This may be the longest multi-quote in history.
My question concerns the 48+ hour pause in the court proceedings before a penalty phase after a 1st degree murder verdict.
I, personally, served on a sequestered triple murder jury in Tennessee that resulted in 3 death penalties and 2 life sentences. The murderer was executed by lethal injection a couple of years ago after 28 years on death row. We reached our guilty verdict at about 2:00 one afternoon, court recessed until the next morning when the penalty phase began.
I would be _really_ PO'd at having to twiddle my thumbs for several days at the hotel while the lawyers get their cases together. Unreal.
I have also watched many 1st degree murder trials gavel-gavel on the old court tv from Fla and elsewhere (Aileen Wournos, etc), and none of those had this sort of pause, IIRC. Attorneys _always_prepared for the penalty phase while the jury was out in the guilt phase.
What's up with this? I think it's a disgrace to treat jurors in this manner.
Thanks for helping us out here!!
.
There is a short pause before the penalty phase in many death penalty cases.
Are the jurors really able to handle/touch all of the evidence? InSession has mentioned several times that the jury has over 300 pieces of evidence in the deliberations room with them and that they can handle it.
Wouldn't it become contaminated? What if an appeal grants a new trial and different lawyers would want additional testing done on the evidence?
Thank you!
The jurors should be issued gloves, but of course if any retesting occurs there will be questions about contamination.
I know our lawyers have already said it's not likely Cindy will be prosecuted for perjury BUT HHJP seemed very annoyed with the issue when Baez was trying to keep the computer experts out on rebuttal.
Is there anything a Judge can do if he believes perjury has been committed?
It is not the judge's job to charge people with crimes. Florida law enforcement and the SA are well aware of this trial and will take action if they feel it is a good use of the state's resources to do so.
I'm sure this has already been asked and answered but I don't have time to rifle through this thread.
Attorneys, what can we assume KC has told Baez about what happened to Caylee? What is the typical relationship between defense atty. and client regarding confessions?
This question has been addressed many times in the lawyer threads. The short answer IMO is that we can assume that, if JB is following all applicable ethical rules and in light of the specific statements of fact made in his opening statement, Casey did not confess to him that she killed Caylee.
Bill Schaeffer said yesterday on WFTV that the jurors don't have the court transcripts available when they deliberate. Why on earth is that?
It seems to me that it's awfully iffy for them to have to rely on memory or the notes they variably did or didn't do in a six week trial. The attorneys weren't even sure the jurors are going to remember which witness was which and brought photos and other reminders in the closing speech (you know, the younger bug guy and the older bug guy, the heavy set witness, the one with an accent etc.) So how many of them are really going to remember what Maria Kish said about the car smelling or who saw Casey on which date and what she said about where Caylee was and what the chemists and nonchemists said about how they did the test they did and which results they got, etc. .
It seems to me that an awful lot is left to depend on the closing arguments and the interpretations of the sides, and it's not really about the credibility of the witnesses but the credibility of the attorneys if they can't go back and read what the witnesses really said but have to rely on the impression of the attorneys reminding them about what the attorneys think the witnesses said.
So why can't they get the transcripts?
Until recently, in most jurisdictions (and still in some), jurors couldn't even take notes. It's like the instant replay controversy--just wait a few years and we will all finally agree that there is nothing wrong with allowing the jurors to see the transcript.
If the deliberations result in a hung jury, are the SA and the DT teams allowed to poll the jurors as to who wanted to convict and to what offense?
For example, if 11 jurors want to convict her of 1st degree murder, but there is that one juror (#4!) who is a hold out, can the DT know just how close they came to losing so that maybe they can convince ICA to take a plea?
On the other hand, if most of the jurors want to aquit, and 1 or 2 want to convict and the jury is, therefore, hung, do you think the SA would retry?
The jurors can tell the lawyers and the media what the vote was, if they want to. It is pretty much inevitable that at least one juror will tell, and that information certainly might affect plea negotiations and retrial decisions.
