Procedure and legal questions

[lin]

lin, may I ask who subpoenaed TL, the Defense? Hasn't he already coorperated with LE and will be needed at the trial? Ummm.:waitasec:

IIRC, the defense issued subpoena's to several witnesses demanding telephone records. Remember that? There was a hearing; JG's attorney was there and I think AH and someone else (I'm pretty sure it was RK) was represented arguing the subpoena was too broad; privacy invasion; etc. The court approved the attorney's compromise, limiting the scope of the subpoena. Anyone that didn't object, like TL, wasn't included in that hearing. That's why I'm guessing that those who didn't object incorrectly guessed that either all would be approved/denied/limited or none would. It doesn't work that way usually.

TL didn't specifically object prior but hired a lawyer and objected later due to the court basically ordering him to turn over all that was initially requested. So now a hearing has been set, likely on TL's objection or motion to quash the subpoena.

This is a subpoena for documents, specifically the telephone records. I doubt the state would issue one for docs unless it was needed to get the records from the entity holding those records, like the phone company. TL has been very cooperative so far, iirc, and would have likely turned over whatever the state needed, imo, without a subpoena.

This is not to be confused with a subpoena for trial or a hearing, where the person must physically be there. Likely the state will issue a subpoena for everyone they intend to call, whether they're cooperative or not. It's just good practice and can be helpful to the witnesses, like a note for school.

 

[lin]

Could it be because it is the defense's subpoena that the quash is being requested by TL's attorney but is showing up because it will be heard with the other motions defense filed? Does that make any sense? I know what I mean just not sure how to phrase it. TL is trying to quash JB's subpoena for his phone records. There, I said it. Still not sure it makes sense...Lin, help

Sounds like you got it to me.

Mini-timeline to the best of my knowledge/recollection:

JB files subpoena for phone records from numerous witnesses

3 witnesses objected to the subpoena

A hearing was held the result of which the 3 complaining witnesses didn't have to comply with the full extent of the subpoena; the witnesses that didn't object were ordered to comply by default.

Subsequently, TL got a lawyer and filed an objection/motion to quash subpoena.

Now a hearing is scheduled to determine whether or not TL must comply with the subpoena issued by JB. Either side could have scheduled a hearing but was more likely JB cos he wants the records; TL isn't giving anything up until he's ordered to do so and his objection/motion to quash gives him some protection just from filing it.

Isn't that what you were saying in your post, Lambchop? I don't have any goldstars to pass out cos you summarized in a few sentences what I've been using multiple posts and dozens of paragraphs to say so how about a new avi instead? If you want to use it, copy the link below and go to your UserCP, edit avatar and put in this link. Make sure you get the entire link, not just what shows on the post. Either right click the link and select copy shortcut, or use the quote function to copy the entire link.

This link for avi in UserCP: http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll230/lin5000/cheshire/LambChop.jpg

Will make your avi this:

Just happened to have the page up cos I was fiddling around looking for some stuff for some other friends here. If you have any troubles with it, pm me and I'll try to help.

 

[lin]

Thanks. I assumed it was regarding the trial. When/how far out do those subpoenas get issued?

TL probably has some stuff in his phone records he doesn't want his dad to know about - sortof like how everyone got upset about JG's personal stuff being put on display.

If you're asking how long before trial, as long as possible for investigating. If you're asking how far before the crime and how long after the crime, that's what's in dispute. JB wants like ten years (slight exaggeration) of records that couldn't possibly be relevant to the case; long before he ever met KC and through today, or close to it. Some things really are irrelevant, despite CA's overuse of the phrase. Unless, of course, JB wants to try to prove that TL was in on some big conspiracy blah blah blah. Probably he wants to know if TL had any contact with anyone else related to this case so he can try to allude to some present day conspiracy. Like if TL dialed a wrong number one day and coincidentally dial JG's second cousin twice removed neighbor's dog groomer, he'll say AHA!!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

IIRC, the defense issued subpoena's to several witnesses demanding telephone records. Remember that? There was a hearing; JG's attorney was there and I think AH and someone else (I'm pretty sure it was RK) was represented arguing the subpoena was too broad; privacy invasion; etc. The court approved the attorney's compromise, limiting the scope of the subpoena. Anyone that didn't object, like TL, wasn't included in that hearing. That's why I'm guessing that those who didn't object incorrectly guessed that either all would be approved/denied/limited or none would. It doesn't work that way usually.

