WFTV - STRICKLAND filed complaint against Baez!

[Amster]

I think this has to do with Jose lying to the judge about how he's being paid.....and maybe Conway lied, also, to protect his clients.

 

[mysteriew]

The way I understand it most attorneys who learn the location of a murdered person's remains from their client, won't go looking for them. Because if they find them, it could endanger their client's case. But in this case, DCasey did go looking for the remains, and allegedly didn't find them. According to the talking heads, even if he found them, he was not obligated to report the finding. JB couldn't be in trouble for knowing where the remains were not even if he sent DCasey to find them.

But if they disturb evidence, I think they can get into trouble for that. Remember the two crosses that KC purchased? And it was speculated that she possibly purchased the crosses for one to wear and one to leave with the remains? But no cross was ever found at the scene. Could the instructions for DCasey have included an order to find and remove the necklace? That of course depends on if DCasey was there on the orders of JB or if JB was aware of them going and the purpose of going.

 

[Hell's Belle]

I never said "DCasey blabbing to Cindy or George gave rise to information being discovered AS A CONSEQUENCE of the breach."

What you said was:

Yes, if DCasey told Cindy or George information he had obtained as "work product" without Casey's permission [note: this is what I am summarizing as "blabbing"] - then anything/information that was discovered as a result [I used the word "consequence"] of the breach of the privilege would be suppressed

I'm not seeing how my paraphrase is a misstatement?

I have been saying the Anthonys might have blabbed to DCasey about things they knew from talking with Casey (or, I'll add here, with someone else who's not Casey's attorney, such as her bro, Lee.) Also if these "things" are the same things that DCasey had earlier heard from talking with JBaez - well, then there's the waiver - Casey didn't just tell her attorney, who asked the PI to go do some work for him, she also told her parents, who did ask the PI to go "bring Caylee home," assuming that's how it happened.
Course, I'm totally speculating here re: if this is even related to the substance of the complaint Judge S made against JBaez...

I think the only issue on which I respectfully disagree is a conclusion that a disclosure by Casey to her parents constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege if she had disclosed the information to her attorney at another time. Her statement to her parents is not privileged (although if DCasey says: "The Anthonys told me Casey said X," that is hearsay because the admission against interest is second-hand); the same discloure made to her attorney is privileged. At least in some jurisdictions.

The conflicts issues make my head hurt. It is so bizarre that CaseyA and her parents are using the same PI. Do they really have the same goals? How can he investigate for both?

 

[Chezhire]

I don't think you're being sarcastic.

Here is my logical problem. How do we know that the information related to the cops by PI DCasey IS completely different?

Suppose it's the same information?

Could be. Anything is possible.
I'm mush more concerned that it's a different "information" entirely, and that it could lead to the suppression of something that is integral to the SA's case against Casey...so if that's all it is, I'm relieved.

 

[mitzi]

Really a warning to anyone close to the A's at all. Go, run, hide, flee, vamous, escape... whatever you have to do because the entire clan is going to destroy endless lives before this is all said and done.

If I were a lawyer, advisor, therapist, anything - I'd be leaving them all in the dust. This Judge has something huge and I'm certain it all flows back to CA especially.

I just love it when things flow back to Cindy! :crazy:

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... I think the only issue on which I respectfully disagree is that Casey making a disclosure to her parents constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege if she had previously disclosed the information to her attorney. Her statement to her parents is not privileged (although if DCasey says: "The Anthonys told me Casey said X," that is hearsay because the admission against interest is second-hand), the same statement made to her attorney is privileged. At least in some jurisdictions."

I've never said anything about a waiver of the attorney client privilege, it's all about the attorney work product privilege, which protects communications between attorney and the PI, which is what I'm pondering is related to the subject of the judge's complaint.

If Casey tells attorney (communication protected by attorney-client privilege) and attorney tells PI = the privilege that protects the communication between attorney and PI is the attorney work product privilege.

If Casey tells parents and parents ALSO tell PI, at a later date, then work product privilege between attorney and PI that was previously intact, as discussed above, does not apply to the information and PI may be forced to testify as to same.

 

[Where's Andre]

Holy Frijoles! Could this have anything to do with that muddled motion for an ex-parte hearing with Judge Strickland? I never could understand what that was all about.

