Procedure and legal questions

[HRCODEPINK]

I don't think that is right...at least it isn't right where i live (not USA). Where I live, you can cross examine on any inconsistent statements that a witness made and a jury is entitled to take those inconsistencies into account in determining the reliability, truthfulness, accuracy etc of a witness' testimony.

Re what Casey told her friends...it does not have to be recorded for it to be admissible in Court. They can testify as to what she told them, subject to the rules of evidence regarding relevance, hearsay etc. It is a matter for the jury to determine who is telling the truth.

I agree with your statement that "not all witnesses tell the truth on the stand"!

Just a warn, I am still sick and my brain is not working right so if this doesn't make sense, I am sorry but...Where I live, the way we were explained hearsay was this: It is a statement that was made that you did not hear yourself. For example, if Casey told Cindy the sky was brown, and Cindy told Amy that Casey said the sky was brown, Cindy would have to testify to Casey's statement herself, because she was the one who heard it from the source. Amy telling the court that Casey told Cindy the sky was brown would be hearsay. However, if Cindy said to Amy the sky was brown and they asked Amy what Cindy said to them, and not what Cindy said Casey said, that would be okay.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Really? I'm shocked. What about if you're in a coma?....LOL.
Seriously though, what about someone who was suffering severe psychosis? Or alzheimers? If a doctor testified that they were not fit to testify, would the judge waste the courts time by getting them on the stand anyway?

Ohhhhh, duh me! I just figured out your post was in reference to GA's suicide attempt.

Really! Especially in this day and age, they could testify via video conferencing if need be! I was just reading a book (True Crime: True Stories of the World's Infamous Murderers, Thieves and Con Artists, by Nick Yapp, Page 256-57) the other day where they were talking about the Crab-Apple Tree Murders and they were talking about someone named Jane Gibson, known in the community as the "Pig Woman" who was called to testify and she had a kidney problem which confined her to the bed and they wheeled her butt right into court on a stretcher. There was even a big picture of her in the hospital bed in the court.

 

[Leila]

Interesting thoughts! Where I come from we are not allowed to question jurors....we have to pick them just based on looks, which is crazy! It is also illegal to ask jurors questions about the case after it finishes, so we have very little insight into our juries. I'd love to do some research on jury selection.

I find it interesting that you think the defence may want childless jurors. And I think you are probably right. But I can also see a flipside to it. As someone who is childless myself, perhaps I can't strongly identify with the role of a parent, but I think that also means I may be less forgiving to the parent(s) because all I see is a beautiful innocent child and can't understand at all how a parent could harm it, whereas people who have had to raise toddlers may be more sympathetic to how hard it can be on someone?

Here, potential jurors fill out juror questionaires that are quite detailed: name, age, occupation, spouse's occupation, number of children, etc. Both the prosecution and defense are allowed to question each juror, and either keep or dismiss them. I've been called to jury duty twice, once on a civil case and once on a criminal case. I was kept on the jury for the civil case, but dismissed by the defense in the criminal case. My husband was a fireman (now retired), and the criminal case was a hit and run case. The defense attorney asked me if my husband ever came home from work and told me about accidents he responded to and the conditions of the victims in the accident. When I responded, "yes", I was immediately dismissed.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Just a warn, I am still sick and my brain is not working right so if this doesn't make sense, I am sorry but...Where I live, the way we were explained hearsay was this: It is a statement that was made that you did not hear yourself. For example, if Casey told Cindy the sky was brown, and Cindy told Amy that Casey said the sky was brown, Cindy would have to testify to Casey's statement herself, because she was the one who heard it from the source. Amy telling the court that Casey told Cindy the sky was brown would be hearsay. However, if Cindy said to Amy the sky was brown and they asked Amy what Cindy said to them, and not what Cindy said Casey said, that would be okay.

Hearsay involves statements made out of Court and the rules can really vary from place to place...where I come from they are set out in what we call the Evidence Act, and there are lots of exceptions for things like business records etc. Hearsay is a very difficult area of law and students spend a bit of time trying to understand it. It is also divided into first hand and second hand hearsay and gets quite complicated.

Basically, the bottom line to it is that just because someone said something, doesn't mean that thing is true. For example, just because Cindy said the sky was white, that could not be used as evidence to prove the sky was white. But if the fact she said that was relevant for some other reason, other than going to proof that the sky was white, then it may fall within one of the exceptions.

Another example, if Cindy tells George that Eric is Caylee's father, that could not be used as evidence to prove that Eric is Caylee's father. But if Cindy told 5 different people 5 different stories re who the father is, then it may be relevant for another purpose, as it may go to her credibility, rather than to proof as to who the father was.

In short, the general rule is that hearsay cannot be used to prove the truth of what is contained in the statement, but it's got lots of exceptions.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Does anyone know, say if the jury hands down a verdict of guilty and gives life in prison, can the judge overule that decision, and giver her something different; or could he even find her insane and have her committed despite doctor's opinions of her being competent?

