Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[AZlawyer]

:waitasec: You mean she didn't remember almost sitting down with Tim and almost putting an X on a spot for him until Cindy stopped her? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

She's a felon liar - she can make as many excuses as she likes by telling another lie but I don't think it will help at all - only make it worse for her situation. I don't see this case getting thrown out - do you? So that would mean settlements if it doesn't get to trial.

Based on my recollection of the Complaint, the case could definitely get thrown out. I'm sure Casey's lawyers will file a motion for summary judgment when the time is right. For one thing, it seems like most of TES's communications were with Cindy and LE, not with Casey.

 

[logicalgirl]

Based on my recollection of the Complaint, the case could definitely get thrown out. I'm sure Casey's lawyers will file a motion for summary judgment when the time is right. For one thing, it seems like most of TES's communications were with Cindy and LE, not with Casey.

Hmm. The Judge didn't ask OCA to confirm or deny whether she asked TES to search, just whether or not she knew TES was searching. To me it doesn't look like who asked for the search. So you are thinking if OCA didn't ask for the search it makes a difference? Why do you think the Judge didn't ask OCA that question?

 

[scmom]

If Caylee's paternity was known would her father have the right to bring a wrongful death suit against her mother?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hmm. The Judge didn't ask OCA to confirm or deny whether she asked TES to search, just whether or not she knew TES was searching. To me it doesn't look like who asked for the search. So you are thinking if OCA didn't ask for the search it makes a difference? Why do you think the Judge didn't ask OCA that question?

The judge isn't asking any of the questions. TES wrote the questions. IMO it would make a huge difference if Casey didn't ask for the search and didn't encourage it--the whole basis for TES's claim is that Casey tricked them into wasting money searching for her dead child.

If Caylee's paternity was known would her father have the right to bring a wrongful death suit against her mother?

Probably. He might have some trouble proving he was deprived of anything, however, unless he can show he had no idea he had a daughter (vs. knowing and not caring).

 

[logicalgirl]

The judge isn't asking any of the questions. TES wrote the questions. IMO it would make a huge difference if Casey didn't ask for the search and didn't encourage it--the whole basis for TES's claim is that Casey tricked them into wasting money searching for her dead child.



Probably. He might have some trouble proving he was deprived of anything, however, unless he can show he had no idea he had a daughter (vs. knowing and not caring).

Thanks AZLawyer and sorry for the onslaught of ??? - dog with a bone...:floorlaugh:

 

[denjet]

I was rather pleased that KC answered the way she did to the two questions ... mainly because she lied, IMO, and it can be proven she did, and she's still one probation .... I would think lying under oath is a no-no on probation ...

hmmm .... "Anthony denied that she was aware EquuSearch was conducting searches for Caylee in September and October 2008."

To me it's a biggy, and something that can get her in trouble prior to the case being tried ...

Cindy may have been the one who called Tim to town (to obviously use him), but KC was fully aware of TES beginning their searches in Orlando based on the info KC gave them and OSCO ... just like she was fully aware of of National news, media frenzy ...

I think the jail house videos may resurface to verify conversations Cindy had with KC at the beginning and mention of people searching, rewards etc ... Jailhouse employees seeing her catch glimpses of TV and the case and listening to her radio ......
JMHO, but I don't see anyway around it her having to fess up on that one .....

 

[denjet]

Based on my recollection of the Complaint, the case could definitely get thrown out. I'm sure Casey's lawyers will file a motion for summary judgment when the time is right. For one thing, it seems like most of TES's communications were with Cindy and LE, not with Casey.

bbm .... that's why I think the question was cleverly worded and perhaps KC's answer of no will be able to be easily proved to be a lie ... I'm surprised her lawyers let her answer no to that ... I could be way off-base, but, this is a civil proceeding and I doubt KC will be allowed much leeway on not being forthcoming ...
I'm still dumbfounded that she denied that she was aware EquuSearch was conducting searches .... :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

 

[Bravo]

The Question of Judges overturning a Jury Verdict has come up. Would appreciate clarification. Now i was always under the impression that a Judge could overturn a Jury Verdict "if" it was for a "Not Guilty" A Judge could not overturn to "Guilty" ???? Thanks in advance.

