Procedure and legal questions

[Where's Andre]

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.

Legally, posting something on the Internet doesn't necessarially mean that Copyright ownership is ceded to the public domain. Copyright notices are not required anymore either, since the US adoption of the Berne Convention in 1989.

However, as you note, many sites like Photobucket and Facebook etc. have user agreements (which can change at any time) similar to the following (sample from Photobucket)

By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services.

Which basically means unless you posted to a private area, you've put your works in the public domain.

Practically though... even if they kept them in a private area, unless they registered their works with the Copyright Office before infringement began, or they can prove substantional "actual damages" of infringement-- it is difficult to do much more than hand people "cease and desist letters". After that, you can register the works after the fact with the Copyright Office, and sue them for statutory damages if they don't stop infringing after you register and give them notice.

 

[Where's Andre]

By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services.

Which basically means unless you posted to a private area, you've put your works in the public domain.

Re-reading this, it looks like at least on Photobucket... you would still be putting them effectively in the public domain. "Private" just means you are restricting access to distribution to certain Photobucket users. But as soon as someone made a copy of the work out of Photobucket-- they'd be free to distribute it royalty-free to anyone else.

 

[JSR]

I tried a search and couldn't find anything. If there is a thread please link it for me. tia

I want to know more about the DA's office. What is there experience with murder charges and their win/loss ratio.

Also the jury selection; will JB have a jury selection specialist on his defense team.

What type of juror will both sides be looking to select.

You better believe JB will have a jury consultant his team. My guess is that JB is going to go for is as many middle aged MEN as he can get to sit on the jury. Women won't be able to understand or relate to Casey's behavior after the disappearance of Caylee.

 

[JSR]

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?

No, whatever charge the jury convicts her with the judge must sentance her within the guidelines for that charge.

 

[RevCrim]

Is it possible that with all the experts JB is bringing in to the case- that these stupid motions and sanction hearings are merely a stall tactic to give the experts freedom to work up a case. I can't see JB handling this trial in court. I see one of the others brought in doing the final questioning in court.
At todays hearing, when JB question the guy about the car, and the SA spoke, then JB said he had nothing more. It sounded like whe KC dragged the LE to Universal and then said, she didn't work there.
I was like- What? What a waste, a huge waste!
And why does he talk to KC so much? She's not going to speak.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Re-reading this, it looks like at least on Photobucket... you would still be putting them effectively in the public domain. "Private" just means you are restricting access to distribution to certain Photobucket users. But as soon as someone made a copy of the work out of Photobucket-- they'd be free to distribute it royalty-free to anyone else.

My Space has the same type of agreement and hers came off both photobucket and my space, neither of which were marked private.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

I dont know about anyone else but I have a lot of questions about law and procedure.Can our legal eagles help?

1. Why are there so many interviews where LE has spoken off tape first, and metioned things that they dont want on tape. Shouldnt it all be recorded? Is it normal procedure to have a casual chat detailing all events, and only recording certain parts of that info?

Yes, it happens all the time. ANYTHING they don't want on the record can be excluded.

2.Would the issues discussed in the chat, and not recorded be included in a statement that we havent yet seen? would there be any official record of the statements made, or is it good enough that the officer heard it?

There will be no official record, but if it is DIRECT statements, the officer can testify to what was said.

3. Are the FBI and OSCO seperate entities? I kept hearing about the hairbrush issue and people saying CA lied to a fedral officier, but from what i understand she gave the items to OSCO, not FBI. so does this mean that once FBI are involved anything said to OSCO becomes a fedral issue?

The FBI and OSCO are totally separate LE agencies. That is why Baez looked so foolish in court asking for things from the state which ONLY the FBI had. Martha Stewart is a prime example of what happens when you LIE to the FBI. She was never charged with ANYTHING but lying to the FBI and all her money could not get her out of that one. The state can charge Cindy, but most likely it will be the feds.

4. Does OSCO share all of their information regarding the case with FBI, and vice versa? For example if a witness contacted FBI and spoke with them, would they share that with OSCO?

Normally yes, unless that was still under investigation by their agents.


5. I know that LE can legally lie to a suspect to try to get to the truth, but can they legally do the same with a witness? what are the boundaries of this?

They can lie to anyone they choose to solve a case.

6.If a statement or other document is not signed, or has errors is it admissable in court?

Yes, normally as there are always typo errors in most proceedings.


(ETA) 7. why would the case have been referred to the sex crimes unit?

I believe the feds are investigating something connected to this case.

OK, i have heaps of other questions, but thats probably enough for now.
TIA to anyone answering my questions.:blowkiss:

I put my answers in RED, line by line rather than answering them all in one paragraph.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

No, whatever charge the jury convicts her with the judge must sentance her within the guidelines for that charge.

