Procedure and legal questions

[SoCalSleuth]

P.S. Re all of it: the defense will argue hearsay, irrelevant, and probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

 

[MD MOMMY]

If, among the receipts Lee gave to Jose, is found a receipt from CVS or Walgreen's 6/16 for OTC's that would be suitable for sedating Caylee, would Jose be compelled to divulge these receipts to SA?

Since said receipt would certainly be incriminating evidence...for those in practice...how likely is it in your opinion that said receipt would be produced?

...or would it more likely be *cough* lost?

There is cold medication on one of the Target receipts IIRC..it's not children's meds, but it's there. I doubt KC would care if it were adults or children medication IMO.

ETA..it's Mucinex AND Sudafed but of course they were purchased on the 10th of July..

ALSO what the heck did she do with all these cherries purchased..has anyone noticed the quantity? Also she got them on more than one occasion just days apart.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Carrying this excellent question over from the general questions thread for some experts to weigh in...TIA!

Is the DP off the table for good & all? I know it was announced once that it had been removed, but there was talk of it being re instated. Was that just rumour? Has that time legally passed? TIA

 

[Rumpole]

Carrying this excellent question over from the general questions thread for some experts to weigh in...TIA!

This case has made me consider the DP I live in a land where it is not an option.

I'd be interested in WSer's views on DP per se. Or is that OT already?

I imagine that the subject may have already been done to death (Pun intended) in previous cases?

My initial thought is death is too easy in most cases and specifically in KC's case. She will suffer long and hard from just being cut off from her "Lifestyle"

 

[BondJamesBond]

I'd be interested in WSer's views on DP per se. Or is that OT already?

*snipped*
May wanna pass that one by a moderator first...check TOS. IF you got a greenlight from a mod, it would seem a good thread, poll, etc. for the Jury Room, IMHO. Otherwise...maybe in the rant thread, but, you won't get the focused discussion there obviously.

..ok, then....carry on!

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I asked this in a couple of threads and found this one, If I need to I will go back and delete my previous query. I hope I can get some kind of answer here. Thanks for creating this thread!

What is next? Will ZFG get any justice? Is there anyway that Morgan can make Casey or the Anthony's talk?

Casey Anthony plans to take the Fifth Amendment in civil case
February 2, 2009
Casey Anthony doesn't plan on answering the series of written questions posed on behalf of a woman suing her, including whether Anthony knows who killed her daughter Caylee Marie and whether was she involved. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4495684.story

:waitasec: So what happens if the whole family ends up pleading the fifth now and for the trial? Then what? How can people just Take the Fifth when it's convenient for them? Is their no "Law" out there that can make all these liars speak? Any takers?

 

[Searchfortruth]

I asked this in a couple of threads and found this one, If I need to I will go back and delete my previous query. I hope I can get some kind of answer here. Thanks for creating this thread!

What is next? Will ZFG get any justice? Is there anyway that Morgan can make Casey or the Anthony's talk?

Casey Anthony plans to take the Fifth Amendment in civil case
February 2, 2009
Casey Anthony doesn't plan on answering the series of written questions posed on behalf of a woman suing her, including whether Anthony knows who killed her daughter Caylee Marie and whether was she involved. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,4495684.story

:waitasec: So what happens if the whole family ends up pleading the fifth now and for the trial? Then what? How can people just Take the Fifth when it's convenient for them? Is their no "Law" out there that can make all these liars speak? Any takers?

I am no legal expert, but I understand that the only time you can take the fifth is if you will be "self incriminating" via your answer. I am interested in how this will play out with the Anthony's and the civil suit deposition's as well.

 

[zoey]

There is cold medication on one of the Target receipts IIRC..it's not children's meds, but it's there. I doubt KC would care if it were adults or children medication IMO.

ETA..it's Mucinex AND Sudafed but of course they were purchased on the 10th of July..

ALSO what the heck did she do with all these cherries purchased..has anyone noticed the quantity? Also she got them on more than one occasion just days apart.

don't know about mucinex but sudafed is a stimulant...she may have been taking it to keep herself awake or a buzz....that is common now....

