Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[MissJames]

IMO ,testimony from a visitor claiming they saw Caylee open the sliding door ,trying to get to the pool,would be evidence.
Anyone who could honestly say they had to watch Caylee like a hawk,because she they have found her climbing the ladder to get into the pool,when no one was with her,would be evidence.
Relaying to jury that Caylee fell into the pool ,once,and they got her out safely,would be evidence.
A picture of family swim time is evidence of nothing and I can't believe HHJP allowed it to be considered.
No one saw anything,no one verified one dang thing pertaining to a possible drowning.
Ticks me off all over again. Epic Fail

How many items were not allowed in that actually told the story ,yet the pictures of Caylee were allowed ,and they explained nothing.

 

[Steely Dan]

:truce:I'm sorry if she was offended, but how was that harsh???:waitasec: I don't consider the photos that Jose presented to be evidence, I don't see how they can be, they prove nothing. Photos don't prove that Caylee was able to open the sliding door, actually did so, or even climbed up the ladder by herself- that is my point. It's all insinuation on Jose's part, which was fine for the jury from him, yet they would've required actual videotape of the murder from the prosecution in order to be able to connect the Chloroform dots...:twocents:

Sorry, I thought she was referring to another post. My bad. :truce:

The problem you have is you are going off the assumption that KC told JB to say all the things in court. You are also going off the assumption that KC told TM she was missing. Was there anyone else that heard that conversation that will testify on TM's behalf?

And how are you going to get this information from JB? The second you ask JB if KC asked him to say all this stuff (about the drowning), he's going to invoke client/attorney privilege. Let's take it a step further. What if the defense brings in some psychologist (like the criminal trial) that comes up with some off the wall theory that Casey in her mind when she talked to TM convinced herself that Caylee was 'missing'?

Greene does have a point about opening the door for every volunteer could sue for damages for engaging in a false search. At what point do you draw the line?

Just my :twocents: on cityslick's comments/questions. First, the 'assumption' that JB was speaking for FCA is not an assumption. He was hired by her as an attorney, he is licensed for practice by the state. He is her voice in the court. Fl State Statutes cover the fact that as an attorney he is bound to represent his client's directives in court, to confer with her regularly, and requires "that the lawyer may not counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" is criminal or fraudulent, and must consult with the client if the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct." In fact, one of the acceptable reasons for a lawyer to leave a case is if the client insists on fraud in their defense. What JB presented was as her representative (or voice) in court. According to law, not assumption.
As for proving TM's contact with FCA, since JB himself was there, met TM and knew they were originally searching for a live Caylee, I'm pretty sure trying to argue that FCA didn't mislead TM will be pretty useless. JB did ask TM not to consult privately with his client, but other than that he voiced no objections. FCA was in and out of his conversations with CA/GA without protesting their assertions. Other than TM's word, there were both his assistant and the Padilla people, GA/CA and her own attorney there witnessing it. I don't know the rules about hearsay in civil cases, but several EquaSearch volunteers heard TM's comments about the map incident, and GA's Ohio friend was there involved in the whole thing. TM's assistant and Padilla's may have overheard the map thing too.

Thanks I was gonna write something similar but a lot less intelligently. One thing I learned from the trial is what you've written above. I had always assumed that defense lawyers could make up anything they wanted and in this case I believe it's what JB did, and what a lot of lawyers do.

However, you're dead on with it being considered a fact that KC must have told JB. If JB admits to making it up then he'll lose his law license or at least be severely penalized, IMO.

BTW, I seem to recall a defense lawyer here saying that the first thing some defense lawyers will say to a client is "don't tell me if you're guilty."

I am saying they WERE considered "legal" evidence in a Court of Law, per Judge Perry. For trial purposes, they WERE considered EVIDENCE. That was my point.

I was not stating my OPINION, as you are, that the photos and CA testimony were "evidence" IN THIS TRIAL! :banghead:

If you do not submit evidence regarding something that you as an attorney state during opening statements (i.e., GA molestation theory, NO evidence was presented, therefore the Judge did NOT let JB argue molestation in Closing Arguments), you cannot argue about it or MENTION it even during Closing Arguments.