Yes a judge can overturn a jury verdict. Sentencing is by statute and a judge has to abide by sentencing guidelines. Exception: death penalty goes to the jury in a jury case. A judge can override a jury's death penalty finding in most jurisdictions. A decision on competency is always a question to be decided by the judge. Competency and insanity are two different things. For instance, you can be competent to aid in your defense but insane--ie you don't know the difference between right and wrong. Yes, in many jurisdictions a judge can overturn a jury verdict and find a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity--if such a defense exists in the jurisdiction.

 

[butwhatif?]

Hearsay involves statements made out of Court and the rules can really vary from place to place...where I come from they are set out in what we call the Evidence Act, and there are lots of exceptions for things like business records etc. Hearsay is a very difficult area of law and students spend a bit of time trying to understand it. It is also divided into first hand and second hand hearsay and gets quite complicated.

Basically, the bottom line to it is that just because someone said something, doesn't mean that thing is true. For example, just because Cindy said the sky was white, that could not be used as evidence to prove the sky was white. But if the fact she said that was relevant for some other reason, other than going to proof that the sky was white, then it may fall within one of the exceptions.

Another example, if Cindy tells George that Eric is Caylee's father, that could not be used as evidence to prove that Eric is Caylee's father. But if Cindy told 5 different people 5 different stories re who the father is, then it may be relevant for another purpose, as it may go to her credibility, rather than to proof as to who the father was.

In short, the general rule is that hearsay cannot be used to prove the truth of what is contained in the statement, but it's got lots of exceptions.

Very simple explanation for what is a complex issue. Thanks for helping us to understand. I think I finally get it. Yay! :blowkiss:

 

[cfromcanada]

My question is about "expert witnesses". I continue to hear the defense experts will contest forensic results. They have signed on to do this without even knowing what the results are so apparently, they will just have to find something to contest!!! If the results are the results, can they lie? What standard are they held to? If they agree with the results to they opt out? What about perjury or just accountability? Anyone?

 

[cfromcanada]

My question is about "expert witnesses". I continue to hear the defense experts will contest forensic results. They have signed on to do this without even knowing what the results are so apparently, they will just have to find something to contest!!! If the results are the results, can they lie? What standard are they held to? If they agree with the results to they opt out? What about perjury or just accountability? Anyone?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

This is from wikipedia re hearsay and has a blurb on hearsay in the USA...

Hearsay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the form of evidence, hearsay. For Hear'Say, the British pop group, see Hear'Say .
Not to be confused with heresy.

Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me she was cold". Since the witness did not experience Susan's coldness firsthand, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Susan was cold, and not admissable. However, it would be admissable as evidence that Susan claimed to be cold, and that she was capable of speaking at that time.

There are a number of significant exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Contents [hide]
1 Worldwide
1.1 United States
1.2 England and Wales
1.3 Hong Kong
1.4 New Zealand
2 References
[edit] United States
Main article: Hearsay in United States law
Unless one of the many exceptions applies, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States. Hearsay is an out of court statement used in court to prove the matter asserted.

 

[impatientredhead]

My question is about "expert witnesses". I continue to hear the defense experts will contest forensic results. They have signed on to do this without even knowing what the results are so apparently, they will just have to find something to contest!!! If the results are the results, can they lie? What standard are they held to? If they agree with the results to they opt out? What about perjury or just accountability? Anyone?

They officially join the team in order in order for JB to be able to share information with them. Once they see the data they will give JB their opinion. He can then decide whether he is putting them on the stand. If he does they go on the witness list and the state can depose them.

The accuracy and how far out on a limb they will go to come up with an alternative theory about the forensics will depend on the person involved. Someone that doesn't want their credibility destroyed won't doing anything foolish. Someone that is a expert-testimony-*advertiser censored* will give more outlandish theories.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Hearsay involves statements made out of Court and the rules can really vary from place to place...where I come from they are set out in what we call the Evidence Act, and there are lots of exceptions for things like business records etc. Hearsay is a very difficult area of law and students spend a bit of time trying to understand it. It is also divided into first hand and second hand hearsay and gets quite complicated.

Basically, the bottom line to it is that just because someone said something, doesn't mean that thing is true. For example, just because Cindy said the sky was white, that could not be used as evidence to prove the sky was white. But if the fact she said that was relevant for some other reason, other than going to proof that the sky was white, then it may fall within one of the exceptions.

Another example, if Cindy tells George that Eric is Caylee's father, that could not be used as evidence to prove that Eric is Caylee's father. But if Cindy told 5 different people 5 different stories re who the father is, then it may be relevant for another purpose, as it may go to her credibility, rather than to proof as to who the father was.

In short, the general rule is that hearsay cannot be used to prove the truth of what is contained in the statement, but it's got lots of exceptions.