 

[AZlawyer]

The Question of Judges overturning a Jury Verdict has come up. Would appreciate clarification. Now i was always under the impression that a Judge could overturn a Jury Verdict "if" it was for a "Not Guilty" A Judge could not overturn to "Guilty" ???? Thanks in advance.

A judge can set aside a jury verdict of guilty, but cannot set aside a verdict of not guilty.

Often when a judge sets aside a jury verdict of guilty, it is because of some legal motion made by the defense (before the verdict) that the judge didn't rule on. Then after the verdict the judge grants the motion.

 

[Bravo]

A judge can set aside a jury verdict of guilty, but cannot set aside a verdict of not guilty.

Often when a judge sets aside a jury verdict of guilty, it is because of some legal motion made by the defense (before the verdict) that the judge didn't rule on. Then after the verdict the judge grants the motion.

Thanks so much for answering. Apologies for my wording in asking LOL

 

[scmom]

I'm trying to figure out what basis the defendant has for appealing her conviction on lying. So far I can only find that there has been a notice that an appeal will be filed, but I cannot find a record online of any appeal having been filed as of this date. I think there is a two-year time limit on filing the appeal and I'm wondering why the delay? Is it to hold up the civil cases?

 

[Justin Tyme]

bbm .... that's why I think the question was cleverly worded and perhaps KC's answer of no will be able to be easily proved to be a lie ... I'm surprised her lawyers let her answer no to that ... I could be way off-base, but, this is a civil proceeding and I doubt KC will be allowed much leeway on not being forthcoming ...
I'm still dumbfounded that she denied that she was aware EquuSearch was conducting searches .... :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

She hasn't dumbfounded me yet. Lying has always worked for her in the past, why would she change up now. I would be dumbfounded if she had told the truth. I think that either way she answered it, she would still be backed up into the same corner that she's finding herself now. Ummm...What's that smell? Karma!

 

[Katprint]

The judge isn't asking any of the questions. TES wrote the questions. IMO it would make a huge difference if Casey didn't ask for the search and didn't encourage it--the whole basis for TES's claim is that Casey tricked them into wasting money searching for her dead child.

With the deepest and most sincere respect, I disagree that it matters whether Casey didn't ask for TES to search, or that there are any facts which might support a claim that Casey didn't encourage TES' search.

With the usual proviso that I don't practice in Florida so I don't know if Florida follows some weird minority rule (like they do with regard to debtors/collection of judgments/bankrupcty):

When someone commits an intentional tort, like battery or false imprisonment or intentional misrepresentation aka fraud, they are held liable for ALL of the actual damages regardless whether those damages were "foreseeable" or not. By contrast, someone who is merely negligent is only held liable for the foreseeable consequences. Thus, for example, an arsonist who sets a fire can be held liable for injuries suffered by responding fireman who slips in cascading water and hurts his back.

Additionally, I see a good argument for transferred intent. Even if Casey only intended to defraud Cindy and make Cindy spin her wheels (with good success, given Cindy's apparent continued belief in Casey's utter and complete, divinely-condoned innocence) searching for Caylee and the imagi-nanny, Cindy pretty much dodged that bullet and it hit TES square in the wallet.

Additionally, as I have stated before, it is completely foreseeable that anyone who falsely claims that their (dead! and they know it! and they should have called 9-1-1!) child has been kidnapped/is missing will cause people to spend time, money and other resources looking for the kidnapped/missing child. There are not a lot of case law on the subject, but rescuers (such as firemen, policemen or volunteers) who suffer damages are considered "primary victims" of tortfeasors/wrongdoers. Public employee rescuers like firemen/policemen are generally not permitted to sue negligent tortfeasors as a matter of public policy because people are encouraged to call 9-1-1 to report fires/crimes/other hazards without worrying that they will have to pay the response costs, but I see no bar to TES' claims.

Katprint
Who hopes AZlawyer won't feel like Katprint is nitpicking her
But who represented fire departments in the Sacramento area
Always only my own opinions

 

[Dignity4Victims]

With the deepest and most sincere respect, I disagree that it matters whether Casey didn't ask for TES to search, or that there are any facts which might support a claim that Casey didn't encourage TES' search.

