Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[JBean]

just asking - is everyone that is answering questions on this thread a Lawyer?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92404"]Professional and Local Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[BondJamesBond]

Question re: 2010.04.05 Motions Hearing now that the thread closed.

Taking the lazy approach since I won't be able to get through all of that thread tonight, but, would like to know if someone can provide a quick A to this Q.

The hearing opened w/ JB expecting Joseph J. to show. Did JJ ever show up?

What would legally compel JJ to show for a hearing (I'm clueless :bang. IOW...if he didn't show will he be facing a fine?

TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

Question re: 2010.04.05 Motions Hearing now that the thread closed.

Taking the lazy approach since I won't be able to get through all of that thread tonight, but, would like to know if someone can provide a quick A to this Q.

The hearing opened w/ JB expecting Joseph J. to show. Did JJ ever show up?

What would legally compel JJ to show for a hearing (I'm clueless :bang. IOW...if he didn't show will he be facing a fine?

TIA!

I didn't watch the hearing. However, I have heard nothing about JJ having been subpoenaed to attend the hearing. If he wasn't subpoenaed and he wasn't a party to any of the motions (which as far as I know he wasn't), he won't be in trouble for not showing up.

 

[JWG]

Technically, under the rules, we should have seen it by now if it exists. But discovery is rarely handed over within the timeline required by the rules.

The TES people say JH made this statement, but has JH acknowledged it? If JH denies having spoken with this child, maybe LE doesn't have the name of the child to interview.

Is it also true that such discovery would be handed over only if the interview was recorded (and perhaps transcribed)? In other words, the fact an unrecorded interview took place would not need be handed over? Also, if the person does not appear on the state's witness list, then presumably nothing exists at all regarding this witness? :waitasec:

 

[lisalei321]

Say hypothetically I was a searcher....if the defense calls me, even though I was never near the remains...

Do I have to answer them?

 

[darnudes]

Question re: 2010.04.05 Motions Hearing now that the thread closed.

Taking the lazy approach since I won't be able to get through all of that thread tonight, but, would like to know if someone can provide a quick A to this Q.

The hearing opened w/ JB expecting Joseph J. to show. Did JJ ever show up?

What would legally compel JJ to show for a hearing (I'm clueless :bang. IOW...if he didn't show will he be facing a fine?

TIA!

Neither he nor his lawyer showed up.

WFTV mark 740

http://www.wftv.com/video/23056801/index.html

Baez stated he arranged with Bill Mclellan(sp?) lawyer for JJ for him to have his client here today. Baez stated that lawyer said assured him this would happen. Baez then said " and of course he is not present at this time, maybe due to court change."

JS then said "well go ahead with your motion and if he shows up then... but if not then that's that."

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it also true that such discovery would be handed over only if the interview was recorded (and perhaps transcribed)? In other words, the fact an unrecorded interview took place would not need be handed over? Also, if the person does not appear on the state's witness list, then presumably nothing exists at all regarding this witness? :waitasec:

If the state interviewed a neighbor child, but did not record the interview or describe it in a report, and the state doesn't plan to call the child as a witness at trial, and the child had nothing "exculpatory" to say (like, I saw Casey's car all right, but the person who was in it was not her), then we might not see anything about this person in discovery.

Say hypothetically I was a searcher....if the defense calls me, even though I was never near the remains...

Do I have to answer them?

If they call you on the phone, no. If they call you to court using a subpoena, yes.

 

[lisalei321]

If they call you on the phone, no. If they call you to court using a subpoena, yes.

I'll just practice my hang up skills :banghead:

 

[ynotdivein]

I'll just practice my hang up skills :banghead:

If subpoenas are in the offing, hone your "answering the door" skills too lisa... :innocent:

Dear lawyers: I have read a number of comments on various threads to the effect of "Judge S is compelling KC to appear in court with her lawyers in part to prevent an ineffective counsel appeal down the line." These comments hearten me immensely. And yet it is glaringly apparent to most observers here that JBZ (not to be confused with our own illustrious JB) IS ineffective, today's hearing being but the latest example. Question: now that the funds are coming out of FL taxpayers' pockets, may there come a time before trial when JS can order JBZ off the case, or will we have to wait until he demonstrates ineptitude during the trial itself for such an event to occur? TIA!