TL didn't specifically object prior but hired a lawyer and objected later due to the court basically ordering him to turn over all that was initially requested. So now a hearing has been set, likely on TL's objection or motion to quash the subpoena.

This is a subpoena for documents, specifically the telephone records. I doubt the state would issue one for docs unless it was needed to get the records from the entity holding those records, like the phone company. TL has been very cooperative so far, iirc, and would have likely turned over whatever the state needed, imo, without a subpoena.

This is not to be confused with a subpoena for trial or a hearing, where the person must physically be there. Likely the state will issue a subpoena for everyone they intend to call, whether they're cooperative or not. It's just good practice and can be helpful to the witnesses, like a note for school.

Yes, I do remember the hearing and the too broad argument. Thanks. Also that makes a lot of sense about the subpoenas being issued for more than one reason, even if the witness would show up without one; it is like a Doctor's note. It is not indicative of the witness not cooperating just because he/she has been issued a subpoena but can be used in either case. No matter, it is an order though. Just recapping the lesson - thanks.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Legal-wise, did anyone figure out if JB & AL would be successful in keeping LP and RD from being State witnesses?

 

[lin]

Legal-wise, did anyone figure out if JB & AL would be successful in keeping LP and RD from being State witnesses?

I don't think they will prevail and no one I've heard give an opinion thinks they will prevail. There was some discussion earlier in this thread about it, iirc. The bottom line is that JB made a point in his "agreement" that Padilla and co. are not JB's employees, ergo, there can be no work product privilege; and a "confidentiality agreement" is not binding on a court, even if one could possibly read that [worthless] piece of paper to even be that, which I don't.

 

[LambChop]

I would think the agreement was worthless, too. Since LP signed that agreement with the belief that Caylee was indeed kidnapped and he was going to attempt to find her. KC lied and refused to give any information that would help LP find her child even though that was not stated in the agreement. So, because KC lied would any agreement LP signed be valid??? Hard to figure since most bondsman don't sign these types of agreements with people they are bonding out. They are more concerned about the people skipping town on them.

Also, at the time, it shows where JB's priorities were. Don't let someone else get a book deal? No wonder people believe there is a book deal for KC out there behind the money.

Thank you, Lin for my Lampchop. I love him.

 

[lin]

I would think the agreement was worthless, too. Since LP signed that agreement with the belief that Caylee was indeed kidnapped and he was going to attempt to find her. KC lied and refused to give any information that would help LP find her child even though that was not stated in the agreement. So, because KC lied would any agreement LP signed be valid??? Hard to figure since most bondsman don't sign these types of agreements with people they are bonding out. They are more concerned about the people skipping town on them.

Also, at the time, it shows where JB's priorities were. Don't let someone else get a book deal? No wonder people believe there is a book deal for KC out there behind the money.

Thank you, Lin for my Lampchop. I love him.

For all you contribute here, you've more than earned him.

Personally, I don't think that "agreement" is worth the paper it's printed on, much less the ink used. I think Padilla would win the argument if he decided to write a book or otherwise profit from this but that's jmo. He may choose not to but it would be just that, his choice to keep a verbal agreement. Padilla is a lawyer and probably knew when he agreed to sign this thing it was worthless.

I was especially impressed with the clause about not introducing KC to a real - er- I mean, "another" attorney.

 

[lin]

People can write anything they want to on a piece of paper and get it notarized and everything, making it possibly seem "real" and binding. But that doesn't mean it is "real" or enforceable. One thing I don't recall seeing in this agreement is any compensation for Padilla; any reason/reward for him to comply with the terms of the agreement. That alone may make an otherwise enforceable contract unenforceable in certain situations. I haven't studied on this enough to say for sure it would fall into that category, just sayin'...

