Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Kathy1964]

I see Judge P has ordered the JAC to approve some transcripts the defense wants. Does the defense have to submit every request thru the judge, or only if JAC does not approve JBs direct request to them? Surely the judge does not have to review and approve every thing JB submits to JAC?
Thanks,
Katharine

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...der for Motion for Transcription Services.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

Will the Anthonys be able to revoke their waiver of conflict, due to only signing it under duress aka in exchange for their attorney being able to review the TES documents?

If so, would that lead to MN being removed as TES counsel due to a conflict of interest that would then be current (as in not waived)?

Well, it wouldn't be "duress," but if that actually happened it might have been an unethical conflict waiver, which could be undone. Do we know if it actually happened?

I'm not entirely convinced there was a conflict of interest anyway, so it might not matter one way or the other.

I see Judge P has ordered the JAC to approve some transcripts the defense wants. Does the defense have to submit every request thru the judge, or only if JAC does not approve JBs direct request to them? Surely the judge does not have to review and approve every thing JB submits to JAC?
Thanks,
Katharine

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...der for Motion for Transcription Services.pdf

There's a specific rule about transcripts having to be pre-approved by the judge.

 

[logicalgirl]

Any comments or insights you'd like to give us on the TES files motion released today?

 

[tragco]

My understanding is that the prosecution requested a gag order but the defense fought it.

Now, the defense requests a gag order. As a regular gal with no understanding of the law, this seems completely ridiculous!

Indeed, that was a while back though. Can the defense propose this motion with no reference or concern to any previous requests? Would the Judge frown upon such an about-face? OR:

Will the previous filings be a non-issue because of changes in the case? Something the Judge would not even consider?

Thanks in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

My understanding is that the prosecution requested a gag order but the defense fought it.

Now, the defense requests a gag order. As a regular gal with no understanding of the law, this seems completely ridiculous!

Indeed, that was a while back though. Can the defense propose this motion with no reference or concern to any previous requests? Would the Judge frown upon such an about-face? OR:

Will the previous filings be a non-issue because of changes in the case? Something the Judge would not even consider?

Thanks in advance!

The defense has not requested a gag order. The defense has requested...well...it's not exactly clear lol, but I think the defense has requested an exemption from the Sunshine Laws on the grounds that...um...something about the constitution. :waitasec: A gag order has to do with preventing the attorneys from chatting about the case; this defense request has to do with preventing the media from learning about the case.

 

[LinasK]

General question for any of the lawyers here: Based on a case I saw on "Snapped", what happens if a conviction is obtained, but then it is overturned by an Appeals/Supreme Court (in this case it was for improperly admitted evidence)? Does the perp. get set free? Can they be tried again???

 

[AZlawyer]

General question for any of the lawyers here: Based on a case I saw on "Snapped", what happens if a conviction is obtained, but then it is overturned by an Appeals/Supreme Court (in this case it was for improperly admitted evidence)? Does the perp. get set free? Can they be tried again???

Yes, there could be a retrial if CA is convicted but the conviction is reversed on appeal.

 

[Kentjbkent]

My question is in regards to Baez filing of yesterday in regards to media...

The document refers to Casey Anthony filing a "Notice of Objection" as opposed to "Motion to...."

So what is the difference? In another thread, it was speculated that this filing is NOT actually a "motion" but just Baez filing an "objection" to what the media is doing? But in last paragraph, he does sum up and state he "moves" Judge Perry to state Casey rights supercede 1st amendment rights?

Is this an issue that Perry will actually grant or deny....or just revognize (that Baez is objecting)..

Is this making sense?

 

[nums24]

Murder Docket Updated:

08/25/2010 Notice of Appearance on Behalf of George Anthony

08/25/2010 Notice of Appearance on Behalf of Cynthia Anthony

Why would the Anthony's or an attorney file this on their behalf?

 

[ThinkTank]

Murder Docket Updated:

08/25/2010 Notice of Appearance on Behalf of George Anthony

08/25/2010 Notice of Appearance on Behalf of Cynthia Anthony

Why would the Anthony's or an attorney file this on their behalf?