I don't know about Florida, but in my state the judge has a lot of discretion and can add more time for a particularly heinous crime.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

First I'll bump this thread...OK

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Now...my real questions...

Part 1 : If and when Baez requests a change in venue....and it's accepted.....does Judge S.S stay with the case to the other trial location??

Part 2 : If NOT....maybe it'd be good to look at the other "viable" spots which we think MIGHT be chosen (Miami, Jax, Daytona, etc) and ID the judges in that county and check who they "favor" more....defense or prosecution. In my mind, I think Judge S.S is slightly more towards the prosecution side...even though they are "actually" treated equally.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Bumping for legal questions...

 

[okiedokietoo]

If the bio father and/or GrandParents of Caylee were identified, could they file a wrongful death suit against KC ?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Now...my real questions...

Part 1 : If and when Baez requests a change in venue....and it's accepted.....does Judge S.S stay with the case to the other trial location??

Part 2 : If NOT....maybe it'd be good to look at the other "viable" spots which we think MIGHT be chosen (Miami, Jax, Daytona, etc) and ID the judges in that county and check who they "favor" more....defense or prosecution. In my mind, I think Judge S.S is slightly more towards the prosecution side...even though they are "actually" treated equally.

No, Judge Strickland would be replaced by a trial judge where the trial was moved.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

If the bio father and/or GrandParents of Caylee were identified, could they file a wrongful death suit against KC ?

If the bio dad of Caylee was confirmed, yes he could file a wrongful death suit against KC. Not sure if the grandparents could I would have to read Florida's wrongful death statute which I don't have.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Now...my real questions...

Part 1 : If and when Baez requests a change in venue....and it's accepted.....does Judge S.S stay with the case to the other trial location??

Part 2 : If NOT....maybe it'd be good to look at the other "viable" spots which we think MIGHT be chosen (Miami, Jax, Daytona, etc) and ID the judges in that county and check who they "favor" more....defense or prosecution. In my mind, I think Judge S.S is slightly more towards the prosecution side...even though they are "actually" treated equally.

Added bold. IIRC correctly, it's already been established that Judge Strickland is not going to be the trial Judge even if venue is not changed. In one of the earlier (Nov/Dec?) motion hearings, this came out due to his other duties.

Anyone else remember that?

 

[Roze]

Added bold. IIRC correctly, it's already been established that Judge Strickland is not going to be the trial Judge even if venue is not changed. In one of the earlier (Nov/Dec?) motion hearings, this came out due to his other duties.

Anyone else remember that?

I do. Something to do with a rotation schedule among judges, I believe.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

No, Judge Strickland would be replaced by a trial judge where the trial was moved.

"Judge Shopping" options might not be as extensive as defense would hope.:woohoo:



RULE 2.260. CHANGE OF VENUE
(a) Preliminary Procedures. Prior to entering an order to change venue to a particular circuit in a criminal
case or in any other case in which change of venue will likely create an unusual burden for the transferee circuit, the chief judge in the circuit in which the case originated shall contact the chief judge in the circuit to which the case is intended to be moved to determine the receiving county’s ability to accommodate the change of venue. It is the intent of this rule that the county identified to receive the case shall do so unless the physical facilities or other resources in that county are such that moving the case to that county would either create an unsafe situation or adversely affect
the operations of that court. Any conflict between the circuits regarding a potential change of venue shall be referred to the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court for resolution.
(b) Presiding Judge. The presiding judge from the originating court shall accompany the change of venue case, unless the originating and receiving courts agree otherwise.

Whoever has the case in Orlando could follow along with it if the trial is moved. It seems it is not a guarantee that moving the case for Venue Issues will trigger a switch of Judge.:behindbar:boohoo:

Under the Judicial Rules, as of this year, if a case is moved for a change of venue, the Judge goes along for the duration, unless the original Judge & the New Court make a different agreement.


(link to those rules)
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/F854D695BA7136B085257316005E7DE7/$FILE/Judicial.pdf?OpenElement

Added bold. IIRC correctly, it's already been established that Judge Strickland is not going to be the trial Judge even if venue is not changed...
Anyone else remember that?

Yup. :Banane37:

Humble-Opinion:wolf2:

 

[amethyst221]

Where I am, the usual practice is to take the judge and sometimes even key personnel to the new location. What the defendant wants is a different jury pool from which to choose. I really like Judge Strickland a lot. Too bad his workload couldn't be altered so he could stay with the case. It would be more efficient, given his involvement pre-trial.

 

[gardenhart]

Miracles, do you have a feel for how long this trial will take? The longest criminal trial I covered was about two or three weeks but I know in some states they can drag out high profile trials for months.

 

[amethyst221]

If Florida is anything like other states in the region with busy courts, it definitely won't be a California length trial.