Procedure and legal questions

[Macushla]

snipped

ETA: I can pretty much guarantee that having the economic crimes charges tried first to please web sleuthers wanting something to watch is not going to be one of the considerations.

Not even if we asked them very politely?

thank you for answering my questions so thoroughly and using language that I can understand, it is greatly appreciated.

What are the chances that she will plead out on the financial charges at some point so they aren't hanging over her head for a long time? I would think with the DP being put on the table, the financial charges are not high on the defense teams list of things to worry about - and pleading on them will get them out of the way for good.

 

[Themis]

Thank you so much. May I also ask just one more question: Is the defense bound by the same discovery rules that apply to the prosecution?

Defense has to give notice of affirmative defenses, experts they intend to call, witness lists and things like that. There is some "discovery" that must be given to the prosecution. If anything is a surprise to the prosecution, the prosecution can request a recess to deal with it.

 

[Themis]

So.... since neither CA or GA is charged with a crime and do not appear to have been involved in this crime, then the judge can overrule it. Correct?

A witness doesn't have to be charged with a crime to claim the 5th Amendment rights. The Judge will make inquiries and decide the issue when the right against self incrimination is claimed.


If this were to occur, then would the judge have to make a separate ruling on each question CAGA tries to cite marital privilege on or could he make one blanket ruling since the parents are not involved in the crime itself?

At first it is a separate inquiry and ruling but if it is more of the same, the Judge will direct the attorney to move on to other areas of questioning. You assume the parents are not involved in the crime itself. The possible answer to the question will determine whether or not the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination will apply.


Can Morgan and Co. take the questions CAGA claimed marital privilege on to the civil suit judge and have them compelled to answer, or would this be different since it is civil, and CA may have been involve in perpetuating the implication of the real ZG as the evil inivisinanny?

The way refusal to answer civil deposition questions is handled is the attorney who requested the deposition (JM) would file a "Motion to Compel Answers" in the civil suit. The Judge would then listen to any privileges or 5th Amendment claims and rule on them. If the Judge orders the person to answer the questions and they still refuse, then JM can bring a motion for an "Order to Show Cause" why the deponent (person answering the questions at a deposition) should not be held in contempt.

Do any legal eagles out there think, based on the depo hearings, that this will be an issue in the criminal trial?

Answers to questions above in blue.

 

[Themis]

Not even if we asked them very politely?

thank you for answering my questions so thoroughly and using language that I can understand, it is greatly appreciated.

What are the chances that she will plead out on the financial charges at some point so they aren't hanging over her head for a long time? I would think with the DP being put on the table, the financial charges are not high on the defense teams list of things to worry about - and pleading on them will get them out of the way for good.

The defense team will have to defend unless KC decides to plead guilty. Only KC can decide that and it doesn't appear she is willing to do that.

 

[Paintr]

If a defendant does accept a plea deal, what happens then? Is the sentence included in the agreement. Are the details of the deal made public? Can you accept a plea deal without admitting guilt? I realize there would be no trial, but would there be court proceedings? Is the evidence ever made public? If not what does happen to all the evidence?

Sorry for the rash of questions all at once, but I am curious.

 

[Themis]

If a defendant does accept a plea deal, what happens then? Is the sentence included in the agreement. Are the details of the deal made public? Can you accept a plea deal without admitting guilt? I realize there would be no trial, but would there be court proceedings? Is the evidence ever made public? If not what does happen to all the evidence?

Sorry for the rash of questions all at once, but I am curious.

If a defendant decides to accept a plea deal offered by the prosecution, they go into court on a hearing. The court goes through the rights with the defendant and asks a lot of questions about whether they understand they are giving up their right to trial, do they understand the deal and whether it is voluntary. The court enters the plea on the record. The pleas can be guilty to the charges as written, guilty to some of the charges, guilty to lesser included offenses, the prosecution could withdraw some charges, the defendant could plead nolo contendre to some charges (but not a death penalty charge), the prosecution could agree to lesser charges and the defendant could plea to those. It is put on the record and made public. A nolo plea means they do not defend, but it is not a guilty plea; although it is treated for sentencing as if there was a guilty plea. If there are any outstanding charges without a plea, the trial proceeds on the outstanding charges. Since there is no trial, there is no evidentiary hearing. At the appropriate time when evidence can be released, after all appeals are concluded, government entities have procedures for return or destruction of evidence. Until then, the evidence stays in the evidence lockers with the evidence custodian and probably goes into long term storage, if the agency has long term storage. If there is privately owned evidence that is of value (like the car), when the evidence is released the car goes back to the owner (or the owner's estate or beneficiary).