That is my question too Nums! The Anthonys are not a party in the murder case!
Does every witness who will testify at trial, need to have an attorney file a Notice of Appearance?

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is in regards to Baez filing of yesterday in regards to media...

The document refers to Casey Anthony filing a "Notice of Objection" as opposed to "Motion to...."

So what is the difference? In another thread, it was speculated that this filing is NOT actually a "motion" but just Baez filing an "objection" to what the media is doing? But in last paragraph, he does sum up and state he "moves" Judge Perry to state Casey rights supercede 1st amendment rights?

Is this an issue that Perry will actually grant or deny....or just revognize (that Baez is objecting)..

Is this making sense?

Well, I don't know how they do things in Florida. But I don't think JB does either lol. :angel:

I think these "Notices of Objection" are the same as "Motion for Something I Know You'll Deny, Judge, But I Want to Make the Argument on Appeal So Here It Is Anyway."

 

[Kentjbkent]

AZ.....

Any opinion as to why CA and GA new attorneys have filed a Notice of Appearance (on Behalf of....) in Casey's case????

EDIT TO ADD SECOND QUESTION....

Or opinion as to why they each seem to have a separate attorney (but both attorneys are with the same firm?)

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ.....

Any opinion as to why CA and GA new attorneys have filed a Notice of Appearance (on Behalf of....) in Casey's case????

EDIT TO ADD SECOND QUESTION....

Or opinion as to why they each seem to have a separate attorney (but both attorneys are with the same firm?)

I'm not sure why they seem to think they're parties to the criminal case. Remember when Cindy stood up and objected to the judge's ruling early on?? :waitasec:

Are you sure they have separate attorneys? I haven't seen the actual notices. It would make no sense at all to have separate attorneys from the same firm--separate attorneys would normally mean a conflict of interest, but if they are from the same firm the conflict would still exist.

As far as having 2 attorneys from the same firm, I can't think of a single case in which my 3-person firm hasn't had at least 2 of us appear.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I'm not sure why they seem to think they're parties to the criminal case. Remember when Cindy stood up and objected to the judge's ruling early on?? :waitasec:

Are you sure they have separate attorneys? I haven't seen the actual notices. It would make no sense at all to have separate attorneys from the same firm--separate attorneys would normally mean a conflict of interest, but if they are from the same firm the conflict would still exist.

As far as having 2 attorneys from the same firm, I can't think of a single case in which my 3-person firm hasn't had at least 2 of us appear.

In reply to your questions...

Yes, I recall Cindy standing up to object and I am suspecting this is what the NOA are all about...I am thinking Cindy thinks she has the right to interject and object to Baez recent "Notice of Objection" and plans to have these attorneys address JP at next court appearance (in support of Baez), but don't think it is going to fly with Judge Perry, do you?

Yes, they are separate attorneys...filed separate NOA...one on behalf of George Anthony, one on behalf of Cindy Anthony... BOTH attorneys work for Lippman Law Firm.

According to FL Bar website, Mark Lippman is managing partner of Lippman Law Firm and firm size is 2 - 5 so I am thinking it might just be Mark Lippman and Jennifer Craddock....

BTW....Jennifer Craddock appears to be relatively new attorney. Graduated law school in 2005, admitted to Bar in 2006

 

[Kentjbkent]

One other question....

Could you expound on what the exact purpose and intention of filing of Notice of Appearances are?

Am I correct in my assumption that a Notice of Appearance filed with the court by an attorney is a record keeping of attorneys who intend to address the court and judge in a particular case in the very new future?

In other words, a NOP is NOT JUST notice that a particular attorney has been retained by someone affliliated with a particular case...for example, the retained attorney of a witness? If such attorney is representing and advising a client who is a witness, but has said attorney has NO INTENTION of addressing the court during hearing or trial, there would be no purpose in filing a NOP in the defendant's case, correct?

I stumbled across a very lengthy list of all the attorneys associated with this case (list inclusive of all witnesses, interviewees, etc) and only THREE had filed a NOA, but those three DID address JS during a hearing.....

Would this also be why Jose Garcia never filed a NOA, nor was required to file a Withdrawal of Counsel when he left the Baez Law Firm? To my knowledge, he never actually spoke in open court?