My paralegal ladyfriend's take on this is that it has to go to ineffective counsel. I dunno... I lean more toward the ethically aggregious, but I must admit that Baez's motions and courtroom behavior have been literally laughable. I doubt many judges get suppressed laughter at defense attorneys in open court.

 

[Whisperer]

I don't see this. Attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are two separate concepts. "Attorney work product privilege" is not a concept that I am familiar with (although, oddly enough, I found a recent Florida Supreme Court decision that uses this conflation). This is why I thought it was so interesting that Judge Strickland didn't say *whose* work product was contained in the 9-page Conway transcript that was sealed. Don't forget, Strickland ruled that, whatever Conway said, it *wasn't* subject to disclosure. Ergo, no waiver.

DCasey was working for the Anthonys AND Brad Conway, the Anthonys' attorney. Are we sure that the DCasey was operating at the direction of the Anthonys and not B Conway? In addition, work performed *for* an attorney can be that attorney's "work product" even if the person performing the work is not an attorney.

IRRC, BC did not start working for the Anthony's till 12-11-08. He met them for the first time after their return from the Larry King Show. Someone had to hire him, but I have no idea how that was arranged.

 

[mitzi]

All I can say is HOLY CHIT!! I wonder if her next attorney will be able to talk her into a plea deal?

Maybe Lenamon will take over. He still seems "consumed" by the case :crazy:

 

[Hell's Belle]

I've never said anything about a waiver of the attorney client privilege, it's all about the attorney work product privilege, which protects communications between attorney and the PI, which is what I'm pondering is related to the subject of the judge's complaint.
If Casey tells attorney and attorney tells PI = privilege in place and intact.
If Casey tells parents and parents ALSO tell PI, at a later date, then privilege that was previously intact, as discussed above, does not apply to the information.

Ah. Now I think I see exactly what we are disagreeing about.

I should go read your thread on the work product doctrine in Florida. My view of the work product doctrine may be at variance with yours, and with Florida law. My working assumption is usually that because the work product exemption from disclosure usually operates a little differently from privilege, waivers of the protection of the work product exemption from disclosure work a little differently too.

I don't typically think of client-->attorney-->PI communications as "work product," but they certainly could be.

 

[rbrnmw2]

The JUDGE? Holy heavens to high bitsy... :shocked2:
It takes a lot of forethought for a judge to do something like this. I'm not sure most of us here truly know how serious this is.

Bye bye Baez...
But that makes me sad, because I wanted an Idiot for KC's defense. :waitasec: Maybe Geragos can finish up with Brown and head over. :floorlaugh:




I love this on the link: http://www.wftv.com/news/19130417/detail.html#-



""Casey Anthony should think long and hard before she files a motion to recuse Judge Strickland from this case because there are a lot of other judges out there that are less tolerant and patient with her attorney than Judge Strickland has been," Sheaffer said."

LOL I was thinking they same thing about Geragos but if he isn't available how about Drew P's attorney Brodsky. who up until Baez came along I thought could possibly be the most dimwitted attorney in this Country Maybe Jayne Weintraub, she is already in Fl

 

[Chezhire]

Ah. Now I think I see exactly what we are disagreeing about.

I should go read your thread on the work product doctrine in Florida. My view of the work product doctrine may be at variance with yours, and with Florida law. My working assumption is usually that because the work product exemption from disclosure usually operates a little differently from privilege, waivers of the protection of the work product exemption from disclosure work a little differently too.

I don't typically think of client-->attorney-->PI communications as "work product," but they certainly could be.

See my post, clarified, above. I think we agree that if Casey tells JBaez X, then X is protected by attorney-client privilege.

IF JBaez goes on to tell X to the PI he's hired to help him investigate the case, THAT communication is not protected by the attorney client privilege, it's protected by the attorney work product privilege, the purpose of which is to allow an attorney a sphere of protected space within which to work without fear of disclosure adverse to his client.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

See my post, clarified, above. I think we agree that if Casey tells JBaez X, then X is protected by attorney-client privilege.