 

[rhornsby]

If subpoenas are in the offing, hone your "answering the door" skills too lisa... :innocent:

Dear lawyers: I have read a number of comments on various threads to the effect of "Judge S is compelling KC to appear in court with her lawyers in part to prevent an ineffective counsel appeal down the line." These comments hearten me immensely. And yet it is glaringly apparent to most observers here that JBZ (not to be confused with our own illustrious JB) IS ineffective, today's hearing being but the latest example. Question: now that the funds are coming out of FL taxpayers' pockets, may there come a time before trial when JS can order JBZ off the case, or will we have to wait until he demonstrates ineptitude during the trial itself for such an event to occur? TIA!

Only Casey Anthony can fire Jose Baez.

 

[ynotdivein]

Only Casey Anthony can fire Jose Baez.

Then for heaven's sakes WHY HASN'T SHE YET? (Pretty sure I know the answer to this one, plus--objection: calls for speculation... but :banghead:.)

Thank you rhornsby. Good to see you 'round these parts.

 

[rhornsby]

just asking - is everyone that is answering questions on this thread a Lawyer?

No - but I slept at a Holiday Inn Express once.

 

[rhornsby]

Say hypothetically I was a searcher....if the defense calls me, even though I was never near the remains...

Do I have to answer them?

Yes you would.

 

[darnudes]

Hey Richard, are you going to write up a piece on today's hearing? Would love to get your thoughts on what went down today.

 

[ynotdivein]

If KC did decide to ditch Baez, how would that happen? Who would she notify, how would she signal this desire (letter to JS?), would there be a hearing before JS or would we just hear about it on the news one morning, etc--I guess I am wondering what that chain of events would look like from "the outside" IYKWIM.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

On Steph Watt's blog-radio show on Sunday night, Richard Hornsby said Casey has up until trial to confess, plead no contest, or any such dramatics. Also it was mentioned that it would be a huge turn of events if just before trial, or even during trial, Casey said Caylee died as the result of an accident, and she panicked (wrapping her in duct tape, stuffing her in garbage bags, dumping her in the woods!). Then if she gave a plausible explanation that coincided with the discovery the prosecution holds, they could accept that "confession" and it would be a grand show for Baez. There could be minor sentencing but no death penalty. (totally paraphrasing)

Baez has said from the early days of the case (although I haven't heard him say it lately) that Casey is innocent and he has proof, but we'll have to wait until trial to find out.

So my questions are:

Wouldn't that be a bad thing for an attorney to do, allow his client to wallow in jail for two and a half years before showing the proof of her innocence? Could he get into trouble for that? Go before an ethics committee? Be disbarred? Who would let their client rot in jail for that long, holding proof of her innocence just so he could be "hero" with a big dramatic ending (like Perry Mason) while costing everyone involved a great deal of money?

Even if Casey confessed before trial, or claimed it was an accident at trial or whenever, how would that make Baez appear competent? How would that make him hero of the day?

If he allowed this woman to sit in jail all this time while HE withheld evidence that could free her, I certainly wouldn't hire him as my attorney. See what I mean? What are the legal ramifications? TIA

 

[Lanie]

Baez said yesterday at the motion hearing all he needed was one juror and Casey would be acquitted. Is that true, or would that result in a mistrial?

 

[Hell's Belle]

Baez said yesterday at the motion hearing all he needed was one juror and Casey would be acquitted. Is that true, or would that result in a mistrial?

<snorts> Baez is confusing movies ("Twelve Angry Men") with reality. If one juror holds out for Casey's innocence, the result would be a mistrial. The state would then have the option to retry the case. In this situation I imagine it would.

 

[mom2chloe]

Would a change in the defense team require permission from the court? Would we be privy to any of this information under the Sunshine Laws?
TIA!

 

[ZsaZsa]

Baez said yesterday at the motion hearing all he needed was one juror and Casey would be acquitted. Is that true, or would that result in a mistrial?

I thought that Florida was one state that does not require unanimous verdicts?
Mr Hornsby, where are you?