Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[LetJusticePrevail]

CM didn't serve as lead counsel in the witness testimony on experts retained/% of work they've done thus far, etc.

I do not believe as much work has been done as JB asserts. I think the state would like to depose the experts and uncover the validity of the %'s of work done that JB testified to as well. Can JAC also depose these witnesses?

Wondered then if the fact CM didn't choose to state the case on the experts is because it affords some protection to his being disciplined if it's found JB lied. So net/net, does the fact CM didn't represent still leave the window open for discipline since he's a member of defense team?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it actually a sign of disrespect to call a Judge "Judge" instead of "Your Honor"? I have heard many attorneys use "Judge" with no problems...What is the difference if any?

It isn't a huge thing--just a little "familiar" and some judges in some courts might correct you. "Judge" is what I call judges in a social setting, just passing by in the court building, or poking my head into their offices to say, e.g., "Hi, Judge, just wanted to let you know I'm leaving the jury instruction disk on your JA's desk." "Your honor" is what I call them when they are sitting on the bench.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hey there legal eagles, my legal question is

When the state of Florida enlisted Dr. Vass as one of their experts, how much will Dr. Vass be paid? Will the amount be something similar to that which the JAC will allow for the defense?

My understanding is that the SA also goes through the JAC to get its experts paid, so I would be willing to bet they are operating under the same budget restrictions.

 

[AZlawyer]

Baez stated yesterday, he will write a motion in reference to JAC Chapter 119 rules are unconstitutional as they pertain to Inmate Anthony.

(I feel he's has a snowballs chance in heck to rewrite JAC's rules/regulations) How can he do this? This seems like a frivolous motion to me. He can motion to keep things sealed as they come up but will have no chance to change the rules/procedures just for Inmate Anthony..can sanctions be placed on him for wasteing the courts time?

TIA

JB needs to file these motions to "preserve the record." He isn't asking for the rules to be changed just for KC--he's saying they are unconstitutional in a range of circumstances, including hers. One day, the US Supreme Court might say that the rules are unconstitutional, but if no one makes the motion, it can never happen. In a death penalty case in particular, the defense is likely to file many motions that it does not expect to win, but must be filed "just in case."

 

[AZlawyer]

I have an opinion question.
Ja said something like this.

The body farm information was more important to us before we found the remains. It is not as important as it was before.

What do you think that means? I would think that the body farm information would be very important to their case if they are going to lay out exactly what happened. This would include the 2.6 days in the trunk, which would cause the smell.

Or, they found something at the remains site that says the body was never in the trunk?

I think he means that the Body Farm info was very important to proving that Caylee was dead in the first place. Now, there is zero question about whether Caylee is dead. Step one in a homicide prosecution is to prove that someone actually died.

I think he also means that, even without the Body Farm evidence, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing toward Casey as the murderer, including other trunk evidence, as follows:

The fact that Caylee's complete disappearance as of June 16 coincided exactly with Casey's sudden decision to leave home and avoid her parents, taking with her nothing that Caylee would need for long-term care.

Casey's statements regarding a fake nanny and her many fake residences and fake relatives, the fake people "helping her search," Caylee's July 15 phone call and other fake phone calls, etc.

The fact that Casey was generally HAPPY and was even described as "annoyingly" happy and "giddy" between June 16 and July 15, and even said in an IM to her friend Iassen that it was the first time she had felt happy "in a long time." (How long is a long time? About 2 years maybe?)

Decomp hair in the trunk; horrible smell of dead body in the trunk; Casey's knowledge that the smell was the smell of something dead, as indicated by her statements and texts to Amy.

Duct tape over the mouth and nasal apertures of the skull, of the same brand as duct tape used by the A. family during that time period.

Use of a laundry bag and a blanket from the home to dispose of the body, and trash bags consistent with those found in the home.

Forensic evidence (botany, etc.) as to the length of time the body was in the swampy area.

 

[AZlawyer]

Caylee was last seen getting into that car. No one saw her alive after that. Before the body was found the decomp in the trunk was the only evidence that Caylee was dead.The defense was claiming Caylee was alive ,therefore KC could not have killed her. Once the body was found the trunk decomp became less important .
What I would like to ask the lawyers is if it makes strategic sense to dispute everything? The body wasn't thereThere is no proven cause of death..The duct tape doesn't match.That's not decomp in the trunk. RK is suspicious.JG is suspicious.
If thje defense is going for SODDI,why dispute the duct tape as a cause of death?If going with accident why dispute the decomp in the car?Wouldn't it be better for the defense to pick one and try to prove it? Otherwise it's the spaghetti defense.