With the usual proviso that I don't practice in Florida so I don't know if Florida follows some weird minority rule (like they do with regard to debtors/collection of judgments/bankrupcty):

When someone commits an intentional tort, like battery or false imprisonment or intentional misrepresentation aka fraud, they are held liable for ALL of the actual damages regardless whether those damages were "foreseeable" or not. By contrast, someone who is merely negligent is only held liable for the foreseeable consequences. Thus, for example, an arsonist who sets a fire can be held liable for injuries suffered by responding fireman who slips in cascading water and hurts his back.

Additionally, I see a good argument for transferred intent. Even if Casey only intended to defraud Cindy and make Cindy spin her wheels (with good success, given Cindy's apparent continued belief in Casey's utter and complete, divinely-condoned innocence) searching for Caylee and the imagi-nanny, Cindy pretty much dodged that bullet and it hit TES square in the wallet.

Additionally, as I have stated before, it is completely foreseeable that anyone who falsely claims that their (dead! and they know it! and they should have called 9-1-1!) child has been kidnapped/is missing will cause people to spend time, money and other resources looking for the kidnapped/missing child. There are not a lot of case law on the subject, but rescuers (such as firemen, policemen or volunteers) who suffer damages are considered "primary victims" of tortfeasors/wrongdoers. Public employee rescuers like firemen/policemen are generally not permitted to sue negligent tortfeasors as a matter of public policy because people are encouraged to call 9-1-1 to report fires/crimes/other hazards without worrying that they will have to pay the response costs, but I see no bar to TES' claims.

Katprint
Who hopes AZlawyer won't feel like Katprint is nitpicking her
But who represented fire departments in the Sacramento area
Always only my own opinions

BBM the best highlights - thank you, thank you, Kat! :great:

 

[UCAKID]

I've been on jury duty 4 times and gotten on the panel all 4 times. I've always wanted to ask this question in court after being sworn but before testimony begins. If note-taking (by jurors) is allowed, is it the judge's decision, or the state? I'm in NC and there's never been mention of it, or notepads left out for us. Since I'm sure I'll be called again (!) when would the attorneys here recommend I ask if we can take notes? BTW, I liken jury duty to ordering a pizza: when was the last time you got 12 people to agree on a pizza? There's always that person who goes along with the crowd until a decision is made, and then all of a sudden, "Oh wait, I don't like ham on my pizza!" Thanks in advance....

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I've been on jury duty 4 times and gotten on the panel all 4 times. I've always wanted to ask this question in court after being sworn but before testimony begins. If note-taking (by jurors) is allowed, is it the judge's decision, or the state? I'm in NC and there's never been mention of it, or notepads left out for us. Since I'm sure I'll be called again (!) when would the attorneys here recommend I ask if we can take notes? BTW, I liken jury duty to ordering a pizza: when was the last time you got 12 people to agree on a pizza? There's always that person who goes along with the crowd until a decision is made, and then all of a sudden, "Oh wait, I don't like ham on my pizza!" Thanks in advance....

FWIW - I am in NC and did jury duty for a civil case and was given a notebook right away. I thought all juries were given notebooks.

 

[UCAKID]

Hi KarmaGet'em & thanks for your quick reply. My 4 trials were all criminal and in Forsyth County. I really wonder (now) if this is a locality-specific process? My sis lives in Orange County (NC) and taking notes was not offered or discussed. Hmmm....

I wouldn't be the type to furiously write notes but from experience, would now know the points we'd be stuck on during deliberations.

The last time I was being voir dired (is that a verb?!), I was asked how many times I had been called/seated. When I said, "4" the whole courtroom laughed, including the judge. But then the other jurors want me to be the foreman. I did it once and think that's enough!

I got on a fairly notorious double murder trial (trial #1) and the only reason I think I got on the panel was I worked 3rd shift, never read the news and had honestly no idea what the trial was about. "We have no trouble with Juror #7!"

Thanks again, and hope you area isn't too wet/cold tonight!

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm trying to figure out what basis the defendant has for appealing her conviction on lying. So far I can only find that there has been a notice that an appeal will be filed, but I cannot find a record online of any appeal having been filed as of this date. I think there is a two-year time limit on filing the appeal and I'm wondering why the delay? Is it to hold up the civil cases?

