Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[nums24]

I'm hoping that today's order will clarify exactly what HHJP meant in the first order when he said JB had to disclose "the subject matter as to what the experts will testify to and the area of expertise for each expert." I'm guessing that HHJP had not seen the SA's brief about JB's snippy little emails when he signed the first order, or he would have been more clear.

I know that there was an in-camera review of the notes, Muzikman got it for us:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/65688076/20101207-Defense-Notice-of-In-Camera-Inspection

My question is can the State challenge anything, if the new order is not to their liking?

 

[AZlawyer]

I know that there was an in-camera review of the notes, Muzikman got it for us:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/65688076/20101207-Defense-Notice-of-In-Camera-Inspection

My question is can the State challenge anything, if the new order is not to their liking?

Sure, you can always challenge something you don't like.

 

[Jomo]

I have a quick question about two orders that appear on the court docket

12/03/2010 Order
Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters
12/06/2010 Response
Justice Administrative Commission's; to Defendant's Motion for Additional Hours for Investigation

12/06/2010 Correspondence
from Mr. Jackson

12/07/2010 Correspondence
from Clerk to Mr. Jackson

12/07/2010 Notice
of In-Camera Inspection

12/07/2010 Stipulation
Re: Examination of Evidence

12/07/2010 Notice of Taking Deposition(s)

12/08/2010 Motion
Defendant's; for Transcriptions Services

12/08/2010 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition(s)
Second

12/08/2010 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition(s)

12/09/2010 Order
Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters

It may be a silly question, so if so I apologize from a newbie-to-the-legal-system person.

The two orders in red both have the same title. Are they likely to be addressing different motions? Is this title a standard title that judges use to label orders dealing with multiple motions dealing with discovery matters?

These motions are not available for viewing yet, but I was just wondering if the second order would be dealing with the motions listed after the first order. My educated guess is yes.

Thanks again

12/09/2010 - ORDER - Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters

MuzikMan said this ORDER on 12/09/2010 is a duplicate of the ORDER filed on 12/03/2010 - a clerical error of sorts

12/03/210...Order Addressing Motions to Compel & Other Discovery:
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf

Thanks ThinkTank for the update here. I thought that those two orders seemed like a duplication.

 

[mom_in_il]

I have a quick 2 part question.

Is there an automatic appeal for a DP conviction in FL?

If so, if grounds exist for an appeal, outside of the DP appeal, how would that work?

ETA: Is it all part of the same process?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a quick 2 part question.

Is there an automatic appeal for a DP conviction in FL?

If so, if grounds exist for an appeal, outside of the DP appeal, how would that work?

ETA: Is it all part of the same process?

Yes, there is an automatic appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. It is a single process: the Florida Supreme Court will review the record for any fundamental error, and will also review at the same time any specific grounds for appeal raised by the defense team.

 

[mom_in_il]

Thanks for the quick response!

 

[Macushla]

I have to say I chortled with glee watching JB's expression at the end of the hearing on Friday and thought to myself, hey, maybe he finally got it that Judge Perry is not going to put up with any more nonsense. Of course, this is JB we are talking about so it's possible he still doesn't get it, which leads me to my question:

the Judge laid out exactly what the defense (and the prosecution) has to produce in writing about their experts. I am going to assume that the prosecution won't have to comply because as they said, any expert who is going to testify has already authored a report. So what happens if the defense team does not comply, or tries to play games like they did in respect to the original ruling on this? If they slap together something that does not even come close to complying with this ruling, what can Judge Perry do about it? Can he sanction the defense, reprimand them? Would he single JB out or blame the whole team for JB's actions? What will happen if the defense does not comply fully or does not comply at all?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have to say I chortled with glee watching JB's expression at the end of the hearing on Friday and thought to myself, hey, maybe he finally got it that Judge Perry is not going to put up with any more nonsense. Of course, this is JB we are talking about so it's possible he still doesn't get it, which leads me to my question:

the Judge laid out exactly what the defense (and the prosecution) has to produce in writing about their experts. I am going to assume that the prosecution won't have to comply because as they said, any expert who is going to testify has already authored a report. So what happens if the defense team does not comply, or tries to play games like they did in respect to the original ruling on this? If they slap together something that does not even come close to complying with this ruling, what can Judge Perry do about it? Can he sanction the defense, reprimand them? Would he single JB out or blame the whole team for JB's actions? What will happen if the defense does not comply fully or does not comply at all?