Judge Perry DID let JB argue about the drowning in closing arguments as JB did present evidence about it. No matter how good or bad the evidence was, JB did present evidence regarding a drowning.


JB's evidence passed the legal test per the Judge, and was EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL is what I was saying.

Whatever......you are not seeing what I am saying at all.


IMO, MOO, etc.

Ok, let's all calm down and not use banghead stuff and just talk points. :smile:

My simple question that I wish someone would answer is 'Is there precedent for this'? Has someone been sued successfully because not of what they said, but what their attorney said.

To this date, the legal system has not proven that Casey Anthony knew for a fact her daughter wasn't missing when TES got involved. That's the only reason why I think the case is on shaky ground IMO.

KC has to pay back the county, I believe based on JB's statement. IIRC, that precedent makes Tim's case much stronger.

my bold

here is one question for anyone who knows, if the judge orders her and she continues to refuse to answer as I believe she will, can she face charges for that or because it is a civil case, does it only mean ZG/tim miller/whomever wins?

I'm not a lawyer but I think this is how it works. If she has no right to plead the fifth she can be jailed for contempt until she decides to answer the question or it becomes apparent she won't answer. This happens a lot in the news media. If a journalist writes a story using an unnamed source they can refuse to answer if it comes up in court as to who told them. The best journalists will sit in jail until the judge lets them out. If they give up the name then their ability to find out stuff from people who don't want to be identified is severely compromised and also it's a cardinal sin to do that in journalism. They may never be employed again as an investigative reporter.

there you go, that could be her plan all along. I am obviously not a lawyer so we will have to see on that question. I know I have heard as a WITNESS, if you just refuse to answer questions you can actually go to jail for contempt, but i don't know about pleading the 5th if you actually have grounds where you COULD be incriminated, if FCA keeps pleading the 5th after she is told she cannot, good question.

Since it is only $$ ZFG and TM are asking for, I can actually see FCA NEVER NEVER saying what actually happened that day. There is $$ that can be hidden for her and never needs to see the light of day and she can hide forever in some foreign country, in a cave maybe, become a hermit lol, and not ever pay it.

But if she wants HER OWN BIG PAYDAY interview, all of the $$ she owes the IRS, State of FLA will have to come out of it. Not sure about civil damages cases, if she will have to pay $10.00 a month on them for the rest of her life, I can see her doing something like that, NEVER speaking what actually happened that day.

if she gets her big $$ interview NOW, she can easily say "I am involved in litigation and cannot talk about anything related to the death of my daughter"

but she does have herself in a kind of Catch-22 here re: her Big Pay Day Interview or Book that her criminal DT and FCA herself are counting on ........ IF these types of things are EVEN BEING OFFERED TO HER at this point.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Colored by me.

:laughcry: JB really did a good job. He got her off but is leaving her with a lot of money to pay to a lot of people. If she thought she was going to get a big payday she's been blindsided. Gotta love it. :thumb:

 

[MiraclesHappen]

O.K., I see what you are asking, and I am not a lawyer nor a chemist so I don't know about precedent.....did you ask in the Ask the Lawyer's thread? are they still around to answer?

IMO, MOO, etc.

I'm pretty sure they are. :wink:

There haven't been any questions in a while.
MH
:wolf:

PS
:welcome: Back!!!

 

[RR0004]

The A's never used chlorine in their pool. They used a non chemical cleaner. So the chloroform did not come from their pool water.

The difference between a theory and a fact (as you know it) are the words "could have died" and "died". JB never said "could have died" in any of the evidence he brought up in court. There was no proof presented that proved Caylee drowned. Nothing scientific, no statements of witnesses that saw what happened, only his client. JB presented it to the court with personal information that could only come from KC in his statement about what happened that Caylee died on June 16, 2008 from an accidential drowning. If his client never told him that he was lying. He never said this is what could have happened he said it did happen.

Unless KC comes forward, and she has had the opportunity to do so through her parents, and claims her attorney was lying, that this was not what she told him, we are led to believe what JB said in court was information he received from his client. jmo

BBM- Thanks, LC. I don't know how many times it needs to be said...but appreciate you making the clarification.