 

[SoCalSleuth]

It's my understanding that a judge denied ZFG's request for an oral deposition but did order the submission of written questions. If that is the case and KC refuses to answer the questions for any reason, the court can either stay the civil action until after the criminal trial and compel her to answer after the criminal trial or issue an order compelling her to answer the questions now. In either case, if she still refuses to do so, and depending on which motions are filed by ZFG, the court can dismiss her cross-complaint; enter her default in the main case; let the trial proceed without her testimony and give a special jury instruction to the jury re her refusal to testify. As far as the Anthony's testimony, they can't simply refuse to appear or refuse to testify. If they refuse to appear ZFG's attorney can get an order compelling them to do so. If they refuse to answer questions thereafter or if they appear and refuse to answer ZFG's attorney can go into court and obtain an order compelling their testimony. Whether or not the court compels their testimony depends on a lot of different factors: i.e. what questions were asked that they refused to answer; the grounds for the refusal; whether the questions asked may lead to discovery of admissible evidence related to establishing an essential element of the causes of action alleged or rebutting a defense made.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

It's my understanding that a judge denied ZFG's request for an oral deposition but did order the submission of written questions. If that is the case and KC refuses to answer the questions for any reason, the court can either stay the civil action until after the criminal trial and compel her to answer after the criminal trial or issue an order compelling her to answer the questions now. In either case, if she still refuses to do so, and depending on which motions are filed by ZFG, the court can dismiss her cross-complaint; enter her default in the main case; let the trial proceed without her testimony and give a special jury instruction to the jury re her refusal to testify. As far as the Anthony's testimony, they can't simply refuse to appear or refuse to testify. If they refuse to appear ZFG's attorney can get an order compelling them to do so. If they refuse to answer questions thereafter or if they appear and refuse to answer ZFG's attorney can go into court and obtain an order compelling their testimony. Whether or not the court compels their testimony depends on a lot of different factors: i.e. what questions were asked that they refused to answer; the grounds for the refusal; whether the questions asked may lead to discovery of admissible evidence related to establishing an essential element of the causes of action alleged or rebutting a defense made.

Thank You so much forthis insight. :blowkiss:

:waitasec: I was also looking to see if Baez had withdrawn the counter suit. I was under the impression that since there was a counter suit that Casey could not take the fifth. The date the judge entered his order for the written depo was back in Jan and Baez had not yet withdrawn the counter suit. If that is the case I wonder if the judge could make Casey answer these questions?
As for the Anthony's they have not been charged with anything yet, so I don't see how or why the judge would allow them to take the fifth either. So, confusing. I just hope that they all have to at least submit something in writing.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Bumping this thread after seeing some really good legal questions on the general "LIST Case Questions..." thread.

ETA...bringing those questions here....

If casey is tried for murder 1 and the jury believes Casey is guilty but of a lesser charge, is she found not guilty?

If so, can she be tried again, but on a lesser charge?

Question! If the defense had accepted the gag order, would none of these videos and doc been released. I bet they are kicking themselves in the butt for fighting that.

 

[TrY]

My question is:

Who owns the copyright to all of the photos and videos on Casey's photobucket and social networking websites? If Casey owns the rights to those, even if those photos and videos were posted on a website that was public, does she still have the copyright to those photos and videos?

Since some of the videos look like it's her mom Cindy videotaping, then doesn't Cindy or George also own the copyright to those photos and videos?

I'm wondering from a legal viewpoint (and not whether the selling of those photos and videos would be distasteful) if Casey, Cindy, George, or all of the above own those images and videos then don't they legally have the right to sell them however they want to? Casey hasn't been convicted yet of killy Caylee and if her parents want to finance her defense by selling rights to their photos and videos, then isn't that their right to do so?

 

[Dev]

Bumping this thread after seeing some really good legal questions on the general "LIST Case Questions..." thread.

Originally Posted by Duckley
If casey is tried for murder 1 and the jury believes Casey is guilty but of a lesser charge, is she found not guilty?

If so, can she be tried again, but on a lesser charge?

ETA...bringing those questions here....