I would hope that the defense team, collectively at least, has a sufficient number of brain cells not to file a non-compliant report at this point. If they do not comply, HHJP certainly can (and should) sanction and/or reprimand them. He probably would not single out JB, however, as the entire team bears joint responsibility for complying with the order.

 

[Nore]

The defense continues to say Caylee is still alive (through other people).Could the court order her ashes returned since this seems to be the defenses opinion? Is there any way the Judge can stop all this nonsense by the defense? I hope so. Thank you..

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I would hope that the defense team, collectively at least, has a sufficient number of brain cells not to file a non-compliant report at this point. If they do not comply, HHJP certainly can (and should) sanction and/or reprimand them. He probably would not single out JB, however, as the entire team bears joint responsibility for complying with the order.

I would imagine there are times when the "team" feels as though they are dragging one ole mule every step of the way.

 

[AZlawyer]

The defense continues to say Caylee is still alive (through other people).Could the court order her ashes returned since this seems to be the defenses opinion? Is there any way the Judge can stop all this nonsense by the defense? I hope so. Thank you..

No, the defense team is free to argue that Caylee is still alive, if they think they can do so in front of the jury with a straight face.

This judge cannot order anything about the ashes. If someone came forward and claimed that it was their child's body that was found on Suburban Dr., and not Caylee's body, they could start a separate civil lawsuit to obtain the ashes. This other imaginary child would, of course, have to have been Caylee's long-lost identical twin sibling, given the DNA results on the tibia.

 

[chefmom]

After seeing the report today of the filing of the e-mail stating that Caylee is still alive, my first thought was that the defense is going to say that this is why they need more investigative hours, because they have to look into these allegations, blah, blah, blah. However, I am curious as to the legal ramifications of filing this with the court when there has been a death certificate issued after a DNA-based identification of the remains. Can this hurt the defense's credibility? Help it? I am confused as to why they would do this. It seems on the verge of lunacy. TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

After seeing the report today of the filing of the e-mail stating that Caylee is still alive, my first thought was that the defense is going to say that this is why they need more investigative hours, because they have to look into these allegations, blah, blah, blah. However, I am curious as to the legal ramifications of filing this with the court when there has been a death certificate issued after a DNA-based identification of the remains. Can this hurt the defense's credibility? Help it? I am confused as to why they would do this. It seems on the verge of lunacy. TIA!

I very much doubt that the defense team filed that email. I think someone at the court received and filed that email.

 

[Muzikman]

I very much doubt that the defense team filed that email. I think someone at the court received and filed that email.

That is correct.

 

[logicalgirl]

After seeing the report today of the filing of the e-mail stating that Caylee is still alive, my first thought was that the defense is going to say that this is why they need more investigative hours, because they have to look into these allegations, blah, blah, blah. However, I am curious as to the legal ramifications of filing this with the court when there has been a death certificate issued after a DNA-based identification of the remains. Can this hurt the defense's credibility? Help it? I am confused as to why they would do this. It seems on the verge of lunacy. TIA!

I did the same thing then realized it was two separate non-related filings.

 

[zoey]

There is supposed to be a motion hearing today at 4:00 pm ---- Casey isn't supposed to be there and defense is calling in....WHY ISN'T CASEY THERE for a motion hearing??? I thought she was supposed to always be there for this type of hearing??? TYA:waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

There is supposed to be a motion hearing today at 4:00 pm ---- Casey isn't supposed to be there and defense is calling in....WHY ISN'T CASEY THERE for a motion hearing??? I thought she was supposed to always be there for this type of hearing??? TYA:waitasec:

I think it's because it's just an administrative issue--how much the JAC is going to pay for something--rather than a motion on the substance of her case, like whether or not she's facing the death penalty.

 

[LambChop]

Would JB be able to get more money without verifying that he has substantial leads in this case? Or does he want money for the people who hung up on them or just never returned their calls. Kind of makes you wonder about the timing of the email which was just released????

 

[AZlawyer]

Would JB be able to get more money without verifying that he has substantial leads in this case? Or does he want money for the people who hung up on them or just never returned their calls. Kind of makes you wonder about the timing of the email which was just released????

HHJP will not make him prove that he has "substantial leads" or anything like that--keep in mind JB's job is to seek out reasonable doubt, not to solve the crime. He will be allowed reasonable costs of investigation, even if the chances of learning anything useful through the investigation are slim.

 

[LancelotLink]

On Casey's statement to police, where it asks "Will you testify in court?" She has written yes and initialed. Can she be held to that?