 

[logicalgirl]

Sorry, I thought she was referring to another post. My bad. :truce:





Thanks I was gonna write something similar but a lot less intelligently. One thing I learned from the trial is what you've written above. I had always assumed that defense lawyers could make up anything they wanted and in this case I believe it's what JB did, and what a lot of lawyers do.

However, you're dead on with it being considered a fact that KC must have told JB. If JB admits to making it up then he'll lose his law license or at least be severely penalized, IMO.

BTW, I seem to recall a defense lawyer here saying that the first thing some defense lawyers will say to a client is "don't tell me if you're guilty."



Ok, let's all calm down and not use banghead stuff and just talk points. :smile:



KC has to pay back the county, I believe based on JB's statement. IIRC, that precedent makes Tim's case much stronger.



I'm not a lawyer but I think this is how it works. If she has no right to plead the fifth she can be jailed for contempt until she decides to answer the question or it becomes apparent she won't answer. This happens a lot in the news media. If a journalist writes a story using an unnamed source they can refuse to answer if it comes up in court as to who told them. The best journalists will sit in jail until the judge lets them out. If they give up the name then their ability to find out stuff from people who don't want to be identified is severely compromised and also it's a cardinal sin to do that in journalism. They may never be employed again as an investigative reporter.



Colored by me.

:laughcry: JB really did a good job. He got her off but is leaving her with a lot of money to pay to a lot of people. If she thought she was going to get a big payday she's been blindsided. Gotta love it. :thumb:

Congratulations! I think you've hit the "Most Quotes Ever" in a single post! :woohoo: LOL

 

[RR0004]

Didn't Casey herself say something to the effect that she wanted out of jail to go look for a missing Caylee? I know her attorney did. Why would it be assumed that TM lied about her saying it to him?

 

[logicalgirl]

Laugh::laugh::laugh:

That is hilarious.
And she will need 500 costumes, too.

:whiteflag:eace:​

Simple answer:croc:



In my humble-really-humble opinion, JB made a suggestion. He cannot , in his function as an attorney doing that opening statement, present that drowning theory as a fact.
The jury is the ultimate "Finder of Fact."
Evidence is not fact. It is still evidence and it is being used in the proof of fact.
Sure there are times when a Court will take "judicial notice of a fact" but most of the time, it is the jury that is finding what is "fact."



Actually it varies from state to state as to whether or not these so called "judicial admissions" are binding on the defendant.

If the state's law mandates that the "admission" is binding on the client, then the next issue that will present itself is whether or not the legally binding admission from one trial is binding only in the trial where it happened or if it
is available for use at some future proceeding.



Yup. But you have to look at the state's law to see if it is really really an admission and after that ...is it really binding. Then that question about whether or not it is memorialized comes into play.



Only through the use of my keen legal eye :bullseye::bullseye: am I able to submit to you that there was also proof that there was an actual :doorhide:door.

MH:wolf:
opinions
:grouphug: did somebody say Kombayah?

Okay, okay - so there was a door and may I add a photo that was crudely photoshopped.

So....to clarify to this slow learner.....are you saying OCA can now come into civil court and say once again Caylee was kidnapped and sure Tim, go on out there and search for a live child?

Or...she just didn't know?

Or...she can sit in the courtroom and stay silent til the cows come home?

Or...it was up to Tim - eeney meaney miney moe? Search for whatever - nothing to do with her.

Or....did we have a bottom line? :waitasec: I love me some bottom lines....

 

[Steely Dan]

Easy does it there NavySubMom - I believe we are "thinking" about your questions - some of which could/should be posted in the legal thread.

I'm not sure what appeals in the criminal court are going to apply to this civil case. OCA isn't saying she didn't lie, she is appealing the four lies, which her DT believes was only one....all the same lie....and not as HHJP rules - four.
So I don't see the relevance of this appeal holding up the civil case...

And obviously, based on the verdict of not guilty, the drowning was accepted as fact, despite coming completely from Bunkville.