In a death penalty case, most lawyers feel obligated to try the "spaghetti defense" to avoid later armchair quarterbacking and allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. My personal opinion is that it often backfires as a strategy, as you suggested. In my last trial, I was representing the plaintiff in a legal malpractice case. The defense of the attorney (defendant) was: "I wasn't even their lawyer. And if I was, I didn't even talk to them about this lawsuit. And if I did, I didn't give them any advice. And if I did give them advice, it was correct advice. And if my advice was wrong, they would never have followed the right advice anyway. And if I had given the right advice and they had followed it, they would have lost anyway. And if they would have won, they would actually have been worse off because they would have saved their business, which was actually worth a negative amount of money." Hmmm yeah...the jury didn't buy it.

 

[AZlawyer]

When JP took the defense attorneys to the side to discuss the expert JB didn't want to reveal, could this be considered, in fact, an ex parte, in camera meeting? Why did the State not object? And is there any way to find out if the expert was accepted or not? TIA

Yep. That was ex parte all right. I didn't see that part of the hearing--did the SA not say anything at all when JB asked to present the information in private? My guess is that JP and the SA are preserving whatever secrecy JB has asked for until JP has a chance to rule on the defense motion to keep penalty phase witnesses (and experts) secret for now. If the information had already been discussed in open court, it would make the motion moot before JP even got to consider it.

I don't think we've seen the order from this hearing yet. There should be some reference to the private conference with the defense. And if the order doesn't say whether the expert was accepted or not, how will the JAC know whether to pay that expert? Seems to me that there will have to be an order one way or another.

 

[Spangle]

Since JB has stated the experts have completed about 50%-60% of the work, does that mean the State will be paying for the remaining 50%-40% of the work, or the whole 100%???

I ask this, because it seemed like the conversation was about saving money, by continuing to use folks who are almost done.. compared to starting over. The issue was about the money, not time.

 

[AZlawyer]

CM didn't serve as lead counsel in the witness testimony on experts retained/% of work they've done thus far, etc.

I do not believe as much work has been done as JB asserts. I think the state would like to depose the experts and uncover the validity of the %'s of work done that JB testified to as well. Can JAC also depose these witnesses?

Wondered then if the fact CM didn't choose to state the case on the experts is because it affords some protection to his being disciplined if it's found JB lied. So net/net, does the fact CM didn't represent still leave the window open for discipline since he's a member of defense team?

No one is going to go back and investigate how much work the experts have done so far. That hearing is over. Also, JB would not be pursued by the Bar for saying "60% of the work is done" or whatever he said, because that's such a vague assertion that it can't really be demonstrated to be false.

I think CM didn't lead the hearing on this issue because he's new to the case and has no real idea of what the defense experts have done thus far.

 

[AZlawyer]

Since JB has stated the experts have completed about 50%-60% of the work, does that mean the State will be paying for the remaining 50%-40% of the work, or the whole 100%???

I ask this, because it seemed like the conversation was about saving money, by continuing to use folks who are almost done.. compared to starting over. The issue was about the money, not time.

Good question. I don't think the experts can bill for anything that was done prior to KC being declared indigent. Presumably, KC already paid them for that work, and that's why her money has run out. That said, I would not fall over in my chair from shock if it ultimately turned out that some of the experts "post-dated" some of their unpaid work to a day or two after the indigency finding was made.

 

[Riley1833]

Yep. That was ex parte all right. I didn't see that part of the hearing--did the SA not say anything at all when JB asked to present the information in private? My guess is that JP and the SA are preserving whatever secrecy JB has asked for until JP has a chance to rule on the defense motion to keep penalty phase witnesses (and experts) secret for now. If the information had already been discussed in open court, it would make the motion moot before JP even got to consider it.

I don't think we've seen the order from this hearing yet. There should be some reference to the private conference with the defense. And if the order doesn't say whether the expert was accepted or not, how will the JAC know whether to pay that expert? Seems to me that there will have to be an order one way or another.

AZ, thank you so much for answering this. SO I guess we wait to see the order.

 

[Blaise]

How are Florida judges appointed to the bench? Appointed or elected by the voters?

Blaise (I know this has probably been asked / answered a million times. I'm sorry. Also, I know that a simple google would tell me, but I like to watch AZLawyer talk.)

