Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[SoCalSleuth]

Please don't worry about duplicating answers. I often find I learn quite a bit from reading the same question answered twice. I know you both (or all if there are more than two lawyers answering) are saying the same thing, but often the slight differences in wording make the issue much clearer.

And thanks again for all the hard work answering questions. I feel like I'm getting a free course in "Law for the Layman."

If you or AZ or any of the other lawyers here ever want to teach, I'm sure you can get hundreds if not thousands of letters of recommendation!

Thanks, I do teach--other lawyers and paralegals! And now I have a question for my colleagues here: Re Dr. Grief's testimony: As RHornsby tweeted: "OMG WTF"! Seriously, what the heck WAS THAT?

 

[mombomb]

Sorry, one more question. Will there only be a penalty phase if ICA is found guilty of the felony murder charges where the issue of LWOP or Death needs to be decided? Or will there be a penalty phase for the others?

Also, if there is no penalty phase, then the trial will be over when the verdict comes back?

As always, thank you so very, very much for answering questions

 

[AZlawyer]

What is a charging conference and is that something that we will get to watch/listen to?

The judge and lawyers will discuss jury instructions, lesser included offenses, etc. Yes, we should get to see it.

Thanks, I do teach--other lawyers and paralegals! And now I have a question for my colleagues here: Re Dr. Grief's testimony: As RHornsby tweeted: "OMG WTF"! Seriously, what the heck WAS THAT?

OMG WTF indeed. Apparently all behaviors are evidence of grief. (ETA: and murder.) Interesting to know.

Sorry, one more question. Will there only be a penalty phase if ICA is found guilty of the felony murder charges where the issue of LWOP or Death needs to be decided? Or will there be a penalty phase for the others?

Also, if there is no penalty phase, then the trial will be over when the verdict comes back?

As always, thank you so very, very much for answering questions

There will be a penalty phase only if Casey is found guilty of first-degree or felony murder (i.e., death penalty eligible counts). After the penalty phase--or after the guilt phase if there is no penalty phase--there will be a sentencing hearing.

 

[Hali]

Does Roy Kronk's statement of tampering with Caylee's skull cast the prosecution's theory about the duct tape into question?

 

[marleysmom]

This is in response to Marleysmom: Once KC takes the stand, it would be nearly impossible, if not impossible, to "protect her case."--That's why they call it the right against "self-incrimination"! I can't think of one question the DT could ask that would "protect her case." Did you kill Caylee? Did Caylee drown? Did your dad sexually abuse you? Did you cholorform Caylee? Were you afraid to tell your mom Caylee drowned? Did you love Caylee? All of these questions woud open up the door for the Ashton Express, so to speak. Once she takes the stand she puts her credibility at issue. That would permit the SA to bring in her prior felony convictions, all of her lies, all of the jailhouse videos, telephone calls, letters, all of the media videos showing her parading around with a "Caylee is missing" tshirt, her press conferences with her attorney blasting LE for not looking for a live Caylee, etc. If she takes the stand, this trial could last through July!!

Thank you. I guess that's kind of what I was asking. Would the DT be able to only ask her one question thereby limiting the scope of cross. I'm sure the "Ashton express" as you call it (and I love that) would have a field day with her. I'm just thinking her hubris would still at this point (especially as she sat there alone today - bhwahhhaaa- and acted as her own counsel) would make her believe that she could still talk her way out of this. She obviously believes everything that she says its true because she says so. HHJP's mention that it has to be her decision alone is interesting especially depending on her "confidence" in her lawyers at any given moment.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my earlier question.

ETA: I got the answer by looking at some subsequent posts....thanks a bunch.

 

[SleuthTheTruth]

What does it mean when DCS tells HHJP she is going to object to the “speaking objections” in reference to JA objecting to her question?

I can just envision JA standing and holding a sign that has the word OBJECTION in 3 inch letters so he is not speaking.

Also, what are your thoughts on Sally Karioth, the grief expert? For a moment I did not remember I was watching a trial, I thought it was a comedy act that suddenly appeared on my computer.

 

[marleysmom]

Whether they believe her story is not the issue. They can't participate in asking her questions if they know she will respond with lies--but presumably she would tell them that her latest story is the truth. In any event, even if they couldn't participate, she would still have the right to get on the stand and tell her story to the jury without the help of counsel's questioning.

Snipped respectfully and BBM - thank you. This answers the question I originally had, but failed in DT's standards to ask so eloquently. Makes a lot more sense. Being new to all this I didn't know what she would be limited to saying. Thanks so much for all the answers....loving this law stuff....

 

[Amil]

Seems GA wanted to talk to JA in private today.....JA wouldn't fall for that would he? It would jeopardize the trial, right?

 

[rotterdam]

CA was asked by DT about any sexual innuendo between LA and ICA. But not about GA.
Is that because of spousal privilege even though both are only witnesses?

 

[Katprint]

A little note-passing from someone on the defense team with a passing familiarity with the evidence rules might have helped JB out during this trial.

