2009.03.10 - Hand Written Note From Tot Mom in Response to Pros. Motion

[KenoshaKid]

The key point isn't the specific nuances of her wording. What is key is that she submitted an afadavit in her own handwriting, making these claims. as a result the prosecutors can call her to the stand to ask questions about exactly what she meant. She cannot choose not to testify now. She has begun testifying. All she can now do is stand in the witness box, before the judge and jury, and either answer the questions the SA asks, or publicly claim the 5th in her own voice. And there is a huge diference in the juries eyes between a defendant choosing not to testify, and one on the stand choosing to not answer questions because they might incriminate themselves in a crime.
<snip>
.

Nothing would please me more than seeing her try to defend her lies in a court of law. I hope more than anything she gets called to testify. It will be like watching chicken grill on a spit. What will she say in the face of proof after proof that she has lied and lied and lied? Man, it doesn't get any better than that.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and didn't get much of a response. I'm curious why JB submitted this affidavit from Casey saying what isn't in the retainer agreement rather than submitting the actual contract itself. Are billing/payment contracts between a lawyer and client considered privileged information, not available even for the court to see?

 

[zoey]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and didn't get much of a response. I'm curious why JB submitted this affidavit from Casey saying what isn't in the retainer agreement rather than submitting the actual contract itself. Are billing/payment contracts between a lawyer and client considered privileged information, not available even for the court to see?

good question...I remember that the other atty kasin in the civil suit is requesting atty fees (thinking at least 52,000)

 

[Chezhire]

Any lawyers here? Did she give up any rights by responding in her own handwriting?

For starters, motions and items attached to them are not automatically entered into evidence. Though they are a part of the official court record in the criminal suit, it does not mean that the jurors will see them, or that either the defense or the SA will even attempt to introduce them during the trial.

Ergo, it remains to be seen whether or not the jurors will see this. Will be interesting, for sure...

 

[Chezhire]

The key point isn't the specific nuances of her wording. What is key is that she submitted an afadavit in her own handwriting, making these claims. as a result the prosecutors can call her to the stand to ask questions about exactly what she meant. She cannot choose not to testify now. She has begun testifying. All she can now do is stand in the witness box, before the judge and jury, and either answer the questions the SA asks, or publicly claim the 5th in her own voice. And there is a huge diference in the juries eyes between a defendant choosing not to testify, and one on the stand choosing to not answer questions because they might incriminate themselves in a crime.

So she has really really hosed herself with this one. She did it in her own handwriting and in her own words.

And it is also sad that this happens in an afidavit that is responding to questions about her lawyers interests and finances. letting her put that handwritten item in there was unbelievable incompetance on the part of JB. So much so that oen wonders if he has stopped giving any real legal advise and is seeking to get off the case, or to let his client hang herself.

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Again, motions in the official court record do not automatically, upon their filing, become "evidence" a juror will see. Same thing applies to notarized affidavits and documents attached to a motion.
Someone has to attempt to introduce them into evidence at trial - which remains to be seen. Ergo, the filing of this affidavit in Casey's handwriting does not, by itself, "open the door for the prosecution to cross-examine her." (Not saying I'd advise a client to do it, but all the same...)

 

[Chezhire]

:clap:

I think Casey just likes to testify about her innocence in places where she can't be cross-examined. I guess it's about the same as pleading not guilty to the charge. It was just not necessary to the affidavit, which isn't specific enough or comprehensive enough to satisfy the concerns raised by the state, the real issue she's supposed to be dealing with.

:clap:

 

[Tiki]

it allowed her to take the stand, state her not guily verdict without the ability for the state to x-amine ....for now.

I posted a link to this earlier. Themis says the statement DOES open her to X-examination . . .

respectfully copied from a post by Themis

This one says "Sworn" affidavit in the title and "sworn" to before the notary public. It looks like it could pass for a prior sworn statement. That is very different than a "written declaration." "Under oath" (sworn) is different from a declaration which is generally "to the best of my belief and knowledge." Prior sworn statements can be used in many ways. In addition, it has been submitted to the court and is now subject to cross examination. Smokin'!

 

[LinasK]

Squirrels did it. They carried the bottle of chloroform into the car and it spilled over. Caylee died, and the squirrlels, woozy themselves, plastered their bodies underneath the car.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[KenoshaKid]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and didn't get much of a response. I'm curious why JB submitted this affidavit from Casey saying what isn't in the retainer agreement rather than submitting the actual contract itself. Are billing/payment contracts between a lawyer and client considered privileged information, not available even for the court to see?

I thought that was weird, too, Chilly.

 

[azwriter]

Why would Baez file this note with the other statements??

Great question, reeseeva. I suppose we will just have to add it to the list of question we all have about how Baez is handling this case.

 

[Sunshine52]

JB let her write this note because, for whatever reason, he is not exercising his independent professional judgment in this matter.