(BTW...Jose Garcia and Mark Lippman are both "friends" of Baez on his facebook <smile>)

 

[beach]

In reply to your questions...

Yes, I recall Cindy standing up to object and I am suspecting this is what the NOA are all about...I am thinking Cindy thinks she has the right to interject and object to Baez recent "Notice of Objection" and plans to have these attorneys address JP at next court appearance (in support of Baez), but don't think it is going to fly with Judge Perry, do you?

Yes, they are separate attorneys...filed separate NOA...one on behalf of George Anthony, one on behalf of Cindy Anthony... BOTH attorneys work for Lippman Law Firm.

According to FL Bar website, Mark Lippman is managing partner of Lippman Law Firm and firm size is 2 - 5 so I am thinking it might just be Mark Lippman and Jennifer Craddock....

BTW....Jennifer Craddock appears to be relatively new attorney. Graduated law school in 2005, admitted to Bar in 2006

Have we seen the actual notices of appearance yet? I am not convinced that Cindy & George actually have separate counsel. I've never filed a joint appearance (including both attorneys on one notice, I always file separate notices) but I guess it can be done. I totally agree with AZ that it would be a conflict if 2 attorneys from one small firm (2-5) represented them individually. That is playing with fire.

As far as them addressing Judge Perry, they would not be allowed to do that at the status hearing on Aug. 30th. I really am thinking they filed these notices just to interject themselves into this case. Put their names on the record, so to speak.

 

[AZlawyer]

In reply to your questions...

Yes, I recall Cindy standing up to object and I am suspecting this is what the NOA are all about...I am thinking Cindy thinks she has the right to interject and object to Baez recent "Notice of Objection" and plans to have these attorneys address JP at next court appearance (in support of Baez), but don't think it is going to fly with Judge Perry, do you?

Yes, they are separate attorneys...filed separate NOA...one on behalf of George Anthony, one on behalf of Cindy Anthony... BOTH attorneys work for Lippman Law Firm.

According to FL Bar website, Mark Lippman is managing partner of Lippman Law Firm and firm size is 2 - 5 so I am thinking it might just be Mark Lippman and Jennifer Craddock....

BTW....Jennifer Craddock appears to be relatively new attorney. Graduated law school in 2005, admitted to Bar in 2006

One other question....

Could you expound on what the exact purpose and intention of filing of Notice of Appearances are?

Am I correct in my assumption that a Notice of Appearance filed with the court by an attorney is a record keeping of attorneys who intend to address the court and judge in a particular case in the very new future?

In other words, a NOP is NOT JUST notice that a particular attorney has been retained by someone affliliated with a particular case...for example, the retained attorney of a witness? If such attorney is representing and advising a client who is a witness, but has said attorney has NO INTENTION of addressing the court during hearing or trial, there would be no purpose in filing a NOP in the defendant's case, correct?

I stumbled across a very lengthy list of all the attorneys associated with this case (list inclusive of all witnesses, interviewees, etc) and only THREE had filed a NOA, but those three DID address JS during a hearing.....

Would this also be why Jose Garcia never filed a NOA, nor was required to file a Withdrawal of Counsel when he left the Baez Law Firm? To my knowledge, he never actually spoke in open court?

(BTW...Jose Garcia and Mark Lippman are both "friends" of Baez on his facebook <smile>)

There's normally no point in filing a Notice of Appearance unless you plan to file/respond to a motion or make a statement on behalf of your client in court. But I suppose another goal could be to get the media to write a story on "the Anthony's new lawyers."

The filing of separate Notices of Appearance for CA and GA does not mean that they have separate lawyers. The notices could say: (1) Lawyer X and Lawyer Y hereby appear on behalf of CA, and (2) Lawyer X and Lawyer Y hereby appear on behalf of GA. If one of the lawyers is a "newbie," then it is even more likely that the 2 lawyers are appearing together as counsel for CA and GA.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Have we seen the actual notices of appearance yet? I am not convinced that Cindy & George actually have separate counsel. I've never filed a joint appearance (including both attorneys on one notice, I always file separate notices) but I guess it can be done. I totally agree with AZ that it would be a conflict if 2 attorneys from one small firm (2-5) represented them individually. That is playing with fire.