I mentioned previously that my DH served as an alternate on a murder trial jury here in Texas. He recalls they were told that they could not take notes during the trial. Clearly, these jurors have been permitted to do so. Is note taking determined state by state or does it have something to do with the amount of evidence and testimony? This case has had "tons" as JB would say
(let's weigh it!) The trial for which DH served lasted 8 days for the whole enchilada: trial, deliberation & penalty phase. (They did hand down death)
Note taking rules are determined state by state.
Something I saw a commenter post on here the other day really sparked my interest although it's OT.
They said that killing someone while DUI is not felony murder but they felt it should be.
So it sparked my question
If you intentionally kill someone by vehicular homicide, BUT get drunk beforehand, would they not be able to find you guilty of murder 1?
TIA! I;m just curious..this is nothing I plan on doing. lol
Yes, but it would be premeditated murder, not felony murder.
I saw on another thread a suggestion that the Juror who is employed as an IT professional may be helpful in interpreting, or explaining the 11th hour objection regarding whether or not the computer data indicating the number of chloroform searches (84) was accurate. However, my husband served as an alternate juror in the murder trial of Kosoul Chanthakoummane here in Texas, and he recalls being given explicit instructions that jurors were not to use their own areas of expertise to attempt to interpret, persuade, clarify or explain things to other jurors. The reason they were given was that such an opinion would be the equivalent of testimony without the opportunity for any rebuttal or cross examination.
My question then is, can the IT juror offer any professional insight into the computer searches to the other jurors or is he obligated to keep that to himself.
Nothing was said in the jury instructions in this case, so IMO he will share what he knows. Jurors are allowed to use common sense and information gained from common experience, but not "expert" knowledge. IMO the computer issues raised in this case only require "common" experience to understand, at least for people under the age of about 45.
Are scientific competency classes part of the law school curriculum?
If there's one thing I think could help any attorney dealing with testing lab results it's a strong knowledge of ISO 17025 standards. ISO 17025 is the international accreditation standard for testing labs.
No. But any lawyer who plans to practice criminal law ought to take supplemental education classes on certain issues of forensic science.
It has been difficult to figure out what part of the behaviour of GA and especially CA was denial and which part was cover up, and whatever it was, it appeared that the behaviour made the investigation difficult.
Several things that happened cleaning the trunk that smelled like death, attempting to give the wrong hair brush to LE, or other actions that interfered with evidence. There may have been other things that happened unknown to the public. Then, during the trial, there was the doubtful testimony about the computer searches and the ladder.
Could any of these actions be considered aiding and abetting after the fact or misleading (lying) to LE?
Do you think it is possible that CA could face charges more serious than the perjury people mention, no matter what happens to ICA?
There has been no evidence that the trunk was cleaned, but in any event I don't think that would be a criminal act unless the person who cleaned it was trying to destroy evidence vs. trying to clean a smelly trunk. And that would be tough to prove.
The hairbrush (or toothbrush?--I forget which) incident might very well have been an attempt to obstruct justice. But it was a pitiful attempt; the FBI lab figured out right away that the item contained DNA from both Caylee and Casey. So no one is going to follow up on that either.
IMO Cindy will not face perjury charges or anything else.
If the jury votes for LWOP is there still a penalty phase?
Thx
The jury would not have the opportunity to vote for LWOP until the penalty phase is over.
Could one of our verified lawyers please take the time to settle a heated debate on this thread?
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115684&page=14
TIA--lots of legal discussion going on over there with no verification, legal citings, etc...
ETA: Thread got closed because tensions were high, but the basic question was: can a defense attorney leave a case if he/she knows for sure the client is guilty, and if so, is this an amazingly difficult thing to do, what would the conditions be, etc.
Thanks again to anyone who can help with this!
Just knowing that your client is guilty would not be enough to get you out of the case. The circumstances under which an attorney may withdraw vary
greatly according to how many attorneys are on the case, how close the case is to trial, whether the attorney was appointed or privately retained, what the reason is for withdrawal, what jurisdiction the case is in (rules of court on withdrawal vary), who the judge is, and what mood the judge is in.