 

[lawlady84]

As to what Lin said above, two people can "agree" to whatever they want, but if it doesn't amount to a legal contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, performance), then its not a "contract" - maybe its a promise, but you cannot enforce a bare promise.

Also, I read the whole "privacy agreement" - I'm kind of surprised JB is a lawyer after reading it. There's a concept in contract law called the parol evidence rule - basically holds that if you have a written, signed, acknowledged contract by all parties, oral evidence isn't allowed to "supplement" the contract. Basically, the court will take the contract on its face - they figure if two mature parties agree to a contract, everything important will be contained in THAT contract. And courts are way more likely to follow the parol evidence rule if its a negotiated contract - or one like this between two educated entities (a lawyer and a bondsman). If it was, say, Padilla and Citibank, they may say that's unfair. But here you have to assume Padilla and JB were on "equal" footing - Padillas been in the business a long time, and JB is a "lawyer."

IN that contract, JB wrote..in..the..contract? "subject to an oral agreement" about employment and payment (IIRC about the payment). No, that's not going to hold up. if LP was a legitimate employee covered by attorney client privilege you bet your bottom dollar that would have been written EXPLICITLY in the contract. It would have said in bold, "anything said to you by Ms. Anthony will be covered by attorney client privilege, will be inadmissible in court," etc etc.

Part of my very busy summer was spent doing depositions of employees of a company the law firm I work for represents, and EVERY SINGLE ONE started out "even though we are not technically YOUR attorney, Mr. X, we are the attorney of your boss, and everything we discuss here, and we tell you, is covered by attorney client privilege and you cannot use this in any suit etc etc etc" followed by the signing of what I thought were superfluous forms to that extent. With "outside" witnesses, it was even more intense.

Lawyers should know what is needed for ACP - you need to be a PAID EMPLOYEE. If you are hiring someone, and you are a law firm, you should KNOW what is required. And I am pretty sure if you are going to make someone covered by your privilege they have to OUTWARDLY CONSENT. If JB is really going to say LP is covered by privilege, that means JB could commit fraud, assault, or other civil wrongs against LP and LP couldn't testify to what JB said while KC was in the room? Because its privileged? Please. A court is clearly going to require a CLEAR consent to being covered by some random lawyers "privilege."

PS I bet Andrea read these kindergarten filings and smacked JB. I do feel bad for her though, I don't know if these people realize how much you sacrifice making a name for yourself and your liberal cause by defending an allegedly horrid crime.

PPS. I'm also surprised that an anti-death penalty advocate would take up the case (no personal bias intended) of a pretty, white, young, well-off woman. Usually anti-DP advocates stand up as much for EQUALITY in the application of the DP as for its abolition. I think the prosecutor here made a rational decision that if Casey Anthony had a different background and mugshot she'd for sure be up for the death penalty. Look at the statistics, its ALARMING.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

As to what Lin said above, two people can "agree" to whatever they want, but if it doesn't amount to a legal contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, performance), then its not a "contract" - maybe its a promise, but you cannot enforce a bare promise.

Also, I read the whole "privacy agreement" - I'm kind of surprised JB is a lawyer after reading it. There's a concept in contract law called the parol evidence rule - basically holds that if you have a written, signed, acknowledged contract by all parties, oral evidence isn't allowed to "supplement" the contract. Basically, the court will take the contract on its face - they figure if two mature parties agree to a contract, everything important will be contained in THAT contract. And courts are way more likely to follow the parol evidence rule if its a negotiated contract - or one like this between two educated entities (a lawyer and a bondsman). If it was, say, Padilla and Citibank, they may say that's unfair. But here you have to assume Padilla and JB were on "equal" footing - Padillas been in the business a long time, and JB is a "lawyer."