 

[wonders]

The defense has placed this motion:
05-06-2010 Motion
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Certain Prior Rulings by Disqualified Judge


Can the defense also ask for a new bond hearing?

 

[AZlawyer]

How are Florida judges appointed to the bench? Appointed or elected by the voters?

Blaise (I know this has probably been asked / answered a million times. I'm sorry. Also, I know that a simple google would tell me, but I like to watch AZLawyer talk.)

At the trial court level, they are elected.

The defense has placed this motion:
05-06-2010 Motion
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Certain Prior Rulings by Disqualified Judge


Can the defense also ask for a new bond hearing?

They could--but if they were going to, I think it would have been included in this Motion for Reconsideration.

 

[ZsaZsa]

When JP took the defense attorneys to the side to discuss the expert JB didn't want to reveal, could this be considered, in fact, an ex parte, in camera meeting? Why did the State not object? And is there any way to find out if the expert was accepted or not? TIA

I only saw a sidebar - the Judge then talked to all of the Attorneys for quite a few minutes- at what point in the hearing did he talk to the Defense Attys alone?

 

[Patriciao]

Dear Attorneys,
I love you all! I'm a new regular to WS so please forgive me if this question has already been asked.
All of KCs attorneys are now pro bono. My question is how many hours will Jose Baez have to put in on this case a week and not get paid? Figuring he has a family to support, it must be hard to have the old income cut into. Do most pro bono attorneys do pro bono work because they do not need income they would normally receive and are hoping for a bigger pay-off down the road like a book or movie deal? Is this why attorneys charge such huge fees per hour? I.E., get their money while they have a paying customer because pro bono work may come along. I hope I haven't offended any attorneys with these questions.:blowkiss:

 

[rotterdam]

Question;
Since the defense did get a considerable amount of experts approved, will the prosecution/state be forced to secure an equal amount of experts trained in the same disciplines?

 

[faefrost]

I have a question about the defenses refiled request for GA's Grand Jury transcripts. Is this normal? Is this something that is normally ever released if the defense has a living breathing and coherrant witness to depose?

 

[AZlawyer]

Dear Attorneys,
I love you all! I'm a new regular to WS so please forgive me if this question has already been asked.
All of KCs attorneys are now pro bono. My question is how many hours will Jose Baez have to put in on this case a week and not get paid? Figuring he has a family to support, it must be hard to have the old income cut into. Do most pro bono attorneys do pro bono work because they do not need income they would normally receive and are hoping for a bigger pay-off down the road like a book or movie deal? Is this why attorneys charge such huge fees per hour? I.E., get their money while they have a paying customer because pro bono work may come along. I hope I haven't offended any attorneys with these questions.:blowkiss:

He will have to put in as many hours as it takes to defend a death penalty case competently (which is more hours than he has put in thus far). Most attorneys do pro bono work, but not on giant cases that will take most of their time for a year or longer. Baez must believe that the fame is worth it. Most attorneys do pro bono work because it makes them feel good and is the right thing to do. The amount of pro bono work done does not normally figure into the fees on other cases, because it is not normally a huge percentage of your work.

Question;
Since the defense did get a considerable amount of experts approved, will the prosecution/state be forced to secure an equal amount of experts trained in the same disciplines?

They'd better.

I have a question about the defenses refiled request for GA's Grand Jury transcripts. Is this normal? Is this something that is normally ever released if the defense has a living breathing and coherrant witness to depose?

Normally this would not be released, unless the witness said something contradictory in his GJ testimony and someone wants to impeach him with that testimony.

 

[beach]

I only saw a sidebar - the Judge then talked to all of the Attorneys for quite a few minutes- at what point in the hearing did he talk to the Defense Attys alone?

Chiming in for a quick sec -

I recall it exactly like ZsaZsa. For the record, the State DID object to the ex parte. Baez was so vague when asked by JP 2-3 times to 'give him a hint' - Baez replied that he really couldn't do that. It was at that point when JP summoned ALL attorneys to the sidebar. Immediately after the sidebar, was when the defense made the motion in open court that KC be allowed to waive her right to attend future hearings. I was left with the impression that it really wasn't an 'expert' at all JB wanted to discuss in camera, - that the motion being discussed at sidebar was about KC being allowed to waive her right to attend future hearings.


I could be totally wrong, but the reason I was led to believe that is because JP never granted or denied in open court the defense ex parte request.

Whatcha think, WS attorneys?