The appeal has been filed--that's what a "Notice of Appeal" does. The time limit to file was something like 30 days. Casey's brief is due soon--mid-February I believe.

IMO one of the primary arguments on appeal will be that the statements to LE should have been thrown out due to Miranda violations.

With the deepest and most sincere respect, I disagree that it matters whether Casey didn't ask for TES to search, or that there are any facts which might support a claim that Casey didn't encourage TES' search.

With the usual proviso that I don't practice in Florida so I don't know if Florida follows some weird minority rule (like they do with regard to debtors/collection of judgments/bankrupcty):

When someone commits an intentional tort, like battery or false imprisonment or intentional misrepresentation aka fraud, they are held liable for ALL of the actual damages regardless whether those damages were "foreseeable" or not. By contrast, someone who is merely negligent is only held liable for the foreseeable consequences. Thus, for example, an arsonist who sets a fire can be held liable for injuries suffered by responding fireman who slips in cascading water and hurts his back.

Additionally, I see a good argument for transferred intent. Even if Casey only intended to defraud Cindy and make Cindy spin her wheels (with good success, given Cindy's apparent continued belief in Casey's utter and complete, divinely-condoned innocence) searching for Caylee and the imagi-nanny, Cindy pretty much dodged that bullet and it hit TES square in the wallet.

Additionally, as I have stated before, it is completely foreseeable that anyone who falsely claims that their (dead! and they know it! and they should have called 9-1-1!) child has been kidnapped/is missing will cause people to spend time, money and other resources looking for the kidnapped/missing child. There are not a lot of case law on the subject, but rescuers (such as firemen, policemen or volunteers) who suffer damages are considered "primary victims" of tortfeasors/wrongdoers. Public employee rescuers like firemen/policemen are generally not permitted to sue negligent tortfeasors as a matter of public policy because people are encouraged to call 9-1-1 to report fires/crimes/other hazards without worrying that they will have to pay the response costs, but I see no bar to TES' claims.

Katprint
Who hopes AZlawyer won't feel like Katprint is nitpicking her
But who represented fire departments in the Sacramento area
Always only my own opinions

Kat, you make some good points. I may not be familiar enough with the TES-related facts, but I couldn't remember any time that Casey encouraged ANYONE--including Cindy--to actually search for Caylee. I could definitely be wrong about that, though.

I've been on jury duty 4 times and gotten on the panel all 4 times. I've always wanted to ask this question in court after being sworn but before testimony begins. If note-taking (by jurors) is allowed, is it the judge's decision, or the state? I'm in NC and there's never been mention of it, or notepads left out for us. Since I'm sure I'll be called again (!) when would the attorneys here recommend I ask if we can take notes? BTW, I liken jury duty to ordering a pizza: when was the last time you got 12 people to agree on a pizza? There's always that person who goes along with the crowd until a decision is made, and then all of a sudden, "Oh wait, I don't like ham on my pizza!" Thanks in advance....

Note-taking is a local decision, and often even in the localities where note-taking is allowed the judge has discretion whether to actually do it or not.

If you want to be on the jury, wait til after you are selected to ask if you can take notes lol. Otherwise everyone will assume you are WAY TOO INTERESTED and possibly (God forbid) SMART and will strike you ASAP. But it should be pretty obvious if you are allowed to take notes--if you are, you'll be handed a notepad/notebook and pen/pencil.

 

[katydid23]

The appeal has been filed--that's what a "Notice of Appeal" does. The time limit to file was something like 30 days. Casey's brief is due soon--mid-February I believe.

snipped...


Kat, you make some good points. I may not be familiar enough with the TES-related facts, but I couldn't remember any time that Casey encouraged ANYONE--including Cindy--to actually search for Caylee. I could definitely be wrong about that, though.

Could wearing a MISSING CHILD t-shirt with Caylee's picture on it, while on national televisioon, be construed as Casey urging people to search for her missing child?

 

[AZlawyer]

Could wearing a MISSING CHILD t-shirt with Caylee's picture on it, while on national televisioon, be construed as Casey urging people to search for her missing child?

Hmmm. If I were the judge I would say no. Kat might disagree.