IN that contract, JB wrote..in..the..contract? "subject to an oral agreement" about employment and payment (IIRC about the payment). No, that's not going to hold up. if LP was a legitimate employee covered by attorney client privilege you bet your bottom dollar that would have been written EXPLICITLY in the contract. It would have said in bold, "anything said to you by Ms. Anthony will be covered by attorney client privilege, will be inadmissible in court," etc etc.

Part of my very busy summer was spent doing depositions of employees of a company the law firm I work for represents, and EVERY SINGLE ONE started out "even though we are not technically YOUR attorney, Mr. X, we are the attorney of your boss, and everything we discuss here, and we tell you, is covered by attorney client privilege and you cannot use this in any suit etc etc etc" followed by the signing of what I thought were superfluous forms to that extent. With "outside" witnesses, it was even more intense.

Lawyers should know what is needed for ACP - you need to be a PAID EMPLOYEE. If you are hiring someone, and you are a law firm, you should KNOW what is required. And I am pretty sure if you are going to make someone covered by your privilege they have to OUTWARDLY CONSENT. If JB is really going to say LP is covered by privilege, that means JB could commit fraud, assault, or other civil wrongs against LP and LP couldn't testify to what JB said while KC was in the room? Because its privileged? Please. A court is clearly going to require a CLEAR consent to being covered by some random lawyers "privilege."

PS I bet Andrea read these kindergarten filings and smacked JB. I do feel bad for her though, I don't know if these people realize how much you sacrifice making a name for yourself and your liberal cause by defending an allegedly horrid crime.

PPS. I'm also surprised that an anti-death penalty advocate would take up the case (no personal bias intended) of a pretty, white, young, well-off woman. Usually anti-DP advocates stand up as much for EQUALITY in the application of the DP as for its abolition. I think the prosecutor here made a rational decision that if Casey Anthony had a different background and mugshot she'd for sure be up for the death penalty. Look at the statistics, its ALARMING.

She's taking it up for the money and fame, let's get real.

 

[faefrost]

proving that LP is bound by JB's attorney client privelege is the easiest thing in the world. All that has to happen is JB to produce a cancelled check or an invoice or receipt for services rendered.

Didn't LP already state in an interview that he told JB this. That to exend privelege he would have to be paid something, such as at a minimum a dollar. And JB declined to do so at the time?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

For all you contribute here, you've more than earned him.

Personally, I don't think that "agreement" is worth the paper it's printed on, much less the ink used. I think Padilla would win the argument if he decided to write a book or otherwise profit from this but that's jmo. He may choose not to but it would be just that, his choice to keep a verbal agreement. Padilla is a lawyer and probably knew when he agreed to sign this thing it was worthless.

I was especially impressed with the clause about not introducing KC to a real - er- I mean, "another" attorney.

Padilla is a Lawyer? I wonder how I missed that. I thought he was a cowboy, rancher, gambler reformed, bondsman, businessman with a touch of hussler thrown in for spice of life and excitement. I didn't know he was a Lawyer. He loves his dog - that gets big points from me. :crazy:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

As to what Lin said above, two people can "agree" to whatever they want, but if it doesn't amount to a legal contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, performance), then its not a "contract" - maybe its a promise, but you cannot enforce a bare promise.

Also, I read the whole "privacy agreement" - I'm kind of surprised JB is a lawyer after reading it. There's a concept in contract law called the parol evidence rule - basically holds that if you have a written, signed, acknowledged contract by all parties, oral evidence isn't allowed to "supplement" the contract. Basically, the court will take the contract on its face - they figure if two mature parties agree to a contract, everything important will be contained in THAT contract. And courts are way more likely to follow the parol evidence rule if its a negotiated contract - or one like this between two educated entities (a lawyer and a bondsman). If it was, say, Padilla and Citibank, they may say that's unfair. But here you have to assume Padilla and JB were on "equal" footing - Padillas been in the business a long time, and JB is a "lawyer."

IN that contract, JB wrote..in..the..contract? "subject to an oral agreement" about employment and payment (IIRC about the payment). No, that's not going to hold up. if LP was a legitimate employee covered by attorney client privilege you bet your bottom dollar that would have been written EXPLICITLY in the contract. It would have said in bold, "anything said to you by Ms. Anthony will be covered by attorney client privilege, will be inadmissible in court," etc etc.

