Procedure and legal questions

[SoCalSleuth]

I've read here the responses you've gotten so far, and ITA with all of them.

I'm going to throw out another way the information may be admissible during the SA's case in chief, during direct examination of witness(es): if the SA can find a way to show that the information that Casey was stealing is relevant to the case-in-chief against Casey for a purpose other than to show she acted in conformity with her prior bad acts, then the information comes in and SA doesn't have to wait to see if the defense "opens the door" (unless, of course, the defense can lobby the correct objection to this move by the SA, which I'm not going to lay out here for the defense. )

It will be very easy for the prosecution to admit evidence of KC's stealing in its case-in- chief. KC stated at her initial LE interview that words to the effect that she was lying, stealing, etc. to find Caylee or that she would do so. They can introduce it to show she was lying to them or said that to cover up her theft crimes, etc.

 

[Searchfortruth]

The theft tapes show that Casey bought nothing for Caylee after she went missing, and they also show a woman that was not devastatingly depressed or upset over the loss of her daughter, but intertested in freezer pops and lingerie. Would this be enough to bring the shoplifting tapes in as evidence ?

 

[trixi491]

What about the first call from KC to her parents from jail? Could that be entered? To me it totally shows total lack of conscience/fear for her daughter...calling just to get Tony's number, "all they care about is finding Caylee", and of course her groan when her friend begins to get upset about Caylee.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

It will be very easy for the prosecution to admit evidence of KC's stealing in its case-in- chief. KC stated at her initial LE interview that words to the effect that she was lying, stealing, etc. to find Caylee or that she would do so. They can introduce it to show she was lying to them or said that to cover up her theft crimes, etc.

That line of reasoning would make the statement geared to cover-up purposes admissible in the theft crimes, but not in the murder trial.



Humble-Opinion:wolf:

 

[EclecticArtist]

I am confused on the legal, moral and ethical role a defense attorney has in representing his client.

I know his duty is to raise "reasonible doubt" in the mind of the jury, BUT....

1. Does the Defense Attorney have any quidelines he must adhere to?
2. Can he just "suggest" that Jane Doe or Bob Smith could have done the deed, without any proof? If so, he would be using a innocents name in the accusation. OK, example: ZG maybe was just a name KC pulled out of the hat. Well, guess what? There is a REAL ZG. It could have been YOU or ME!
3. The tactics that can be used, as I see it, is the Defense can lie about a persons whereabouts, actions and deeds , just to get him/her off.
4. Prosecutions role is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, aka evidence. Isn't the Defense obligation to cast "reasonible doubt" on these pieces of "evidence"... if so, how could Defense switch the "blame" to someone else where there is no direct evidence against the person??
5. Is Defense just a good job of mind games , twisting facts and lies, not having to adhere to guidelines, rules, morals. .Does he have a Open Door??

Is anyone else confused over these issues? I can see Defense countering the evidence and known and documented facts, on at a time, but somehow i think this is not the case most of the time..

 

[cjm11]

I was just wondering if any of the depos Baez takes next week will be public info. I know the state has to make public certain documents and Morgan has released depos on the civil case. What, if anything, will Baez have to make public?

 

[impatientredhead]

I am confused on the legal, moral and ethical role a defense attorney has in representing his client.

I know his duty is to raise "reasonible doubt" in the mind of the jury, BUT....

1. Does the Defense Attorney have any quidelines he must adhere to?
2. Can he just "suggest" that Jane Doe or Bob Smith could have done the deed, without any proof? If so, he would be using a innocents name in the accusation. OK, example: ZG maybe was just a name KC pulled out of the hat. Well, guess what? There is a REAL ZG. It could have been YOU or ME!
3. The tactics that can be used, as I see it, is the Defense can lie about a persons whereabouts, actions and deeds , just to get him/her off.
4. Prosecutions role is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, aka evidence. Isn't the Defense obligation to cast "reasonible doubt" on these pieces of "evidence"... if so, how could Defense switch the "blame" to someone else where there is no direct evidence against the person??
5. Is Defense just a good job of mind games , twisting facts and lies, not having to adhere to guidelines, rules, morals. .Does he have a Open Door??