You are sooooooo correct. I think I mentioned in the thread that I am sick. I was laying on the couch about an hour later and said to myself that I needed to go edit that to not confuse everyone by letting them know that was in relation to the most frequent type of example and because of questions I had been seeing in re Cindy's credibility in court. However, I was doped to the gills and couldn't get myself up off the couch to come fix it.

No matter what state I have looked into there are a bazillion different rules that do vary from state to state and sometimes even city to city! It is a very complicated thing to understand with so many shoot offs and branches and situations where a statement is allowed in certain circumstances and the same statement not allowed in others. I tell people that the law is a game of words and if you can just figure out the right way to word it...in most cases you can get anything done with the right argument.

 

[MD MOMMY]

My question got lost in the shuffle..

Is an attorney permitted to ask for immunity for their client without the clients consent/knowledge/request???

 

[Marina2]

I have a question regarding Baez motion filed today for sanctions against the state. What "sanctions" would the court place on the state if the judge were to rule in Baez favor. It's not like he can give them a time out or anything. Maybe just a verbal reprimand/warning?

 

[impatientredhead]

My question got lost in the shuffle..

Is an attorney permitted to ask for immunity for their client without the clients consent/knowledge/request???

He can attempt to arrange it, but he can't accept it for them. There is no way the Anthony's don't know about it though.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I have a question regarding Baez motion filed today for sanctions against the state. What "sanctions" would the court place on the state if the judge were to rule in Baez favor. It's not like he can give them a time out or anything. Maybe just a verbal reprimand/warning?

First of all the motion is bogus. Did you notice that there is no law cited in its support? That's because there is none. Secondly, when asking for sanctions you have to be very particular about what sanctions you are asking for in order to comply with due process requirements--that is, notice and an opportunity to be heard. A general blanket request for sanctions is not legally supportable. This motion will not be granted.

As an aside, the motion re computer forensics is bogus as well. No where in SA's forensic report does it state that they took screen shots of any portion of the computer and printed them out. ( I could be wrong but I don't think so.) Even if they had, that would be considered SA's work product and they don't have to turn it over. All they have to do is provide the defense with the hard drive in which the items were contained. JB admits in his motion they are doing so. Note again, the complete lack of any citation to legal authority or facts to support the request. Simply stating they mentioned the contents isn't legally sufficient.

I have a very real concern that JB is simply not qualified to handle a case of this magnitude. It is an attorney's job to preserve the record on appeal every step of the way pre-trial, during trial and post trial. In order to do that, when you file motions or respond to motions or make objections they are required to be specific--you have to state the LEGAL GROUNDS for each, you have to cite Supporting LEGAL Authority. It is not a judge's job to do your work for you. If you don't do this then the appellate court has no way to judge whether or not the judge made reversible error. To date, the majority of the work coming out of JB's office is caca.

 

[Marina2]

Thank you SoCalSleuth!

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

I have a question I hope someone can answer. JB spends a lot of time at the jail, reference has been made many times about him carrying letters to and from Casey, presumably to her family. Is this legal in FL.

In IL, all inmate mail is read, only LEGAL mail (to/from attorney) is allowed. I talked to some folks at the local jail and gave them this JB scenario as a hypothetical here, and they said this would not be allowed here. If they found out, attorney would get in trouble, maybe just losing visiting priv. or private visits and might be Bar Assoc complaint. And if they found out attorney was allowing client to use computer, send email it would also be grounds to not allow laptop in, and perhaps other sanctions above.

So what gives with this with JB and Casey?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Ditto in California--big no no.

 

[TxLady2]

I have a question I hope someone can answer. JB spends a lot of time at the jail, reference has been made many times about him carrying letters to and from Casey, presumably to her family. Is this legal in FL.

In IL, all inmate mail is read, only LEGAL mail (to/from attorney) is allowed. I talked to some folks at the local jail and gave them this JB scenario as a hypothetical here, and they said this would not be allowed here. If they found out, attorney would get in trouble, maybe just losing visiting priv. or private visits and might be Bar Assoc complaint. And if they found out attorney was allowing client to use computer, send email it would also be grounds to not allow laptop in, and perhaps other sanctions above.

So what gives with this with JB and Casey?

No one knows for sure that they are passing notes back and forth to or from her family. That is speculation so far, and we don't know it is a fact.
It is possible, I guess, but not proven fact, so not much anyone can do about it. I suppose the guards could ask to see these notes, make sure they are not to or from the Anthonys, but then that would be a breach of attorney/client privilege, so they can't or won't do that.
As for Baez spending so much time at the jail, do we really know that? Or does he just stop by for an hour or so every day? That would not be unusual, considering that he is prepping her for trial and preparing his case. IMO, it is the media who is reporting this, and they are not always truthful.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Ditto in California--big no no.

The same where I come from....you can get yourself in big doo doo for it.