Is it theoretically possible for a plea deal to be negotiated during jury deliberation? If so, at what point does that possibility legally cease (e.g., when it's announced that the jury has reached a verdict, after the reading of the verdict, or some other time)?
Yes, it is possible. The possibility does not LEGALLY cease until the sentence is handed down, but obviously the possibility becomes more and more unlikely as it becomes more clear which side is "winning."
Is there a specific order in which the Jury must consider the charges- ie take the most serious first?
No.
First, thanks to the lawyers who help us understand the details. I'm a longtime reader, first time poster. Linda Baden just said on HLN that she thinks that there is reversible error from LDB's closing since she implied that the drowning story was a lie, and that this would imply that the defense team knowingly presented what they knew to be untrue.
I know what reversible error is, but I don't know why that statement would imply that the defence team are lying.
I'm very concerned in general that if a guilty verdict that one of the very many mistrial motions from the defense. I fear that one of them might stick.
So, was there reversible error in LDB's closing argument?
I have no idea what she meant by this. AFAIK, LDB did not imply that the defense team knowingly presented a false story.
Did the Perry vs state decision that Judge Perry mentioned on Sunday at close of court indicate that the death penalty is still legal in FL as of Thursday last week?
I haven't watched what he said. But the death penalty is still legal in Florida. IMO to comply with the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court
Ring case, the jury should be asked specifically which aggravating circumstances they have found to be present, and perhaps also (I haven't researched this issue) whether they have made those findings unanimously.
Is a jury required to deliberate? In the OJ case it seemed the jury went in for deliberations, chose a foreperson and then took a vote. In that case the vote was not guilty.
If this jury picks a foreperson then conducts a vote to see where everyone stands and all votes are guilty - must they "debate" or "deliberate" the evidence?
The jury is required to deliberate, but "deliberation" might consist of simply taking a vote.
Why do jury instructions and verdict forms have to be hashed out for every trial? What I mean is, why isn't there an 'officially sanctioned' set of jury instructions pertaining to all the possible charges, such that just the name have to be substituted in as appropriate? Why do they have to hash out on a case-by-case basis about whether they're going to define words like 'willfully' in a legal sense?
It just seems like by varying it from trial to trial, it's inviting problems later in appeal. It also seems like the definitions shouldn't vary from case to case, so why isn't there just a 'blessed' version to read from?
There is an officially sanctioned set of jury instructions, but not all instructions are appopriate for every case involving the same charges. Also, the "officially sanctioned" instructions normally don't include anything on which there is any significant amount of dispute in the legal community, so those instructions have to be argued separately for every case. Finally, the "officially sanctioned" jury instructions are still sometimes found to be reversible error on appeal, so the attorneys have to make their arguments about any possible error in the instructions to preserve the record for appeal.
Thank you so much to the attorneys on this thread.
Baez said he has found indication that the statement about 84 chloroform searches is wrong and that it didn't happen. He asked that LDB say this in her closing arguments; LDB said that the DT has already finished their closing and HHJP said: file a motion at the appropriate time but not now.
Could this cause a verdict to be overthrown or is it much ado about nothing? What did HHJP mean at the appropriate time?
IMO it was silly and inappropriate for JB to ask that LDB make a specific statement in her closing argument. Didn't he already mention this in his own closing?? As long as LDB didn't say there were 84 searches for chloroform, I don't see the problem.
If there is a guilty verdict, the defense will file a motion for new trial based on whatever they can think of.
maybe this has been asked and answered but as everything is moving so quickly...
If the juror who has a European rental on 7/7/11 is able to deliberate as to guilt, and 1st degree is reached by all by 7/611, will he/she have to stay and listen to arguments during the penalty phase and be forced to go thru that deliberation process?
Or can an alternate be brought in to determine penalty?
Are the alternates just released into the wind at the start of deliberations after being sequestered, exposed to media, then if needed allowed to step in and deliberate (in either phase)?