 

[faefrost]

So.... since neither CA or GA is charged with a crime and do not appear to have been involved in this crime, then the judge can overrule it. Correct?
If this were to occur, then would the judge have to make a separate ruling on each question CAGA tries to cite marital privilege on or could he make one blanket ruling since the parents are not involved in the crime itself?

Can Morgan and Co. take the questions CAGA claimed marital privilege on to the civil suit judge and have them compelled to answer, or would this be different since it is civil, and CA may have been involve in perpetuating the implication of the real ZG as the evil inivisinanny?

Do any legal eagles out there think, based on the depo hearings, that this will be an issue in the criminal trial?

I believe that marital privelege only exists to prevent them from giving tesitmony against each other. Not against a third party where neither spouse is charged. At least in criminal matters.

 

[Themis]

Marital privilege applies in both criminal and civil suits. They would only be compelled to testify as to what the other spouse said if one spouse waived the privilege or if it was covered by an exception to the marital privilege. Privileges are wholly statutory.

 

[Paintr]

If a defendant decides to accept a plea deal offered by the prosecution, they go into court on a hearing. The court goes through the rights with the defendant and asks a lot of questions about whether they understand they are giving up their right to trial, do they understand the deal and whether it is voluntary. The court enters the plea on the record. The pleas can be guilty to the charges as written, guilty to some of the charges, guilty to lesser included offenses, the prosecution could withdraw some charges, the defendant could plead nolo contendre to some charges (but not a death penalty charge), the prosecution could agree to lesser charges and the defendant could plea to those. It is put on the record and made public. A nolo plea means they do not defend, but it is not a guilty plea; although it is treated for sentencing as if there was a guilty plea. If there are any outstanding charges without a plea, the trial proceeds on the outstanding charges. Since there is no trial, there is no evidentiary hearing. At the appropriate time when evidence can be released, after all appeals are concluded, government entities have procedures for return or destruction of evidence. Until then, the evidence stays in the evidence lockers with the evidence custodian and probably goes into long term storage, if the agency has long term storage. If there is privately owned evidence that is of value (like the car), when the evidence is released the car goes back to the owner (or the owner's estate or beneficiary).

Thank you kindly, Themis, for answering all those questions and so clearly too. :clap: I do not really think that KC will offer a plea in this case but I was wondering.

One more question (for now lol) is George saying something like 'you'd better ask Cindy about that' considered legally waiving marital privilege?

 

[Themis]

One more question (for now lol) is George saying something like 'you'd better ask Cindy about that' considered legally waiving marital privilege?

If the question was something about what CA said to GA and GA told them to ask CA, then the privilege is not waived. If GA is telling them to ask CA about something GA said to CA, then the privilege might be waived.

Generally, the question must be asked and then the witness must affirmatively claim the privilege. Passive waivers generally occur when somebody starts volunteering information that was said between the husband and wife, attorney and client, doctor and patient, psychotherapist and patient, priest and penitent etc.

 

[Paintr]

If the question was something about what CA said to GA and GA told them to ask CA, then the privilege is not waived. If GA is telling them to ask CA about something GA said to CA, then the privilege might be waived.

Generally, the question must be asked and then the witness must affirmatively claim the privilege. Passive waivers generally occur when somebody starts volunteering information that was said between the husband and wife, attorney and client, doctor and patient, psychotherapist and patient, priest and penitent etc.

Thank you kindly, Themis. I didn't realize that the words 'claiming the privilege' had to actually be there. I thought that everyone just took it for granted and anything said between the couple was excluded.

 

[Baznme]

I have not been able to find this question listed or discussed anywhere, and I am hoping our wonderful 'legal minds' or anyone else who knows can answer this for me:

Almost everything that the Anthony's know about the Nanny, who she was, when exactly she 'took Caylee, etc. all came from Casey, correct? will ANY part of what they have said they know be admissable in court? As far as I can see, none of the Anthonys will have very much to say in court because all their info came from Casey and as such is hearsay and therefore not admissable. Would appreciate other thoughts on this!

I believe that would be "affirmative"........LOL

 

[Themis]

I have not been able to find this question listed or discussed anywhere, and I am hoping our wonderful 'legal minds' or anyone else who knows can answer this for me:

Almost everything that the Anthony's know about the Nanny, who she was, when exactly she 'took Caylee, etc. all came from Casey, correct? will ANY part of what they have said they know be admissable in court? As far as I can see, none of the Anthonys will have very much to say in court because all their info came from Casey and as such is hearsay and therefore not admissable. Would appreciate other thoughts on this!