Is anyone else confused over these issues? I can see Defense countering the evidence and known and documented facts, on at a time, but somehow i think this is not the case most of the time..

The defense doesn't have to have the answers to the questions they raise. They just have to show it is possible, the jurors can decide if it is reasonable doubt. Defense can also approach it from the angle (generically speaking, not specific to this case) of trying to get the state's witnesses to says "no, we can not rule that out as a possiblity". They will challenge the forensics, challenge the investigation. My personal opinion is Casey's ONLY shot, and it would be like hitting the lottery, would be if the defense can get some of the evidence ruled as inadmissable.

 

[Friday]

There's an uproar on Nancy G tonight over JB's decision to depose Amy H, a current prosecution witness. The guest lawyers are talking about what a boon it would be to the prosecution to be able to question Amy on cross-examination. I understand why that would be a boon, but my question is this: Just because JB takes her deposition doesn't mean he plans to (or has to) call her as a defense witness, does it? Couldn't this just be a "fishing expedition" of his to find out everything damning Amy may be going to say? In civil suits, I think it's common for opposing parties to depose each others' witnesses. Is JB's action all that unusual in a criminal case?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

There's an uproar on Nancy G tonight over JB's decision to depose Amy H, a current prosecution witness. The guest lawyers are talking about what a boon it would be to the prosecution to be able to question Amy on cross-examination. I understand why that would be a boon, but my question is this: Just because JB takes her deposition doesn't mean he plans to (or has to) call her as a defense witness, does it? Couldn't this just be a "fishing expedition" of his to find out everything damning Amy may be going to say? In civil suits, I think it's common for opposing parties to depose each others' witnesses. Is JB's action all that unusual in a criminal case?

You are correct. JB doesn't have to call her as a witness just because he took her depo. He is taking her deposition to see what she has to say that might help or hurt both the prosecution and defense. He also probably wants to lock her story in.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

That line of reasoning would make the statement geared to cover-up purposes admissible in the theft crimes, but not in the murder trial.



Humble-Opinion:wolf:

I beg to differ MH! Her entire interview will be admissible--it's her "story" about what happened. It also goes to counter her story that she was looking for Caylee and needed to lie and steal to do so. IIRC, her theft was to pay for things like her cell phone bills and clothes for herself. Not exactly purchases to aid in the search of her daughter! They can use the fact that she wasn't looking for her daughter because she knew her daughter was dead because she killed her. JMHO.

 

[Jolynna]

SoCalSleuth,

It is my understanding that Baez would not have to disclose the location of Caylee's body to LE if Casey revealed that info. Correct?

Could you explain attorney/client privilege when a third party (like a deputy sheriff prison guard) is present.

Thanks so much for being here!!

 

[trixi491]

SoCalSleuth,

It is my understanding that Baez would not have to disclose the location of Caylee's body to LE if Casey revealed that info. Correct?

Could you explain attorney/client privilege when a third party (like a deputy sheriff prison guard) is present.

Thanks so much for being here!!

Although I can't answer your exact question I'm gonna give my opinion and say I really doubt KC told him where the body was. If this theory is tied into the whole idea about RK's gf hearing about it, that would have meant KC would have told Baez way back in August (when RK first went looking). If JB knew she was guilty I don't think he would have hired all these legal experts. IIRC he was all over LE about following tips and according to the A family, was always with them in believing Caylee was still out there. Don't get me wrong I don't like JB, but to have known she was dead since August and putting on this act that tells the public to look for Caylee (as well as letting KC wear "Help Find Caylee" t-shirts while out on bond) is really low, even for JB. Also, I highly doubt KC would EVER admit she had anything to do with this (especially to JB who she seems to have a raging crush on IMO). This girl is extremely stubborn and lies about the stupidest things ever. The fact that she would actually tell the truth about something that could put her away for life seems very unlikely to me, even if it it to her attorney.

 

[Chezhire]

It will be very easy for the prosecution to admit evidence of KC's stealing in its case-in- chief. KC stated at her initial LE interview that words to the effect that she was lying, stealing, etc. to find Caylee or that she would do so. They can introduce it to show she was lying to them or said that to cover up her theft crimes, etc.

