Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[LiveLaughLuv]

Yes, he was told, he cannot change the law and it was a Federal issue...but Baez is still persistant as you see, he did get his wishes to all 4000 TES searchers...I guess, if he asks enough times, he feels the judge will give in...JMHO

In this last motion, he included the news article from WESH on the crackers and cheese purchase and her account that was in a deficit....no case law, newspaper articles...Geesh...he is a stubborn little man, isn't he???

Justice for Caylee

 

[AZlawyer]

I am curious about something....

I've lost count, but I do believe this is at least the 3rd time Baez has voiced the objection about the release of jail info (visitors, commissary purchases, etc...). Judge Perry has told him at least once that he has no jurisdiction over the jail and that he needs to include them on the notice of service. Still, not once has he done that. Even this last objection does not include the jail on the certificate of service.

I realize this standing objection is basically for the record and appellate reasons. My question is, how can it help him on appeal if he never once noticed proper authority?

I agree, he will have trouble on appeal if HHJP says that the motions were never sent to the proper parties.

 

[Paintr]

If the defendent, after trial, appeals claiming that their lawyer was incompetent, does the lawyer get to defend himself? Can the lawyer offer proof to deny the accusations or does the appeals court just review the trial records without any input from either party?

Also, do lawyers get a signed document from their client stating the client's choices (ie refusal to plea, agreement/disagreement with defense tactics?) Is every move the defense team makes, approved of ,in writing, by the defendant?

TYK in advance for your answer.

 

[Macushla]

What would happen if JB or CM violated one of the Judge's orders? Let's say that after getting the names of 10 TES volunteers after going through the files, JB or CM talk to the press and say something along the lines of we have spoken to John Doe and he has no additional information for us. Or, we have tried to contact Jane Doe but she refuses to cooperate? HHJP did say they were not to release names directly or indirectly to the media.

If the violation was serious enough, what kind of sanctions could or would the Judge levy, if any. Would it be a slap on the wrist - don't do this again, or something more like a monetary fine?

I am curious as to how something like this would be handled.

 

[logicalgirl]

Can you review for us what would be considered ineffective counsel? A lot of posters seem to be worried about this but my understanding is that the bar for it is pretty low. A lawyer can do a poor job, but a poor job is not necessarily considered ineffective.
ICA has been asked several times if she is satisfied with her representation. If or when she is found guilty, can she just change her mind and decide Baez was ineffective, or does he need to show up consistently drunk or be asleep during the trial - :waitasec: Can you clarify or even give examples of what would be considered ineffective?

 

[pip]

Can anyone answer this? How can the defense list Kronk's lawyer as a witness? And, any speculation on why they have?

 

[Marshmallow]

The motion is not to muzzle the media. It is to stop the media from getting access to public records. (All of them? Some of them? Who knows? :waitasec

I don't see how this motion can be granted. It contains no citation to any authority that would allow HHJP to suspend the Sunshine Laws just for Princess Casey.

can proof of the realease of specific items, by the defense, directly to the media sometimes before they're even filed w/ the court be used to combat Mr Baez's motion?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the defendent, after trial, appeals claiming that their lawyer was incompetent, does the lawyer get to defend himself? Can the lawyer offer proof to deny the accusations or does the appeals court just review the trial records without any input from either party?

Also, do lawyers get a signed document from their client stating the client's choices (ie refusal to plea, agreement/disagreement with defense tactics?) Is every move the defense team makes, approved of ,in writing, by the defendant?

TYK in advance for your answer.

The lawyer does not get to defend himself, because he is not a party to the post-conviction proceeding. But the court will get lots of input from the parties (i.e., the defendant through new counsel and the SA). The SA, ironically, will be the one arguing that the defense counsel did a great job.

I doubt that the defense is documenting KC's agreement with every strategic decision. A good defense lawyer would, however, document a client's decision to reject a plea deal that the lawyer had advised the client to take. Notice that I said a GOOD defense lawyer....

What would happen if JB or CM violated one of the Judge's orders? Let's say that after getting the names of 10 TES volunteers after going through the files, JB or CM talk to the press and say something along the lines of we have spoken to John Doe and he has no additional information for us. Or, we have tried to contact Jane Doe but she refuses to cooperate? HHJP did say they were not to release names directly or indirectly to the media.