He has no professional judgment...morals or ethics from what I've seen.

 

[JustJax]

Bingo! Why would the prosecution be mad? Other than their time and expense, it's their JOB Casey, their job!!! They expect to go to trial. They have no need to be mad about it. Once again, Casey is making it all about her, like she's the only murderer.

Her mind is so immature, and she is so self centered that she is not grasping the concept that she is dealing with adult professionals in LE and the SA office and somehow she still thinks she can manipulate those around her with her lies and games. JB being the inexperienced lawyer that he is, is letting her call some shots that are not helping her, but hurting her more and more. I can't beleive any competent attorney would have filed that response no matter how much his client insisted, if in fact that was the case here.

 

[cyberborg]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and didn't get much of a response. I'm curious why JB submitted this affidavit from Casey saying what isn't in the retainer agreement rather than submitting the actual contract itself. Are billing/payment contracts between a lawyer and client considered privileged information, not available even for the court to see?

Smoke and mirrors. There is obviously merit to the accusation on financing and conflict, so deflection and deception is employed. They have not cited 'privilege' so I don't see that as the issue.

 

[jerchers]

According to JVM, Baez just filed his response to the Pros in regards to thier motion filed to discover where she is getting her cash for her team.
Casey wrote in effect that the Pros. is angry with her for NOT taking a plea deal for a "crime that I DID NOT COMMIT."

Interesting...



http://www.wftv.com/blank/18901013/detail.html

question-the prosecution says they did not offer a deal-can the judge call her in court and ask her what the deal was and when it was offered.If she lied in that statement (of course she lied-) can anything be done to her.

 

[JustJax]

question-the prosecution says they did not offer a deal-can the judge call her in court and ask her what the deal was and when it was offered.If she lied in that statement (of course she lied-) can anything be done to her.

I had seen yesterday that the SA office said they are not aware of any such plea deal. I will have to look around for a link but since that is a sworn affidavit I would think the judge could at least ask her what she is referring to in her amendment number 7 that was written in her hand.
Hmmmmmm great question!

 

[amethyst221]

As a general rule, I doubt that boilerplate contract language, references to the requirements of State Bar rules, the usual stuff in a retainer agreement, is either an attorney/client privileged communication or work product. That would include payment and plans for how to sell stuff to the media, etc. JMO

It would be an entirely different matter if, as part of the retainer, the lawyer outlined his or her actual legal strategy, thinking, or client communications: I plan to show your innocence by blaming Madame X, using the bloody wrench found in the library that only we know about, blah blah. We will depose the Butler to establish that Madame framed you because she was jealous that he dumped her for you. . . . And so on. But I find it doubtful that would be in the agreement, and I doubt even more that JB had any plans at the time he was hired. But who knows. I imagine the judge will figure this out in camera.

 

[JustJax]

question-the prosecution says they did not offer a deal-can the judge call her in court and ask her what the deal was and when it was offered.If she lied in that statement (of course she lied-) can anything be done to her.

Found it!
(snipped from full article)

The State Attorney's Office has no record of a formal plea offer in Casey Anthony's case, Tavernier said.



http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/orl-loccasey11031109mar11,0,4353127.story

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and didn't get much of a response. I'm curious why JB submitted this affidavit from Casey saying what isn't in the retainer agreement rather than submitting the actual contract itself. Are billing/payment contracts between a lawyer and client considered privileged information, not available even for the court to see?

An attorney-client retainer agreement is protected as attorney-client privileged in most jurisdictions precluding even a judge from viewing it. I don't know if Florida is one of those jurisdictions, although I note that the SA office asked for it and JB didn't object on privilege. Which actually doesn't mean it's not protected just that a privilege wasn't asserted. Any Florida attorneys out there?

 

[Chezhire]

question-the prosecution says they did not offer a deal-can the judge call her in court and ask her what the deal was and when it was offered.If she lied in that statement (of course she lied-) can anything be done to her.

NO. Please see my above posts. No one can ask Casey anything about what she wrote until such time as a party tries to enter this into evidence at the trial. Until then, all the SA can do, should they even be inclined to respond, is offer their own memorandum supported with an affidavit countering what Casey claims.

 

[amethyst221]

An attorney-client retainer agreement is protected as attorney-client privileged in most jurisdictions precluding even a judge from viewing it. I don't know if Florida is one of those jurisdictions, although I note that the SA office asked for it and JB didn't object on privilege. Which actually doesn't mean it's not protected just that a privilege wasn't asserted. Any Florida attorneys out there?

SoCal,

What do you think about provisions that have nothing per se to do with the legal representation, but are more in the nature of business dealings on behalf of or through the client? Not sure what I just said makes sense, but anyway . . . I'm not so sure those would be privileged A/C communications. But I'm not sure. I don't have any sense of what the court will do with this motion/issue, I have to say.