As far as them addressing Judge Perry, they would not be allowed to do that at the status hearing on Aug. 30th. I really am thinking they filed these notices just to interject themselves into this case. Put their names on the record, so to speak.

I don't think we have seen the actual Notice of Appearance records yet (although I haven't looked online today yet to see if anyone got copies and posted them)..

But they are reflected on the court docket on the OC Clerk of Court website...

One entry which states "Notice of Appearance on Behalf of CIndy Anthony"

One (additional) entry which states "Notice of Appearance on Behalf of George Anthony"

So could be possible that the ANthonys do not have SEPARATE attorneys, but that the two attorneys from the same law firm filed a SEPARATE NOA...one for George and one for Cindy???..

 

[beach]

I don't think we have seen the actual Notice of Appearance records yet (although I haven't looked online today yet to see if anyone got copies and posted them)..

But they are reflected on the court docket on the OC Clerk of Court website...

One entry which states "Notice of Appearance on Behalf of CIndy Anthony"

One (additional) entry which states "Notice of Appearance on Behalf of George Anthony"

So could be possible that the ANthonys do not have SEPARATE attorneys, but that the two attorneys from the same law firm filed a SEPARATE NOA...one for George and one for Cindy???..

bbm

Exactly. AZ explained it perfectly. I think this is what we are going to see when the notices are published.

The filing of separate Notices of Appearance for CA and GA does not mean that they have separate lawyers. The notices could say: (1) Lawyer X and Lawyer Y hereby appear on behalf of CA, and (2) Lawyer X and Lawyer Y hereby appear on behalf of GA. If one of the lawyers is a "newbie," then it is even more likely that the 2 lawyers are appearing together as counsel for CA and GA.

*snipped*, bbm

 

[Kentjbkent]

There's normally no point in filing a Notice of Appearance unless you plan to file/respond to a motion or make a statement on behalf of your client in court. But I suppose another goal could be to get the media to write a story on "the Anthony's new lawyers."

The filing of separate Notices of Appearance for CA and GA does not mean that they have separate lawyers. The notices could say: (1) Lawyer X and Lawyer Y hereby appear on behalf of CA, and (2) Lawyer X and Lawyer Y hereby appear on behalf of GA. If one of the lawyers is a "newbie," then it is even more likely that the 2 lawyers are appearing together as counsel for CA and GA.

Which brings us back to the question of why Lippman and associate have filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Anthonys in Casey's criminal trial...

Let's review the last few days...

On 8/24/10 Baez files his Notice of Objection in regards to the media

On 8/25/10, a Notice of Appearance is filed by the attorney(s) on behalf of Cindy and George Anthony, victims of the crime against their granddaughter.

On 8/25/10 Cindy Anthony emails local media concerning the "charity/shoe issue", immediately creating a firestorm against the founder of the charity.

On 8/26/10 the founder of charity speaks out on behalf of charity, disassociating with Cindy Anthony, but also mentioning the mass of "hateful emails and phone calls" from "protestors"

On 8/26/10, Cindy Anthony again emails media with her "explanation" of wanting to only help charity (re: insert Cindy the victim again story here)

So is it possible, from a legal standpoint, that all these incidents over last few days are completely related and planned in advance?

Is it possible that Lippman is going to use this latest incident with the media involving Cindy (with Cindy spin of course) in order to try and lend credence to Baez motion, under the guise of the media not only harassing ICA, but also the victims grandparents, Cindy and George Anthony????

Imagine this:

"Your honor, I am here today to speak on behalf of the grandparents of Caylee Anthony who are also victims in this crime, but are continually being victimized yet again by the media surrounding this case. As an example, my client recently attempted to assist a charitable children's organization....." and so on...

Possible? Just got me thinking after receiving link in google alert to 48 Hours Mystery website and now they are reporting on this charity issue....weren't the Anthonys working in conjunction with 48 Hours?

Casey Anthony Update: Charity Distances Itself from Family After Offer to Donate Caylee's Shoes

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20014789-504083.html