If the violation was serious enough, what kind of sanctions could or would the Judge levy, if any. Would it be a slap on the wrist - don't do this again, or something more like a monetary fine?

I am curious as to how something like this would be handled.

Judges have wide latitude in dealing with these situations. The worst sanction I've seen for a violation like the one you describe was an order requiring the attorney to pay a $25,000 fine and do 25 hours of pro bono work.

Can you review for us what would be considered ineffective counsel? A lot of posters seem to be worried about this but my understanding is that the bar for it is pretty low. A lawyer can do a poor job, but a poor job is not necessarily considered ineffective.
ICA has been asked several times if she is satisfied with her representation. If or when she is found guilty, can she just change her mind and decide Baez was ineffective, or does he need to show up consistently drunk or be asleep during the trial - :waitasec: Can you clarify or even give examples of what would be considered ineffective?

To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that her attorney's representation fell below some reasonable standard AND that, as a result, the outcome of the case was worse for the defendant (e.g., she was found guilty instead of not guilty, or sentenced to death instead of life). One example here could be if the SA made a plea offer at the start of the case and JB gave KC bad advice that caused her to reject the offer. Other examples might be failing to present important exculpatory evidence, making admissions or giving up defenses without a good strategic reason, etc.

The fact that the defendant said she was happy with her counsel is pretty much meaningless. Obviously, the defendant is not a lawyer and is not in any position to know whether her counsel is acting effectively. She is not required to second-guess her attorneys.

Can anyone answer this? How can the defense list Kronk's lawyer as a witness? And, any speculation on why they have?

I have no idea! What can he possibly know that isn't privileged information? :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

can proof of the realease of specific items, by the defense, directly to the media sometimes before they're even filed w/ the court be used to combat Mr Baez's motion?

No, Baez isn't releasing the kind of records he's complaining about; he's releasing his own court filings. Besides, he'll say that he has to communicate with the media to minimize the damage caused by HHJP's unreasonable refusal to grant his client an exception from the Sunshine Laws.

 

[ThinkTank]

Can anyone answer this? How can the defense list Kronk's lawyer as a witness? And, any speculation on why they have?

Can JB put Kronk's attorney on the witness stand and ask him if he tried to prevent Leonard P. (by threatening to sue him) or other anti-Kronk witnesses from saying what they claim to know about Kronk? That would not be attorney/client privilege area would it?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can JB put Kronk's attorney on the witness stand and ask him if he tried to prevent Leonard P. (by threatening to sue him) or other anti-Kronk witnesses from saying what they claim to know about Kronk? That would not be attorney/client privilege area would it?

I don't see how this would make Kronk's attorney a witness at trial. No lawsuit threat would prevent JB from subpoenaing his "anti-Kronk" witnesses for a deposition or excuse them from answering questions. (There are ways to subpoena an out-of-state witness for a deposition--JB would probably have to get an order from HHJP and file a motion in the other state).

I suspect Kronk said something at his deposition that JB thinks "opened the door" to making his attorney a witness. I can't think of anything specifically he might have said, though.

Either that, or JB is just being a smarta$$ because Kronk's attorney has stated publicly that his client had nothing to do with Caylee's death. So JB says, "Oh really? Do you know that personally? Are you a witness?" If that's the case, JB will never really call Kronk's attorney as a witness. (And of course we could ask the same questions about statements JB made about KC's innocence.)

 

[Horace Finklestein]

My question is - IF Baez magically got his wish and all of the jail visits/snack purchases/letters etc were sealed, would it make any difference in the case? Why does he worry so much about something so minor? He is more fixated on that than anything else and it makes no sense to me!

 

[Paintr]

My question is - IF Baez magically got his wish and all of the jail visits/snack purchases/letters etc were sealed, would it make any difference in the case? Why does he worry so much about something so minor? He is more fixated on that than anything else and it makes no sense to me!

IMHO Mr Baez (like CA) has a thing about winning and proving his point. He is determined, as he was with the TES records, to have his own way. Since he finds the reporting on KC snacks offensive, he is not going to let it go untill he can announce to the media that he has 'won'.

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is - IF Baez magically got his wish and all of the jail visits/snack purchases/letters etc were sealed, would it make any difference in the case? Why does he worry so much about something so minor? He is more fixated on that than anything else and it makes no sense to me!

IMO Baez is trying to fill the case record with dozens of tiny little issues he knows he'll lose on, so he can toss them all into an appellate brief down the road.