ITA. However, Ms. Finnell isn't going to sit behind them with a long stick and a pile of paper airplanes, so maybe someone could give them some hip-pocket edition of trial objections/how to meet them? Like the little promotional evidence admissibility guides that the bar review companies gave out way back in law school - those little booklets that were the size of a pack of cards?

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Nova24]

As River/Krystal listened to George's testimony which is a big no-no and was talking in courthouse about being "irate" today can judge do anything? She also gave an IV after listening to his testimony. I don't think she should be allowed to testify but I'm guessing judge would still let her given gravity of the charges. TY.

 

[uklaw]

I believe the DT said the expert has not talked with ICA, so additional hurdles might include a hearing to determine the basis for the opinion. It might be deemed appropriate that the expert, before rendering an opinion, interview ICA. If that occurred its possible the state could ask that one of their experts be allowed to evaluate ICA. I'm sure there could be other hurdles as well.

Thanks,

Just as an addendum. Didn't the defense HAVE to ensure that she didn't speak to ICA first of all because otherwise any opinion would be based upon what Casey told her and inadmissable as based on hearsay?

I think that was one of the issues that came up with the two psychiatrists IIRC.

 

[Joanner]

I understand that Judge Perry will be asking Casey if she wants to take the stand. When does that happen? Does the defense rest and then he asks her?

 

[AZlawyer]

Does Roy Kronk's statement of tampering with Caylee's skull cast the prosecution's theory about the duct tape into question?

Not much. He said he barely moved it.

What does it mean when DCS tells HHJP she is going to object to the “speaking objections” in reference to JA objecting to her question?

I can just envision JA standing and holding a sign that has the word OBJECTION in 3 inch letters so he is not speaking.

Also, what are your thoughts on Sally Karioth, the grief expert? For a moment I did not remember I was watching a trial, I thought it was a comedy act that suddenly appeared on my computer.

"Speaking objection" means talking about the reason for the objection in front of the jury instead of just saying, e.g., "objection--relevance."

Seems GA wanted to talk to JA in private today.....JA wouldn't fall for that would he? It would jeopardize the trial, right?

No, that would be fine.

CA was asked by DT about any sexual innuendo between LA and ICA. But not about GA.
Is that because of spousal privilege even though both are only witnesses?

IMO it was because they knew they had nothing to go on re: CA knowing anything about George. They were hoping CA might admit whatever story Casey told them about LA.

As River/Krystal listened to George's testimony which is a big no-no and was talking in courthouse about being "irate" today can judge do anything? She also gave an IV after listening to his testimony. I don't think she should be allowed to testify but I'm guessing judge would still let her given gravity of the charges. TY.

Sure, the judge can do something about her listening to George's testimony, if someone brings it to his attention--and if it can be shown that she knew about the order. Nothing wrong with giving an interview, though.

Thanks,

Just as an addendum. Didn't the defense HAVE to ensure that she didn't speak to ICA first of all because otherwise any opinion would be based upon what Casey told her and inadmissable as based on hearsay?

I think that was one of the issues that came up with the two psychiatrists IIRC.

No, but the State might have had the opportunity to have Casey examined by their own expert if the defense had allowed her to examine Casey.

I understand that Judge Perry will be asking Casey if she wants to take the stand. When does that happen? Does the defense rest and then he asks her?

Yes, if the defense rests without calling Casey to the stand, he will talk to her then.

 

[Nova24]

Was a decision reached in regards to Jesse? I read on here that it wasn't allowed in but all the news shows are acting like a decision wasn't made as of yet. I don't however think he was at courthouse today so maybe they really were told it wasn't admissable. I know judge wants to give DT some leeway but his testimony really shouldn't be allowed.

I'd like to see River not be able to testify but I think the judge will let it in regardless. I am curious to see if State fights it knowing she listening to his testimony.

 

[Nova24]

Thanks again!!

 

[reeseeva]

When Baez questioned George yesterday, about molesting his daughter, and George answered the question, by saying, I would never do something like that to my daughter, and Baez said, " you would never admit it would you". If George answered, by saying, "Sir, that is a complete fabrication by my daughter, and even you Mr. Baez have admitted that my daughter is a liar" Would there have been repercussions to that statement? I know they had a sidebar, as someone mentioned, that if George said, "I think my daughter is guilty", it would have been grounds for a Mistrial.

If the Defense knows they are on a sinking ship, wouldn't it be easy for them to purposely provoke circumstances, to declare a Mistrial? As one of the legal TH's mentioned last night, Their best scenario, would be for her, not to take the stand, have a mistrial, and get to do it all over again, without the lame OS by Counsel.

Thanks to all our Legal Experts here. What a great resource, to have you on board!

 

[KenoshaKid]

This has gotta be my favorite thread. I always wondered about a "speaking objection". I was thinking, well what else then, Pictionary? :crazy:

 

[Aqua_Green_Bean]

Will HHJP ask ICA if she wants to testify after the defense rests? Can he ask her again after the state does the rebuttal case?

 

[mimmy03]

while deliberating does the jury get transcripts of the jailhouse phone calls, depos, police interviews, etc... for refer back to during their deliberations? or do they have to rely solely on the notes they may or may not have taken during the trial?