And I thought you couldn't plead the 5th in a civil case? Where are our lawyers? I'm pretty sure as we get closer to a trial, OCA will be ordered to testify. Because I can't think of any plausible reason she would have for allowing TES to search for a live child. A child her lawyer stated on her behalf had been dead since June 16th.

I'm thinking of what a motion says - obviously her lawyers have written it, but they state comes now Casey Marie Anthony. And on file is only one written statement of what happened to Caylee. OCA had the opportunity to say don't search for a live child - search for a dead one who drowned and some SODDI has disposed of her body.

Girl's gotten herself in a box comprised of a rock and a hard place. Doesn't seem to see the bulldozer moving slowly but surely directly toward her.

BBM

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I may have the answers. First, the jury verdict has nothing to do with specific evidence. They can find guilty or not guilty by believing or disbelieving any evidence. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean the jurors think Caylee drowned. It just means that they don't think KC killed her.

As for pleading the 5th in a civil case. I think she can do that if she has some other litigation going on and her answers may influence that case. They are appealing the four counts of lying to the PD and so if she says in the civil case under oath that she knew KC was dead it can influence the lying to cops appeals. If I were ZG's or TM's lawyer I'd ask the court for a stay until the appeals are settled. After that her ability to plead the 5th is non existent.

I'm getting that from things I've read here from the lawyers if I'm recalling them correctly. Hopefully a lawyer will drop by and have some answers.

Thanks for your explanation, it makes more sense to me. But my question is obviously Casey's explanation of a drowning was never proven, plus she was found not guilty of having anything to do with Caylee's disappearance/murder, so where does that leave TES as to what to prove FCA knew and didn't know at the moment he spoke with her?

What JB said in court is considered coming from KC per law. See my post above and LinTX's post in it.

 

[logicalgirl]

Didn't Casey herself say something to the effect that she wanted out of jail to go look for a missing Caylee? I know her attorney did. Why would it be assumed that TM lied about her saying it to him?

We definitely heard her say that to her parents on the jail tapes....

 

[RR0004]

Thanks for your explanation, it makes more sense to me. But my question is obviously Casey's explanation of a drowning was never proven, plus she was found not guilty of having anything to do with Caylee's disappearance/murder, so where does that leave TES as to what to prove FCA knew and didn't know at the moment he spoke with her?

I think (IMPO) that the jury believed it was proof "enough" to acquit her. They obviously didn't believe she harmed her child in any way. There were enough lesser charges they could have convicted her of if they thought she was somehow involved in Caylee's death.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm pretty sure they are. :wink:

There haven't been any questions in a while.
MH
:wolf:

PS
:welcome: Back!!!

Just to clarify on your above post - JB stated outside of the OS statement that Caylee drowned on June 16th and had been dead since then. It was not limited to the OS, only the abuse allegations were.

This is why we are in a conundrum. We were in the evidence part of the trial, and want to know why or if it is legal to state categorically a fact you know is not or may not be true as fact.

 

[Steely Dan]

I think (IMPO) that the jury believed it was proof "enough" to acquit her. They obviously didn't believe she harmed her child in any way. There were enough lesser charges they could have convicted her of if they thought she was somehow involved in Caylee's death.

IIRC, the only charge was murder one. The lesser charges weren't put in.

 

[cityslick]

Laugh::laugh::laugh:

That is hilarious.
And she will need 500 costumes, too.

:whiteflag:eace:​

Simple answer:croc:



In my humble-really-humble opinion, JB made a suggestion. He cannot , in his function as an attorney doing that opening statement, present that drowning theory as a fact.
The jury is the ultimate "Finder of Fact."
Evidence is not fact. It is still evidence and it is being used in the proof of fact.
Sure there are times when a Court will take "judicial notice of a fact" but most of the time, it is the jury that is finding what is "fact."



Actually it varies from state to state as to whether or not these so called "judicial admissions" are binding on the defendant.

If the state's law mandates that the "admission" is binding on the client, then the next issue that will present itself is whether or not the legally binding admission from one trial is binding only in the trial where it happened or if it
is available for use at some future proceeding.



