Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[sumbunny]

11/23/2010 Motion
Defendant's; to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Response

what does this mean exactly? TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

11/23/2010 Motion
Defendant's; to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Response

what does this mean exactly? TIA

I don't think we've seen the actual document yet, but given the title of the document my suspicion is that the defense is asking to seal only one SPECIFIC item of penalty phase discovery, which was provided in response to a subpoena sent by the defense to a third party.

But that's just a guess.

 

[Aedrys]

I just want some clarification of reports. Is it common practice by defense teams to not have reports? I guess this never has been an issue in any case I've followed until now, but it seems odd to me that the defense is saying there are no reports from their experts. Is that a tactic so that the prosecution doesn't know what the experts have said to the defense? I'm just wondering what the role of reports are and how important or not important they are to a criminal case.

 

[rhornsby]

I just want some clarification of reports. Is it common practice by defense teams to not have reports? I guess this never has been an issue in any case I've followed until now, but it seems odd to me that the defense is saying there are no reports from their experts. Is that a tactic so that the prosecution doesn't know what the experts have said to the defense? I'm just wondering what the role of reports are and how important or not important they are to a criminal case.

It is a very common practice for defense attorneys to not require their experts to prepare a report.

 

[logicalgirl]

It is a very common practice for defense attorneys to not require their experts to prepare a report.

So what are the SA fussing about then? (Welcome back!)

 

[chefmom]

It is a very common practice for defense attorneys to not require their experts to prepare a report.

But, is it common practice in all circumstances, or only when the results of the expert go againt the defense's client?

 

[rhornsby]

But, is it common practice in all circumstances, or only when the results of the expert go againt the defense's client?

Generally speaking, if an expert is hired by either side AFTER formal charges are filed, the expert rarely prepares a written report specifically because the report can be used to cross-examine them in trial (or deposition) and can be given to the other-side's expert to pick apart.

On the other hand, when an expert is hired by either side BEFORE formal charges are filed, it is common for them to prepare a report specifically because the State must have some documented evidence to support filing whatever charge they file; and from the defense side, a positive report from a defense expert can be turned over to the State specifically to try and persuade them not to file charges.

And to put this in perspective, I had an Aggravated Manslaughter trial last month and the State hired an mental health expert at the last minute and specifically instructed her not to prepare a report. As a result I had to wait until I deposed her to determine her specific findings, what she reviewed, her qualifications, etc. I then had to have the deposition transcribed so I could provide the information to my experts to help me try and discredit her.

So the expert report issues works both ways, and there is nothing particularly shady about instructing an expert not to prepare a report - especially considering the report itself is inadmissible as evidence; rather only the expert's testimony is admissible.

And since the State is free to depose the expert, they are not prejudiced by a report not being prepared.

 

[rhornsby]

So what are the SA fussing about then? (Welcome back!)

Actually, Jeff Ashton never made a big deal about defense experts not preparing reports - IF they did not make a report.

What he was a little peeved about (and rightfully so) was the judge not ordering the experts to be required to provide in advance of their depositions their contracts and other things that have been actually been created.

 

[watcher9]

This was brought up in another thread, but not answered.

Could the SA possibly subpoena JimL (CA's movie producer friend) as a witness for trial because of evidence he may possess or know of?

 

[MissJames]

Actually, Jeff Ashton never made a big deal about defense experts not preparing reports - IF they did not make a report.

What he was a little peeved about (and rightfully so) was the judge not ordering the experts to be required to provide in advance of their depositions their contracts and other things that have been actually been created.

If Henry Lee testifies can the Prosecution challange his credibility ,based on the ruling in the Phil Spector trial?

 

[AZlawyer]

This was brought up in another thread, but not answered.

Could the SA possibly subpoena JimL (CA's movie producer friend) as a witness for trial because of evidence he may possess or know of?

What possible evidence could he have?

If Henry Lee testifies can the Prosecution challange his credibility ,based on the ruling in the Phil Spector trial?

Only if there's some reason to think he tampered with evidence in this case. And so far there isn't.

 

[watcher9]

I guess I was thinking that CA or GA may have told him the truth about what they cleaned out of the car, things/clues they found out from ICA when she was on bail, things they may have discovered on their own, more about JH searching the woods.