I have been assuming an alternate could be brought in for the penalty phase, but I must admit I have no idea whether this issue has been addressed by the Florida courts.
I believe the alternates are still sequestered.
Originally posted by AZlawyer:
IMO the theory does not have to come from the defendant. The lawyer can present a theory consistent with the evidence, and sometimes that can be pretty indistinguishable from making up a story.
My response:
Sorry, I don't mean to be so adamant and insistent, but I am basically confused now because I have been under the impression for quite some time, that KC had to tell Baez the drowning story on her own, for him to defend her with this theory. I was under this impression because of what I read somewhere in these lawyer threads...I thought I read somewhere here that the defense theory for the most part had to come from the defendant. My opinion came to be that KC told Baez she was molested by George, Caylee drowned and George decided to cover the drowning up. I thought the only thing that was a speculation by JB was the Roy Kronk extended story of moving Caylee for the reward. Are you basically saying that even if KC never told JB that Caylee drowned, he could have just speculated on that himself based on perhaps Cindy's statements alone about the pool ladder and decided that was a good defense, if KC would agree to it!!?? I could imagine JB said to KC at some point that we cannot defend you with the Nanny story because if there was any evidence that she ever existed we would have found it by now, and would have asked KC to tell the truth. After conceding about Zani, KC still does not explain to JB what happened to Caylee and just let JB come up with what he thought sounds reasonable? I mean could this whole defense theory come about llike this? If so, I'm astonished!
Thanks for your help here. I am grateful to a resource as this lawyers thread, so its my fault if I
misunderstood.
As an ethical matter, IMO JB could not have presented as fact the specific details about, e.g., the sexual abuse and what George said when he allegedly found Caylee unless Casey had told him those details. But if Casey had just refused to tell him what happened, he still could have presented a theory of accidental drowning and a strong tendency to lie and deny based on family dysfunction.
Sorry if this has been asked,if thereis a conviction on lesser charge than 1st degree,is there still a sentencing hearing or does the judge decide the sentence himself?
Both.
There will be a sentencing hearing, at which the judge will decide the sentence himself.
If there is an appeal trial, is it possible that KC could get an even harsher conviction/sentence than the first trial (assuming she gets less than first degree this time)? In other words, is there actually a risk of pursuing an appeal?
No.
I posted this question back on 6/15, in a fast moving thread, and I don't know if I ever got an answer:
The defense has made many motions for mistrial along the way. Did I understand it correctly that the judge can put off deciding about a mistrial until he reads the verdict? Meaning that if the verdict comes back as not guilty, he can then declare a mistrial?
Thanks in advance!
He can't declare a mistrial on any count after she's been acquitted on that count.
I have a feeling that hoosier_mama was trying to ask if Judge Perry could withhold his ruling on the Motion for Mistrial that Ann Finnell filed the other day. (I am basing the aforementioned "feeling" on the fact that I have had the same question and am not assuming that I know for certain what hoosier_mama is thinking.
I even asked another attorney on WS if the following is a possibility.)
In other words, Ann Finnell filed a Motion for Mistrial. Judge Perry has withheld his ruling until some later time.
Since he has to make his ruling before the end of the trial, can he wait until the jury reaches a verdict, he reviews the verdict, and THEN issue his ruling prior to publishing the verdict?
For example, he has withheld the ruling. Jury reaches a verdict. Court Clerk hands him the jury verdict forms. He reads the verdict. He has not yet published the verdict to the defendant.
Maybe he sees verdicts for acquittal that would permit the inmate to go free, so he decides instead to issue his ruling by granting the Motion for Mistrial--thereby ensuring that the inmate remains incarcerated.
Conversely, he receives the verdict forms that show the inmate is guilty, and then issues his ruling on the Motion (by denying it).
Can he do this?
Is it ethical?
Is it legal? (I recall him stating in open court that he could do something along those lines, but I am not sure that the above scenario is what he meant.)
Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about....thank you, Cleo, for wording it better than I did.
No. He can't do it if the verdict is not guilty.