If Casey is tried for Murder 1 and the jury believes Casey is guilty but of a lesser charge... then the jury can at that time find her guilty of the lesser charge. That is, IF the lesser charge is a sort of subset of the greater charge (Murder 1). Such a "lesser charge" would have to be a crime which has SOME of the same elements as Murder 1, but not all of those elements.

But if Casey is tried for Murder 1, and the jury finds "not guilty", that's IT. That would be a complete acquittal, and due to the prohibition on double jeopardy, she would never be able to be tried again for the same offense (murder of Caylee, or anything to do with causing the death of Caylee.)

 

[Patty G]

My question is:

Who owns the copyright to all of the photos and videos on Casey's photobucket and social networking websites? If Casey owns the rights to those, even if those photos and videos were posted on a website that was public, does she still have the copyright to those photos and videos?

Since some of the videos look like it's her mom Cindy videotaping, then doesn't Cindy or George also own the copyright to those photos and videos?

I'm wondering from a legal viewpoint (and not whether the selling of those photos and videos would be distasteful) if Casey, Cindy, George, or all of the above own those images and videos then don't they legally have the right to sell them however they want to? Casey hasn't been convicted yet of killy Caylee and if her parents want to finance her defense by selling rights to their photos and videos, then isn't that their right to do so?

Good question. IMO, once it becomes public on the Internet for everyone to view, copy, paste, upload Casey and her parents gave up their rights to ownership.

If the Anthony's wanted to hold onto their ownership of any videos of Caylee, then they should have keep them private on YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc., etc.

IMO, it is distasteful to sell videos and pictures of Caylee to fund Casey's defense, but they have that right to do so.

 

[jon_burrows]

If this trial ends in a hung jury, will Casey stay in jail until her next trial?

 

[Dev]

I am curious what evidence the legal eagles think will come in at trial, and what will not. What possible objections or other obstacles could there be for each piece the proescution wants, such as relevance, more prejudicial than probative, prior bad acts, etc.? I think many people on Websleuths assume that the jury will hear pretty much everything we have heard or know about. They won't, but I wonder what people think they will or won't be able to hear about. Here's some evidence that I am curious about, regarding its potential admissibility:
1. The 7-3-08 myspace message from Cindy
2. casey's police interview
3. The 911 calls from Cindy
4. The recorded jailhouse visitations and calls
5. Cindy's statement to one of casey's friends that casey is a sociopath
6. casey's theft of her mother, grandparents' and friend's monies
7. The crazy icons on casey's facebook pages. I really wonder if the judge will let all of those in. All the hearts, all the narcissistic and prophetic sayings, etc.

Opinions? Who wants to play devil's advocate for the defense? I want opinions on how they will try to keep things out.

1. This is something Cindy would be asked about if/when she testifies. If she were to deny that she posted that msg, whoever wished to show that she posted it would have to authenticate the msg and prove that it was she who posted it.
2. I think all of this will come in. As for "Miranda" rights, they only apply a) if the suspect is in custody and b) if the state wishes to admit the suspect's statement(s). IIRC, Casey was not in custody for most or all of her statements to police, at least the early ones--she was "voluntarily" "helping the police to find her daughter".
3. I think these would come in, but in conjunction with Cindy's testimony if she testified. Or, they could come in even if Cindy didn't testify--but not "to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein". If JB didn't want these to come in, he'd claim they were inadmissible as hearsay, and the state could counter that they were "excited utterances" or some other exception to the hearsay rule.
4. The recorded jailhouse visitations and calls. Q. To whom did Casey make the statements in these? A. To someone who is not the state and who is not an agent of the state (as far as we know). Yes, Casey was in custody during these, but she was speaking voluntarily and was NOT speaking to the state (the police, prosecutors) or to anyone working on behalf of the state. So I think her statements in this case were akin to statements made voluntarily to a "jailhouse snitch". And we know that statements to jailhouse snitches can often be used at trial.
5. I don't think this would come in unless it were used to impeach Cindy's testimony (if Cindy testifies). Even in that case, this is an opinion and the opinion of a non-expert (such as Cindy) is usually not admitted.
6. These are separate offenses from the murder. They are not similar offenses to the offense of murder. The only way I could see these possibly coming in would be if Casey testifies. OR if they were shown by the state to have been part of a grand scheme to, say, get money together to pay for something to kill Caylee with. OR (and we're getting kind of iffy here) if the state were to first show that Casey's DIRECT reason for killing Caylee was because of one or all of these thefts. I'm thinking of the alleged fight on June 15--some think that she killed Caylee in retaliation for whatever was done to her during this alleged fight.
7. First, the state would have to prove that it was really Casey who personally posted these things. If they did that, then it seems to me that those images, etc., which were posted pretty close in time to the murder might be admissible in order to build circumstantial evidence to show Casey's intent to murder. MIGHT be admissible. The problem with these things is that each symbol, or whatever, is susceptible to more than one interpretation--just like the jailhouse video of her going hysterical when the bones were found near the house... that reaction could possibly mean she felt fear of being found out, or it could mean that she was in deep distress over the likelihood that her daughter was dead. (Yeah, right...)