Your question is too broad to give a comprehensive, understandable answer. Which trial? Civil or criminal? We don't know exactly what the question will be. Usually the objection is to the question because the question, as phrased, will call for a hearsay answer. So, without knowing which trial and what the question is, we won't know yet whether or not the expected answer will fall into one of the 30 or so exceptions or exclusions to the hearsay rule. KC is a party in both trials and generally, a statement, especially those that are made against her interests, made by a party opponent can be admitted. So, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Dear Prudence]

I have a couple of questions regarding the punishment phase of capital murder trials in Florida.

In an unrelated thread, a poster from Florida stated that she served on a capital murder jury to decide the punishment of the convicted person but did not serve on the trial jury. I have never heard of two different juries in the same case, one for guilty/not guilty and one for punishment. Is this normal procedure in Florida?

My second question is, with the death penalty back on the table, if Casey is found guilty of first degree murder, what choices of punishment will there be for the jury - only either LWOP or death penalty, or could there be other parameters such as life but chance of parole after 25 years?

 

[nssherlock]

I am wondering when a different Lead Counsel will be named now that this is a DP case. It would seem that the SA & Court etc would need to be communicating with that person at this stage, no? How can things just keep goin on goin on when KC does not have the appropriate lead counsel? help..........

 

[white_envelope]

I have a question about the disclosure laws in Florida.

I know the prosecution has to disclose their evidence and findings to the defense BUT (I know the defense doesn't have to PROVE anything, they just have to create reasonable doubt) IF there is a reasonable "explanation" to all of this that will show that KC is innocent (as CA says on the Early Show) then WHEN does the defense have to show their hand to prosecution?

 

[brownflower]

Last night on the NG show LP stated that Roy K was tipped off concerning the location of Caylee's body by a deputy who overheard a conversation between CA and JB. This statement is nothing new. LP has stated this several times on NG's show.

What concerned me was that both NG and LP agreed that if evidence is collected by illegal means (attorney client prviledge in this case) it is not admissible in court. Further they stated if a search warrant was illegally given anything that was found as a result of this search warrant would not be admissible and therefore "fruit of a rotten tree".

If what LP says is true and JB can prove through phone records that there is a link between RK and someone at the police department.

Can the remains of little Caylee and all the evidence that was found at that site be deemed "fruit of a rotten tree", and therefore not admissible in the case against CA?

If all that evidence was thrown out, what would this do to the prosecution's case?

 

[SoSueMe]

Now that the Anths have given conflicting statements under oath (comparing the statements to LE vs the depositions in the ZFG case) can they now plead the 5th at KC's trial? I guess the perjury is already done, but would this be an excuse to not perjure themselves further at the trial?

Another question, if the Anths do plead the 5th, can the SA use the 911 call and their interviews with LE at the trial without their testimony?

TIA - Sue

 

[white_envelope]

Last night on the NG show LP stated that Roy K was tipped off concerning the location of Caylee's body by a deputy who overheard a conversation between CA and JB. This statement is nothing new. LP has stated this several times on NG's show.

What concerned me was that both NG and LP agreed that if evidence is collected by illegal means (attorney client prviledge in this case) it is not admissible in court. Further they stated if a search warrant was illegally given anything that was found as a result of this search warrant would not be admissible and therefore "fruit of a rotten tree".

If what LP says is true and JB can prove through phone records that there is a link between RK and someone at the police department.

Can the remains of little Caylee and all the evidence that was found at that site be deemed "fruit of a rotten tree", and therefore not admissible in the case against CA?

If all that evidence was thrown out, what would this do to the prosecution's case?

It would be a bummer but they were ready to go ahead without the body before it was found anyway.

The problem for JB is.....if KC told him where the body was and HE didn't do anything about it...wouldn't he be in trouble too? Maybe he would throw himself under the bus for KC in that case, but wouldn't that also constitute an admission by KC?

 

[brownflower]

It would be a bummer but they were ready to go ahead without the body before it was found anyway.

The problem for JB is.....if KC told him where the body was and HE didn't do anything about it...wouldn't he be in trouble too? Maybe he would throw himself under the bus for KC in that case, but wouldn't that also constitute an admission by KC?

That is a good point. Isn't he being investigated by the bar because of what he told Dominic Casey to do if the body was found?