Yup. But you have to look at the state's law to see if it is really really an admission and after that ...is it really binding. Then that question about whether or not it is memorialized comes into play.



Only through the use of my keen legal eye :bullseye::bullseye: am I able to submit to you that there was also proof that there was an actual :doorhide:door.

MH:wolf:
opinions
:grouphug: did somebody say Kombayah?

Thanks isn't enough for this post.

 

[logicalgirl]

IIRC, the only charge was murder one. The lesser charges weren't put in.

Huh? :waitasec: Sure there were!

 

[bayouland]

Just to clarify on your above post - JB stated outside of the OS statement that Caylee drowned on June 16th and had been dead since then. It was not limited to the OS, only the abuse allegations were.

This is why we are in a conundrum. We were in the evidence part of the trial, and want to know why or if it is legal to state categorically a fact you know is not or may not be true as fact.

This doesn't make me happy but talking heads on TV have said all along that you don't have to prove anything in the opening statement and that it is not evidence.

It makes sense, otherwise he would have been reported to the Bar. He may have, but this wasn't the two issues that are now moving forward.

My question is the closing arguements. Didn't Judge Perry tell Baez he couldn't go the molestation route because there was no evidence regarding it but allowed the drowning theory because CA had testified about it.

 

[NavySubMom]

"Actually it varies from state to state as to whether or not these so called "judicial admissions" are binding on the defendant.

If the state's law mandates that the "admission" is binding on the client, then the next issue that will present itself is whether or not the legally binding admission from one trial is binding only in the trial where it happened or if it
is available for use at some future proceeding."
above snipped by me from a MiraclesHappen's post

the above is the cruxt of what was being discussed upthread and what I was trying to post about :

Was JB's, not only admission in opening statements, BUT GOING FURTHER by presenting evidence, and then arguing in Closing Arguments which the jury can consider, that Caylee drowned in the pool, now tied forever to FCA as her "truth" of what happened, as was she speaking this through her attorney? That was the sense of the discussion.

I was simply saying that JB went FURTHER than simply stating the drowning as a "theory" in his non-evidentiary opening statement. I was trying to convey, in a backwards sort of way I guess, that JB went FURTHER than just a statement in opening, he actually presented photos and CA testimony that were technically "evidence" in the trial to FURTHER or to TRY TO PROVE his drowning statement. I know those photos PROVE nothing.

It was being discussed whether, now, after the fact of the trial, is this FCA's TRUTH? Is FCA stuck with this drowning story? or not? I was just trying to say that IMO JB went FURTHER than just his opening statement on this, so does that count for anything?? instead of like the GA molestation which JB does NOT want to touch with a 10-foot-pole after the trial, he went further on the drowning. Was he speaking for FCA by presenting that "evidence"???

Then I was just trying to say that JB's evidence passed JP's admissiblity test, JP allowed the evidence so he felt it had some kind of "evidentiary value", as it was allowed. I was talking that "technically", those photos were submitted by JB and admitted into evidence by JP and marked as Defense Exhibit __ for the trial. Nothing further about the photos.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[LambChop]

FYI. KC is not trying to overturn the lying verdict. She is only trying to have the four charges reduced to one claiming it was one continuous lie, not four different lies. It has nothing to do with her civil suit so taking the 5th would not affect her appeal, from what I understand. jmo

 

[bayouland]

"Actually it varies from state to state as to whether or not these so called "judicial admissions" are binding on the defendant.

If the state's law mandates that the "admission" is binding on the client, then the next issue that will present itself is whether or not the legally binding admission from one trial is binding only in the trial where it happened or if it
is available for use at some future proceeding."
above snipped by me from a MiraclesHappen's post

the above is the cruxt of what was being discussed upthread and what I was trying to post about :

Was JB's, not only admission in opening statements, BUT GOING FURTHER by presenting evidence, and then arguing in Closing Arguments which the jury can consider, that Caylee drowned in the pool, now tied forever to FCA as her "truth" of what happened, as was she speaking this through her attorney? That was the sense of the discussion.