Each of these things' admissibility is arguable--so the attorneys will argue about it to the judge. Each thing's admissibility depends on what it would be used to prove, and what its context is.

 

[Dev]

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"!

It's the same here (USA)!

Cindy's statement to the 911 operator: "It smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!" That statement will (IMO) probably be admitted regardless of whether Cindy testifies or not. It would be an exception to the rule prohibiting hearsay, either due to its being "excited utterance", or "present sense impression". Or possibly some other exception. The state would have to authenticate the 911 call--prove that it was made from the Anthonys', and that the tape was made at the time of the call.

What Casey told each friend would probably be admissible, whether or not Casey chooses to testify. Sure, the friends may not have a tape of what she said, but as you said, each witness' credibility will be decided on by the jury.

 

[Dev]

If this trial ends in a hung jury, will Casey stay in jail until her next trial?

First, IIRC, a person accused of Murder One can be denied bail. So, yes, I think she would have to stay in jail till the next trial.

 

[Marina2]

If Casey is tried for Murder 1 and the jury believes Casey is guilty but of a lesser charge... then the jury can at that time find her guilty of the lesser charge. That is, IF the lesser charge is a sort of subset of the greater charge (Murder 1). Such a "lesser charge" would have to be a crime which has SOME of the same elements as Murder 1, but not all of those elements.

But if Casey is tried for Murder 1, and the jury finds "not guilty", that's IT. That would be a complete acquittal, and due to the prohibition on double jeopardy, she would never be able to be tried again for the same offense (murder of Caylee, or anything to do with causing the death of Caylee.)

The jury can find her guilty of the lesser included charge of "aggravated manslaughter of a child". They can also find her guilty of the "aggravated child abuse" charge. Each of these could get her a 30 year sentence. If the judge decides to run them consecutively she will have a 60 year sentence. Add this to all the other crimes she is charged with and I predict KC will spend a long time in prison.

 

[Dev]

Was it unwise for baez to ask for a delay in the trial that was scheduled jan 5. On dec 11 around 9am, he asked for a delay...granted. then about 1/2 hour later the bones were found.

Is it wise for Baez to use law students on such a high profile case.

Is Baez in over his head and does the judge think so. could baez be removed from the case.

why is the jusdge asking that casey be preesnt at all hearings? does he think casey is not being kept fully informed by her defense team?

Those are good questions. Is he in over his head? Well, here's what crosses my mind: in some states, an attorney is required to have at least 3 years experience before he/she can be defense counsel in a capital case. Now, in this case, IIRC, "the death penalty is off the table"--for now. Could the state be leaving the death penalty "off the table" because they want to help make sure JB stays on the case, because they have sized him up and think he would be fairly easy to beat?

Yes, I think it's wise for JB to use law students--as long as he checks their work! Law students, under supervision, have done some fine work on some capital case appeals.

Casey has a right to be present. As many have already said, I think the judge is just being extra careful, due to the possibility that later she could claim that she was not brought to a hearing but wanted to be there. After all, Casey does "claim" things from time to time... without regard to truth.