Part of my very busy summer was spent doing depositions of employees of a company the law firm I work for represents, and EVERY SINGLE ONE started out "even though we are not technically YOUR attorney, Mr. X, we are the attorney of your boss, and everything we discuss here, and we tell you, is covered by attorney client privilege and you cannot use this in any suit etc etc etc" followed by the signing of what I thought were superfluous forms to that extent. With "outside" witnesses, it was even more intense.

Lawyers should know what is needed for ACP - you need to be a PAID EMPLOYEE. If you are hiring someone, and you are a law firm, you should KNOW what is required. And I am pretty sure if you are going to make someone covered by your privilege they have to OUTWARDLY CONSENT. If JB is really going to say LP is covered by privilege, that means JB could commit fraud, assault, or other civil wrongs against LP and LP couldn't testify to what JB said while KC was in the room? Because its privileged? Please. A court is clearly going to require a CLEAR consent to being covered by some random lawyers "privilege."

PS I bet Andrea read these kindergarten filings and smacked JB. I do feel bad for her though, I don't know if these people realize how much you sacrifice making a name for yourself and your liberal cause by defending an allegedly horrid crime.

PPS. I'm also surprised that an anti-death penalty advocate would take up the case (no personal bias intended) of a pretty, white, young, well-off woman. Usually anti-DP advocates stand up as much for EQUALITY in the application of the DP as for its abolition. I think the prosecutor here made a rational decision that if Casey Anthony had a different background and mugshot she'd for sure be up for the death penalty. Look at the statistics, its ALARMING.

bolded by me -

Why do you refer to KC as well-off? She does not have a pot to pee in as far as I can tell. Her parents are knee deep in debt thanks to mostly GA and KC. Is it because they have furniture and cars that aren't paid for more than likely? To me well-off means you actually own your stuff - your house, cars with lots of money in the bank and possibly your own business. That's well-off in America. The A's parade as well-off and they're not alone as most seemingly "well-off" people are not that at all. KC is white, true.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

proving that LP is bound by JB's attorney client privelege is the easiest thing in the world. All that has to happen is JB to produce a cancelled check or an invoice or receipt for services rendered.

Didn't LP already state in an interview that he told JB this. That to exend privelege he would have to be paid something, such as at a minimum a dollar. And JB declined to do so at the time?

Do you know what interview - source? It would be interesting to know for sure. I would not have picked up on it because I'm learning about the legal stuff now. If someone knows this to be true we need a source. Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

As to what Lin said above, two people can "agree" to whatever they want, but if it doesn't amount to a legal contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, performance), then its not a "contract" - maybe its a promise, but you cannot enforce a bare promise.

Also, I read the whole "privacy agreement" - I'm kind of surprised JB is a lawyer after reading it. There's a concept in contract law called the parol evidence rule - basically holds that if you have a written, signed, acknowledged contract by all parties, oral evidence isn't allowed to "supplement" the contract. Basically, the court will take the contract on its face - they figure if two mature parties agree to a contract, everything important will be contained in THAT contract. And courts are way more likely to follow the parol evidence rule if its a negotiated contract - or one like this between two educated entities (a lawyer and a bondsman). If it was, say, Padilla and Citibank, they may say that's unfair. But here you have to assume Padilla and JB were on "equal" footing - Padillas been in the business a long time, and JB is a "lawyer."

IN that contract, JB wrote..in..the..contract? "subject to an oral agreement" about employment and payment (IIRC about the payment). No, that's not going to hold up. if LP was a legitimate employee covered by attorney client privilege you bet your bottom dollar that would have been written EXPLICITLY in the contract. It would have said in bold, "anything said to you by Ms. Anthony will be covered by attorney client privilege, will be inadmissible in court," etc etc.