But, typing that out, I guess most of it would be considered hearsay. If JimL found out anything, wouldn't he be required to report all pertinent info to LE/SA?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

My question is:

What kind of lawyer would sit with the defendant and laugh and giggle and pass notes, knowing they are on tv? Is this a lack of common sense? During the sidebar Casey was laughing literally for about 2 full minutes and the lady sitting next to her was joining in. I'm not 100% sure if the woman was a lawyer, mitigation person or what, but shouldn't any member of the defense try to shut her up? I mean this was one of the most offensive things I've seen so far.

 

[zoey]

My question is:

What kind of lawyer would sit with the defendant and laugh and giggle and pass notes, knowing they are on tv? Is this a lack of common sense? During the sidebar Casey was laughing literally for about 2 full minutes and the lady sitting next to her was joining in. I'm not 100% sure if the woman was a lawyer, mitigation person or what, but shouldn't any member of the defense try to shut her up? I mean this was one of the most offensive things I've seen so far.

Its happened before--whenever there is a sidebar and the girls come to court---they sit....it doens't look good.....

 

[Cabin girl]

Is the fact that the defense will not have a hair expert to refute the hair with the death band from ICA's trunk as profound as it appears or do our Esquires see reason to be cautious here?

 

[AZlawyer]

I guess I was thinking that CA or GA may have told him the truth about what they cleaned out of the car, things/clues they found out from ICA when she was on bail, things they may have discovered on their own, more about JH searching the woods.

But, typing that out, I guess most of it would be considered hearsay. If JimL found out anything, wouldn't he be required to report all pertinent info to LE/SA?

If he knows something that could impeach a witness's testimony (CA or GA), he could be called to the stand to testify about it. But my understanding is that the general rule in all states is there is no duty to report perjury or most crimes to LE/SA. So the SA would never know if he had this info or not, and I doubt they will subpoena him just to fish around for information he probably doesn't have.

Also, I doubt CA or GA has told him anything more truthful than what they've already said.

My question is:

What kind of lawyer would sit with the defendant and laugh and giggle and pass notes, knowing they are on tv? Is this a lack of common sense? During the sidebar Casey was laughing literally for about 2 full minutes and the lady sitting next to her was joining in. I'm not 100% sure if the woman was a lawyer, mitigation person or what, but shouldn't any member of the defense try to shut her up? I mean this was one of the most offensive things I've seen so far.

BBM

A brainless one.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is the fact that the defense will not have a hair expert to refute the hair with the death band from ICA's trunk as profound as it appears or do our Esquires see reason to be cautious here?

They can't get out of the facts about that hair. I think instead of getting their own hair expert, they will just try to get the State's hair expert to admit: (1) one hair doth not a good sample make, thus it is "possible" that the hair is not what it appears to be, i.e., is not from a dead body at all, and (2) the mitochondrial DNA found matches Caylee, Casey, Lee, Cindy, Rick P, Shirley P, and oh BTW a large percentage of the population. The State will come back and get their expert to say: (1) OK, but this hair did look exactly like the death band hairs on the body found on Suburban, (2) the hair does not match Casey's hair in its other characteristics, so she can be excluded, and (3) most of the population has not been in Casey's trunk.

Then the defense will hope the jury is confused/doubtful enough to discount the hair evidence.

 

[Gma Kat]

Is the fact that the defense will not have a hair expert to refute the hair with the death band from ICA's trunk as profound as it appears or do our Esquires see reason to be cautious here?

:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june:

 

[Amil]

My question is:

What kind of lawyer would sit with the defendant and laugh and giggle and pass notes, knowing they are on tv? Is this a lack of common sense? During the sidebar Casey was laughing literally for about 2 full minutes and the lady sitting next to her was joining in. I'm not 100% sure if the woman was a lawyer, mitigation person or what, but shouldn't any member of the defense try to shut her up? I mean this was one of the most offensive things I've seen so far.

HF- please see my new thread. They were gazing adoringly at the law clerk, intern for Baez as he was being sworn in. I'm asking if anyone knows for what position he was being sworn in.

 

[AZlawyer]

HF- please see my new thread. They were gazing adoringly at the law clerk, intern for Baez as he was being sworn in. I'm asking if anyone knows for what position he was being sworn in.

I assume he was being sworn in as a new member of the State Bar of Florida.