I wouldn't hire him to get me out of a traffic ticket.

(2) What is the likelihood that KC would get consecutive sentences on, for example, Agg Manslaughter and Agg Child Abuse? I realize that AZLawyer opined that she thought they would run concurrent, however, Bill Shaeffer's commentary has recenlty suggested they could run consecutive.

Unless the crime is heinous the judge normally has the sentences run concurrently. For these particular charges, they should run concurrently.

(3) What are the proper channels for sub-poening a Federal Employee? It seems highly unfair if you are unable to compel testimony from a federal witness to impeach the state's case or (if they were called by the state) question them further about the evidence they gave during the state's case. I notice there were no end of issues with this and Baez trying to obtain research data that the FBI had over the hair-banding science.

TIA

In Federal court you ask the judge to issue the subpoena, then it's up to the feds to object or not object. Not sure how it's done in Florida. All witnesses, federal employees or not, have a right to object to compelling their appearance/testimony. With the DOD, issues of national security could be involved, so it's not really unusual for there to be a rule requiring their permission. If the SA listed a federal employee as a witness the dt had an opportunity to depose them and cross them at trial if they testified for the SA. The reason JB has had problems with obtaining evidence is solely his fault because he did not do it correctly. The same rules apply to everyone.

How hard is it to prove perjury?

Very. See my prior post today.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Sorry AZ, apparently I was writing my post while you were writing yours!

 

[Pattymarie]

It would seem to me that CA's lies from last Friday, re: her work records from Gentiva and lack of ability to search the internet on Gentiva's computers are easily provable. So if those lies are proven to be lies, that would be proof of perjury, right?

So, I would think the worse crime would be that Jose put CA on the stand knowing she was going to lie, but at the same time, THAT would be harder to prove than CA's actual lies?

So to prove suborning perjury would be more difficult to prove than the actual witness's lies? Is this correct?

 

[AZlawyer]

It would seem to me that CA's lies from last Friday, re: her work records from Gentiva and lack of ability to search the internet on Gentiva's computers are easily provable. So if those lies are proven to be lies, that would be proof of perjury, right?

So, I would think the worse crime would be that Jose put CA on the stand knowing she was going to lie, but at the same time, THAT would be harder to prove than CA's actual lies?

So to prove suborning perjury would be more difficult to prove than the actual witness's lies? Is this correct?

Neither one of these things are easily provable. The State might be able to prove that CA was wrong, but that is different from proving that she was intentionally lying.

 

[cluciano63]

Hi, what do you lawyers think about Jose? (well, I'll be more specific, lol)- does he intend to carry on with a career as a defense attorney, assuming he is not disbarred, or does he plan to try to parlay this case into something more media-oriented? I can't, in my wildest imagination, believe he thinks he is doing a fabulous job that will attract the wealthiest of clients and after all, he sees Geragos, who lost a huge case in pretty spectacular fashion, showing his face on all the stations. Does Jose see himself in that role? Thanks.

 

[Capri]

This is about as general a question as it gets, but thought if anyone could shed some light onit, one of our legal eagles could:

http://ow.ly/1u72ty

What the heck happened?

I know some of you couldn't get the first link to work. See if this one works.

http://211.43.148.144/10001/88D02/UNKNOWNLSN_00000051.3gp

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I know some of you couldn't get the first link to work. See if this one works.

http://211.43.148.144/10001/88D02/UNKNOWNLSN_00000051.3gp

I need QuickTime to open this and don't want it on my PC, sorry. What is it exactly?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Hi, what do you lawyers think about Jose? (well, I'll be more specific, lol)- does he intend to carry on with a career as a defense attorney, assuming he is not disbarred, or does he plan to try to parlay this case into something more media-oriented? I can't, in my wildest imagination, believe he thinks he is doing a fabulous job that will attract the wealthiest of clients and after all, he sees Geragos, who lost a huge case in pretty spectacular fashion, showing his face on all the stations. Does Jose see himself in that role? Thanks.

Mark Geragos had a thriving long-term distinguished career before he lost that case, so it didn't really impact him careerwise. Frankly, as much as it surprises me, I believe JB thinks he's ALL THAT in the courtroom and do believe he intends to continue practicing. I also think he intends to write a book, make a movie deal, and appear as a media pundit.