Perhaps. The ease of this evidence being introduced by the SA will, as I said in my original post, depend upon whether or not the defense can make and argue the potentially correct objection(s) to this move by the SA, which, as I said before, I'm not going to lay out here at WS for the defense and/or Casey's family to read.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "....It is my understanding that Baez would not have to disclose the location of Caylee's body to LE if Casey revealed that info. Correct?

Could you explain attorney/client privilege when a third party (like a deputy sheriff prison guard) is present. ..."

JBaez could not reveal anything to anyone re: things Casey says to him about the location of a deceased person's body. However, if JBaez receives such information from his client, he cannot thereafter put her on the witness stand and allow her to testify contrary to what she's told him, as that would be his participating in her commission of perjury, which is a big no-no.

The rule is that any time a 3rd party is present and overhears what is being said between attorney and client, the things said by attorney and client are NOT privileged. As such, anything said in front of any prison employees is not privileged and may be introduced by the SA during any hearing or trial.

 

[Chezhire]

I beg to differ MH! Her entire interview will be admissible--it's her "story" about what happened. It also goes to counter her story that she was looking for Caylee and needed to lie and steal to do so. IIRC, her theft was to pay for things like her cell phone bills and clothes for herself. Not exactly purchases to aid in the search of her daughter! They can use the fact that she wasn't looking for her daughter because she knew her daughter was dead because she killed her. JMHO.

Again, not necessarily. Please see my above post #213.

 

[Jolynna]

JBaez could not reveal anything to anyone re: things Casey says to him about the location of a deceased person's body. However, if JBaez receives such information from his client, he cannot thereafter put her on the witness stand and allow her to testify contrary to what she's told him, as that would be his participating in her commission of perjury, which is a big no-no.

The rule is that any time a 3rd party is present and overhears what is being said between attorney and client, the things said by attorney and client are NOT privileged. As such, anything said in front of any prison employees is not privileged and may be introduced by the SA during any hearing or trial.

Thank you!!!!! :blowkiss:

 

[Chezhire]

There's an uproar on Nancy G tonight over JB's decision to depose Amy H, a current prosecution witness. The guest lawyers are talking about what a boon it would be to the prosecution to be able to question Amy on cross-examination. I understand why that would be a boon, but my question is this: Just because JB takes her deposition doesn't mean he plans to (or has to) call her as a defense witness, does it? Couldn't this just be a "fishing expedition" of his to find out everything damning Amy may be going to say? In civil suits, I think it's common for opposing parties to depose each others' witnesses. Is JB's action all that unusual in a criminal case?

Bolded emphasis added by me.

No, it's not. I've posted before about the importance of deposing witnesses in criminal cases, much to the frustration of other posters who argued it isn't done or can't be done in a criminal case.

It really all depends upon the SA's case against the accused and how important the defense counsel deems witness testimony to be in terms of risk that his client will be convicted with or without said testimony. If a potential witness hasn't given LE a handwritten statement and/or only responded to interview questions that were worded in the fashion that LE chose to word them and/or was not even asked various questions that the defense attorney deems highly relevant to the theory he's hoping to develope/planning to flesh out during the trial, it's a good move to take said witness's deposition to lock him/her into responses.

 

[Chezhire]

Thank you!!!!! :blowkiss:

:blowkiss: You're very welcome

 

[trixi491]

What do you think the likihood is that that first call from jail (ya know, "waste, huuuuge waste") will be shown at trial? This was the thing that totally convinced me KC was guilty (her lack of concern for her daughter, groaning when her friend got teary eyed, not asking about Caylee but calling for TL's number) and I really hope it's played for the jury!

 

[dax]

Would someone please tell me why Baez is taking depos of jail personnel....NOW? What do they have to do with Caylee's death and this case other than KC being in jail?

Shouldn't he be focusing on depos of family and friends?

Baez won't be ready for trial in Oct. It took him 27 months for his last case (Nilton Diaz) and even THEN he wasn't ready....imo! It's taken 8 months for him to START taking depos this time! :clap: great job!