 

[Murdock]

If KC is convicted and appeals saying that the Sunshine Law made it impossible for her to get a fair trial, and she wins that appeal, what happens next? Would the state have to overturn their Sunshine Law, & what would happen to all the evidence that was already released to the public?

 

[Paintr]

IMO Baez is trying to fill the case record with dozens of tiny little issues he knows he'll lose on, so he can toss them all into an appellate brief down the road.

Would that work?

 

[Sun]

I fail to see how Baez can complain about letters sent to his client not turned over by the State in a timely manner. Afterall, Casey would have them, and if SHE didn't provide them to Baez, then how would that be a violation of Casey's rights?

 

[Katprint]

IMO Baez is trying to fill the case record with dozens of tiny little issues he knows he'll lose on, so he can toss them all into an appellate brief down the road.

Alternatively, Baez may be responding to his client's demands concerning prioritization, and Casey's concerns are very superficial. How can Casey feel "pretty" if everyone sees her back acne in the Belle Vita tattoo photos? How can Casey convince her mother that she has a constant lump in her throat to the point where she can't swallow and hasn't been eating anything, when Casey's commissary log shows her regularly ordering munchies and Casey's letters to other inmates describe how Casey enjoys eating those munchies (as opposed to, say, trading them for protection from a jail bully)?

So, Baez spins his wheels focusing his time and energy on trying to get the judge to gag the jail (but not the Anthonys or himself) instead of taking care of the REAL business like all those pesky depositions and finding some favorable defense experts. Casey's snack preferences aren't going to matter at all when the jury is picked. The jury isn't going to consist of folks who follow the case and read Casey's commissary selections; it will consist of people like my brother-in-law whose news consumption consists of watching sports on ESPN. But Baez has his marching orders from Casey and to keep her happy - and to keep himself in the spotlight as her "lead" attorney - he marches along to the rhythm of her drum.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Katprint]

I fail to see how Baez can complain about letters sent to his client not turned over by the State in a timely manner. Afterall, Casey would have them, and if SHE didn't provide them to Baez, then how would that be a violation of Casey's rights?

I am not asserting that the State failed to turn over the letters in a timely manner.

However, to answer your question, let's assume that the State had failed to turn over the letters in a timely manner. Casey may have written the letters (more about that in a moment) but there is no evidence that she had a duplicate copy of them. Thus Casey could not provide a copy of those letters to Baez. Certainly Baez is entitled to know the content of the letters, in order to meaningfully "confront" this evidence against his client.

Additionally, sometimes jail/prison inmates are not the most honest and trustworthy of people. It is not impossible that an inmate might claim to have letters or other communications from Casey, but the letters turn out to be forgeries and/or the communications turn out not to have occurred. Again, Baez is entitled to an independent inspection and evaluation of the letters' authenticity to meaningfully "confront" this evidence against his client. If the letters turned out to be forgeries then their content would be completely irrelevant and the letters would be inadmissible.

Thus, assuming the State had failed to turn over the letters in a timely manner, Casey's rights (as well as the statutory reciprocal discovery rules) would have been violated and her defense would have been prejudiced.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[logicalgirl]

Alternatively, Baez may be responding to his client's demands concerning prioritization, and Casey's concerns are very superficial. How can Casey feel "pretty" if everyone sees her back acne in the Belle Vita tattoo photos? How can Casey convince her mother that she has a constant lump in her throat to the point where she can't swallow and hasn't been eating anything, when Casey's commissary log shows her regularly ordering munchies and Casey's letters to other inmates describe how Casey enjoys eating those munchies (as opposed to, say, trading them for protection from a jail bully)?

So, Baez spins his wheels focusing his time and energy on trying to get the judge to gag the jail (but not the Anthonys or himself) instead of taking care of the REAL business like all those pesky depositions and finding some favorable defense experts. Casey's snack preferences aren't going to matter at all when the jury is picked. The jury isn't going to consist of folks who follow the case and read Casey's commissary selections; it will consist of people like my brother-in-law whose news consumption consists of watching sports on ESPN. But Baez has his marching orders from Casey and to keep her happy - and to keep himself in the spotlight as her "lead" attorney - he marches along to the rhythm of her drum.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

I agree with you Katprint, but I'm just not sure when he gets his "marching orders because he doesn't seem to actually visit her very often at all.