 

[uklaw]

3. The channels are, you send them a subpoena. Why is it unfair??? :waitasec:

I don't know if you were listening to WS radio tonight. However, Richard Hornsby, said it is very hard to compel the testimony of federal employees in state cases.

At 48 Minutes of the recording:
Richard Hornsby: "That's a big deal... Take FBI agents they are the most common where this issue comes up. The Federal government does not just allow you to subpoena FBI agents for state cases. In most states. Without getting into the complications... Because you can't just go subpoening federal employees. I know everyone thinks you can but when you're a state you cant just go sub-poening a federal witness. And this happens a lot in Criminal cases, when there's an FBI guy who ran a confidential informant, you can't just go and sub-poena an FBI agent. It's really hard and a lot of time they'll quash them."

The reason it is unfair is this: The federal government generally doesn't mind having its lab analysts, etc testify for the state and also the Defense has had no end of problems trying to get hold of additional data about the hair-banding studies that the FBI have done whereas the State have had no problem getting data from the FBI which supports the states case.

ETA: Also, apart from, in my view being unfair in the sense of it going against the general principles of a fair process, I would think, from a legal point standpoint, that it would contravene the compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment but that is something I imagine you would be better versed in than me.

Sorry, if I sound like I am taking you to task on Richard's comment. I am not, just wondered if you could help clarify since I could not get through tonight. Thanks!

 

[LEFT-COASTER]

I need QuickTime to open this and don't want it on my PC, sorry. What is it exactly?

here is a online link for same thing..
http://www.clickorlando.com/video/28358075/index.html

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I don't know if you were listening to WS radio tonight. However, Richard Hornsby, said it is very hard to compel the testimony of federal employees in state cases.

At 48 Minutes of the recording:
Richard Hornsby: "That's a big deal... Take FBI agents they are the most common where this issue comes up. The Federal government does not just allow you to subpoena FBI agents for state cases. In most states. Without getting into the complications... Because you can't just go subpoening federal employees. I know everyone thinks you can but when you're a state you cant just go sub-poening a federal witness. And this happens a lot in Criminal cases, when there's an FBI guy who ran a confidential informant, you can't just go and sub-poena an FBI agent. It's really hard and a lot of time they'll quash them."

The reason it is unfair is this: The federal government generally doesn't mind having its lab analysts, etc testify for the state and also the Defense has had no end of problems trying to get hold of additional data about the hair-banding studies that the FBI have done whereas the State have had no problem getting data from the FBI which supports the states case.

ETA: Also, apart from, in my view being unfair in the sense of it going against the general principles of a fair process, I would think, from a legal point standpoint, that it would contravene the compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment but that is something I imagine you would be better versed in than me.

Sorry, if I sound like I am taking you to task on Richard's comment. I am not, just wondered if you could help clarify since I could not get through tonight. Thanks!

As Richard said, he didn't want to get into the complications, and the issue raised is complicated, at times. As far as lab analysts go, they are only testifying to processing and analyzing evidence in one particular case. There are different and more significant concerns when you want to subpoena, for instance, an FBI field agent that's investigating the MOB. Now we are talking about potentially revealing sensitive information that could effect FBI operations in many cases. In order to quash a subpoena, however, the government has to convince a judge --they can't just refuse to comply. Going back to lab analysts, the defense didn't have any problem having them testify at the request of the defense. As far as Dr. Rodriquez, as was mentioned by JP, there were many options available to the DT to keep Rodriquez in Florida to testify and the DT chose not to use them. Again, as far as JB claiming a hard time getting evidence--it's his responsibility to do what is necessary to get the evidence, whether by subpoena or bring a motion to get it --just the same as the SA. I have noted since the inception of the pre-trial hearings, JB asks for evidence which doesn't exist, which he wants people to create for him, which he doesn't ask for properly, etc. The state gets the evidence they need because they know how to do their jobs.

here is a online link for same thing..
http://www.clickorlando.com/video/28358075/index.html

I don't know what happened. If you go back through today's thread, most of the lawyers, including myself, have offered opinions on it. Richard opined tonight that he believed it involved a Brady issue, just tying up loose ends with all these discovery matters, etc.. However, I disagree because I don't believe the court has the power to seal the record over a potential Brady issue or discovery issue.