IF JBaez goes on to tell X to the PI he's hired to help him investigate the case, THAT communication is not protected by the attorney client privilege, it's protected by the attorney work product privilege, the purpose of which is to allow an attorney a sphere of protected space within which to work without fear of disclosure adverse to his client.

Whew...glad that's cleared up now :crazy::crazy:
:blowkiss:

 

[Chezhire]

Whew...glad that's cleared up now :crazy::crazy:
:blowkiss:

I'm going to go to the gym now. Do a little :Banane10:, maybe a little :bananajump:, maybe after that a little :Banane43: ...
to be followed up by a nice, cold :Banane35:
Ciao

 

[Hell's Belle]

See my post, clarified, above. I think we agree that if Casey tells JBaez X, then X is protected by attorney-client privilege.

IF JBaez goes on to tell X to the PI he's hired to help him investigate the case, THAT communication is not protected by the attorney client privilege, it's protected by the attorney work product privilege, the purpose of which is to allow an attorney a sphere of protected space within which to work without fear of disclosure adverse to his client.

ITA with the above statement.

Moving on.

Here's the $64,000 question.

Here is a possible sequence of events:

(1) Baez retains DCasey.
(2) CaseyA then retains DCasey.
(3) DCasey develops some work product with Casey and Baez, Casey's agent. One happy little threesome working together. For the sake of this thread, let's assume that this work product is NOT something Baez ever wants DCasey to testify about (e.g., where the body is--assume Baez doesn't want the State ever to know where the body is). He'd be like a consulting expert rather than a testifying expert.
(4) DCasey ends relationship with Baez (agent), but continues the relationship with CaseyA (principal), for whose benefit the work product was created.
QUESTION ONE: Does DCasey's termination of his relationship with CaseyA's agent deprive the principal CaseyA of the benefit of work product protection? If so, why? Without doing much research, I think work product protection generally survives the termination of a relationship in the same way that a duty of attorney-client confidentiality can continue even after the death of the client (I'm told Lizzie Borden's law firm still won't talk). Otherwise you could scoop up your opponent's consulting experts after they've been fired, and it just doesn't work that way.
QUESTION TWO: Who owns the work product?
(5) DCasey continues his relationship with CaseyA, the principal, and is then retained by the Anthonys.
QUESTION THREE: With CaseyA's authorization (a big assumption on my part, I know), can DCasey develop work product further jointly for CaseyA and the Anthonys?
QUESTION FOUR: Who owns the work product at this point?

(5) Makes me kind of squirmy because I think CaseyA and her parents may have had drastically different agendas for DCasey.

 

[ThoughtElf]

[/b]

IRRC, BC did not start working for the Anthony's till 12-11-08. He met them for the first time after their return from the Larry King Show. Someone had to hire him, but I have no idea how that was arranged.

B Conway was not retained by the A's on the night of the remains find. Brad Conway became the A's lawyer on the evening of Dec. 9th, 2008, 2 days before Caylee's remains were discovered on December 11th. Per Brad Conway in his press statement given on December 15th:

http://www.wftv.com/video/18283663/index.html Time mark: 18:30

 

[rbrnmw2]

I believe Lenny P said that there was a whole lot more to the story and that what we already knew was mild compared to what will come out. I did not like Lenny at first but I am thinking maybe he was right on the money on this one. So I hate to admit this and it pains me to say this I think that the Anthony's and Baez have known for a long time what Caylee's fate was and where she could be found. It just boggles my mind how taken in I was with George and Cindy. I feel they betrayed that little angel to protect KC. IMO

I can't understand how any of them including Baez can sleep at night

 

[Schmerty_Jones]

Oh,Dear! Information overload, overload ....Move on to something else?:crazy::crazy:

 

[ThoughtElf]

I'm going to go to the gym now. Do a little :Banane10:, maybe a little :bananajump:, maybe after that a little :Banane43: ...
to be followed up by a nice, cold :Banane35:
Ciao

Well deserved. Thanks for the education as always.

 

[ziggy]

THANK YOU LEGAL PEEPS!!!!

I am 3 weeks into Law School having followed the forum for about 7+ years and it's so helpful to read your discussions.

Now if you could only shed as much light on case research in actual books, which is overwhelming at the moment. I may never get out of the library.