I was simply saying that JB went FURTHER than simply stating the drowning as a "theory" in his non-evidentiary opening statement. I was trying to convey, in a backwards sort of way I guess, that JB went FURTHER than just a statement in opening, he actually presented photos and CA testimony that were technically "evidence" in the trial to FURTHER or to TRY TO PROVE his drowning statement. I know those photos PROVE nothing.

It was being discussed whether, now, after the fact of the trial, is this FCA's TRUTH? Is FCA stuck with this drowning story? or not? I was just trying to say that IMO JB went FURTHER than just his opening statement on this, so does that count for anything?? instead of like the GA molestation which JB does NOT want to touch with a 10-foot-pole after the trial, he went further on the drowning. Was he speaking for FCA by presenting that "evidence"???

Then I was just trying to say that JB's evidence passed JP's admissiblity test, JP allowed the evidence so he felt it had some kind of "evidentiary value", as it was allowed. I was talking that "technically", those photos were submitted by JB and admitted into evidence by JP and marked as Defense Exhibit __ for the trial. Nothing further about the photos.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Actually this is a very interesting discussion. Please continue. In particular, if the admission is binding on the defendant, then that is terrific news (if it is considered an admission). We need an attorney!! Where's Arizona!!

 

[LambChop]

"Actually it varies from state to state as to whether or not these so called "judicial admissions" are binding on the defendant.

If the state's law mandates that the "admission" is binding on the client, then the next issue that will present itself is whether or not the legally binding admission from one trial is binding only in the trial where it happened or if it
is available for use at some future proceeding."
above snipped by me from a MiraclesHappen's post

the above is the cruxt of what was being discussed upthread and what I was trying to post about :

Was JB's, not only admission in opening statements, BUT GOING FURTHER by presenting evidence, and then arguing in Closing Arguments which the jury can consider, that Caylee drowned in the pool, now tied forever to FCA as her "truth" of what happened, as was she speaking this through her attorney? That was the sense of the discussion.

I was simply saying that JB went FURTHER than simply stating the drowning as a "theory" in his non-evidentiary opening statement. I was trying to convey, in a backwards sort of way I guess, that JB went FURTHER than just a statement in opening, he actually presented photos and CA testimony that were technically "evidence" in the trial to FURTHER or to TRY TO PROVE his drowning statement. I know those photos PROVE nothing.

It was being discussed whether, now, after the fact of the trial, is this FCA's TRUTH? Is FCA stuck with this drowning story? or not? I was just trying to say that IMO JB went FURTHER than just his opening statement on this, so does that count for anything?? instead of like the GA molestation which JB does NOT want to touch with a 10-foot-pole after the trial, he went further on the drowning. Was he speaking for FCA by presenting that "evidence"???

Then I was just trying to say that JB's evidence passed JP's admissiblity test, JP allowed the evidence so he felt it had some kind of "evidentiary value", as it was allowed. I was talking that "technically", those photos were submitted by JB and admitted into evidence by JP and marked as Defense Exhibit __ for the trial. Nothing further about the photos.

IMO, MOO, etc.

And let's not forget that according to CA both she and her attorney went to JB's office right before the trial for a meeting because JB told CA that KC wanted her mother to hear it from KC first, through JB about what happened to Caylee. This was in front of CA and her attorney. JB could not have ever done that on his own without permission from his client. jmo

 

[NavySubMom]

bayouland[/B]7263449]This doesn't make me happy but talking heads on TV have said all along that you don't have to prove anything in the opening statement and that it is not evidence.

It makes sense, otherwise he would have been reported to the Bar. He may have, but this wasn't the two issues that are now moving forward.

My question is the closing arguements. Didn't Judge Perry tell Baez he couldn't go the molestation route because there was no evidence regarding it but allowed the drowning theory because CA had testified about it.[/QUOTE]

bbbluemeYes, absolutely, this is what I have been talking about. Thanks.

drowning OK to argue in closing per Judge Perry because "evidence" was presented by JB,

GA Molestation = NOT OK to argue in closing per Judge Perry because NO evidence was presented.

IMO, MOO, etc.

IMO, MOO, etc.