Part of my very busy summer was spent doing depositions of employees of a company the law firm I work for represents, and EVERY SINGLE ONE started out "even though we are not technically YOUR attorney, Mr. X, we are the attorney of your boss, and everything we discuss here, and we tell you, is covered by attorney client privilege and you cannot use this in any suit etc etc etc" followed by the signing of what I thought were superfluous forms to that extent. With "outside" witnesses, it was even more intense.

Lawyers should know what is needed for ACP - you need to be a PAID EMPLOYEE. If you are hiring someone, and you are a law firm, you should KNOW what is required. And I am pretty sure if you are going to make someone covered by your privilege they have to OUTWARDLY CONSENT. If JB is really going to say LP is covered by privilege, that means JB could commit fraud, assault, or other civil wrongs against LP and LP couldn't testify to what JB said while KC was in the room? Because its privileged? Please. A court is clearly going to require a CLEAR consent to being covered by some random lawyers "privilege."

PS I bet Andrea read these kindergarten filings and smacked JB. I do feel bad for her though, I don't know if these people realize how much you sacrifice making a name for yourself and your liberal cause by defending an allegedly horrid crime.

PPS. I'm also surprised that an anti-death penalty advocate would take up the case (no personal bias intended) of a pretty, white, young, well-off woman. Usually anti-DP advocates stand up as much for EQUALITY in the application of the DP as for its abolition. I think the prosecutor here made a rational decision that if Casey Anthony had a different background and mugshot she'd for sure be up for the death penalty. Look at the statistics, its ALARMING.

Are you sure the document said there was a separate oral agreement about employment? I can't locate it right this second, but I'm pretty sure it said explicitly that LP was NOT an agent of the Baez firm. I think the "oral agreement" thing was what Baez said after the fact. Which only strengthens your point about the parol evidence rule. JB should know you can't write a contract saying YOU DO NOT WORK FOR ME and then go and tell the court, "Well, I know the contract says he didn't work for me, but we made an oral agreement on the side that he would work for me and we would just put a lie in the contract."

 

[Brini]

bolded by me -

Why do you refer to KC as well-off? She does not have a pot to pee in as far as I can tell. Her parents are knee deep in debt thanks to mostly GA and KC. Is it because they have furniture and cars that aren't paid for more than likely? To me well-off means you actually own your stuff - your house, cars with lots of money in the bank and possibly your own business. That's well-off in America. The A's parade as well-off and they're not alone as most seemingly "well-off" people are not that at all. KC is white, true.

White, young, cute, and female.

If she was an ugly babe with shooting-gallery scars and meth mouth, would she have any apologists? I don't know.

 

[lin]

bolded by me -

Why do you refer to KC as well-off? She does not have a pot to pee in as far as I can tell. Her parents are knee deep in debt thanks to mostly GA and KC. Is it because they have furniture and cars that aren't paid for more than likely? To me well-off means you actually own your stuff - your house, cars with lots of money in the bank and possibly your own business. That's well-off in America. The A's parade as well-off and they're not alone as most seemingly "well-off" people are not that at all. KC is white, true.

Does the "Dream Team" ring any bells?

Seriously --- she has a much better defense team and more resources than her parents' circumstances would imply. I understand the difference between being 'well-off' and appearing 'well-off' but even with that consideration, I think the point was that there are those with much lesser financial circumstances than the A family. A lot more with a lot less.

 

[Just Jayla]

I heard a news report on this today, being that I am from Va., and wondered how it will effect, if at all, this case. Will LKB be able to attempt to impeach forensic examiners, or have their findings thrown out?

http://www.newsleader.com/article/2...upreme+Court+decision+could+clog+local+courts

I think my worry about this is the scientists at Quantico-JB & LKB made a big deal about wanting to be a part of their examinations, will the defense use this ruling (may not be a law in Florida yet) to break down the work that Quantico did?

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I posted this in George's thread but figured it should belong here as well.
I have been wondering since yesterday if Baez did put George up to barging in at that news conference by manipulating him regarding the photos and or other. If so could Baez be charged with tampering with a witness or other?