Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[faefrost]

I'm joking. There was one time I wrote this long explanation of my analysis of a legal issue while a suspected "spy" was "in the house," and a few hours later this hurried, faxed brief was filed saying the same thing lol. Probably a coincidence but made me :banghead:

I wonder if it would be possible for you to send in a copy of that posting here showing its time and date along with a copy of the defenses hurriedly filed brief, in some sort of filing? if for no other reason than to take the wind out of the entire "these bloggers unfairly prejudice the jury pool against my client!" argument. I mean how bad can we be if they are using the blogs for such obvious research?

 

[RR0004]

I wonder if it would be possible for you to send in a copy of that posting here showing its time and date along with a copy of the defenses hurriedly filed brief, in some sort of filing? if for no other reason than to take the wind out of the entire "these bloggers unfairly prejudice the jury pool against my client!" argument. I mean how bad can we be if they are using the blogs for such obvious research?

Sorry for being slightly OT, but doesn't it make your flesh crawl thinking they're using what we say and write?
There are times I really feel their presence...and of course, all are welcome .
I can't imagine how that must have made AZ feel.

 

[Muzikman]

Sorry for being slightly OT, but doesn't it make you flesh crawl thinking they're using what we say and write?
There are times I really feel their presence...and of course, all are welcome .
I can't imagine how that must have made AZ feel.

I remember arguing with several people that this was happening, and they thought that I was paranoid, the defense would never use something "found on a blog." :crazy:

ETA: IIRC, most or all of "those people" were what would be termed "defense-friendly." Trying to deflect? heh

Guess I was right! heh :seeya:

 

[spqr]

Yes, but not giving Miranda warnings before a statement that leads to an arrest doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the arrest...it just means (if the person was "in custody" at the time of the statement) that you can't use the statement as evidence against the person.So the arrest is still good either way.

AZ,

BBM.....Just to clearify. If a person is in custody and makes a statement, that statement can be used IF the person wasn't being interrogated at the time.
Someone could be in custody and make a voluntary statement/utterence and that would be allowed would it not?

I have seen plenty of people in custody (in the back of a LE car, in a holding cell, etc...) make statements without Miranda. Those can be allowed/admitted. Correct?

Thank you for all your time here.

 

[AZlawyer]

A follow up question in the same basic vein. That filed motion concerning the JibJab video, that claims the prosecutors made and distributed it to defame and ridicule the defense lawyers or some such. Is that something that can be brought back as a bar complaint? I mean accusing the oposing council of something like that in a public press conference is as you say all meaningless bluster... but when you file that as a motion, does that become something actionable?

The problem is, I think JB actually thought that the State made that video because he is (1) not closely reviewing the discovery and/or (2) unable to comprehend the discovery. That's not unethical, just pathetic.

JB is stating he was unaware any photos existed until after he took JJ's deposition. If true, he would have cause to have a "re-do", yes? I guess I'm amazed JB has no logical thinking skills. If information comes to light after a depo, I would think HHJP would let it slide. I think the next thing we are going to see is JB seeking a court order to depose JJ AGAIN. My call is we see something this week. JMO. UGH!

IMO there is no cause for a "re-do" because anyone with an ounce of common sense would know to ask a guy who was searching in the right area "so didja take any pictures?"

I remember arguing with several people that this was happening, and they thought that I was paranoid, the defense would never use something "found on a blog." :crazy:

Guess I was right! heh :seeya:

I remember you telling me it was going to happen in between the time of my post and the time of their filing later that day! :rocker:

AZ,

BBM.....Just to clearify. If a person is in custody and makes a statement, that statement can be used IF the person wasn't being interrogated at the time.
Someone could be in custody and make a voluntary statement/utterence and that would be allowed would it not?

I have seen plenty of people in custody (in the back of a LE car, in a holding cell, etc...) make statements without Miranda. Those can be allowed/admitted. Correct?

Thank you for all your time here.

You mean just a voluntary outburst? Yes, that would be OK.

 

[chefmom]

I wonder if it would be possible for you to send in a copy of that posting here showing its time and date along with a copy of the defenses hurriedly filed brief, in some sort of filing? if for no other reason than to take the wind out of the entire "these bloggers unfairly prejudice the jury pool against my client!" argument. I mean how bad can we be if they are using the blogs for such obvious research?

WOW! What an excellent idea! After all, if a convicted felon can send in a statement and have it filed with the court, surely one of us lowly "bloggers" can also? Lol! I am so in love with this idea! Can you imagine the looks on HHJP and JB/CM's faces if this was brought up in a hearing? :great:

 

[AZlawyer]

WOW! What an excellent idea! After all, if a convicted felon can send in a statement and have it filed with the court, surely one of us lowly "bloggers" can also? Lol! I am so in love with this idea! Can you imagine the looks on HHJP and JB/CM's faces if this was brought up in a hearing? :great:

BBM

Yeah, but those people are crazy. :crazy: I have a reputation for non-craziness to uphold.

 

[Trapshooter]

AZ Lawyer :yourock:

I think you should send the defense your billable hours when you post here at WS! Especially if they are using YOUR analysis as their own! :furious:

 

[christee]

I remember arguing with several people that this was happening, and they thought that I was paranoid, the defense would never use something "found on a blog." :crazy:

ETA: IIRC, most or all of "those people" were what would be termed "defense-friendly." Trying to deflect? heh

Guess I was right! heh :seeya:

Yep, you were right MM! Some peeps were posting things so off the wall there could only be one explanation...they wanted answers and they knew they would get them here. Thing is they should've had to pay for all the legal assistance WS provided! Talk about Pro Bono!

Oh, and thanks for ALL you do!

:yourock:

 

[MD MOMMY]

Yep, you were right MM! Some peeps were posting things so off the wall there could only be one explanation...they wanted answers and they knew they would get them here. Thing is they should've had to pay for all the legal assistance WS provided! Talk about Pro Bono!

Oh, and thanks for ALL you do!

:yourock:

Don't some lawyers pay for a mock jury to hear their cases? We have a huge mock jury at JB's fingertips..ugh.

 

[Wagara]

After reading your information concerning "in custody", it seems to me that Casey would have been free to separate herself from LE when they arrived at Universal (meaning she didn't arrive in custody) but I don't see her being as free to leave on her own as they exited Universal. In my mind, I think she was actually in custody at some point before they left or would have been arrested had she tried to leave alone. IMO only.

If the same information can be found in other places for the SA to use at trial, why is it so important to DC to get this interview thrown out?

AZ...Love your input...Thank you!!

 

[Kimmer]

AZ, From yesterday's hearing and the comments that JB was making about having some paperwork to file about the expert reports do you think that JB & CM are going to try and and go against HJP ruling during the sanction hearing? And if that would happen to be the case can HJP hit them with the $500 a day and the civil contempt charge? And if they are charged with civil contempt what exactly is that?

Thank You so much for all the questions you answer, this is my first time asking one, but I have leaned so much by reading your answers to others.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

After reading your information concerning "in custody", it seems to me that Casey would have been free to separate herself from LE when they arrived at Universal (meaning she didn't arrive in custody) but I don't see her being as free to leave on her own as they exited Universal. In my mind, I think she was actually in custody at some point before they left or would have been arrested had she tried to leave alone. IMO only.

If the same information can be found in other places for the SA to use at trial, why is it so important to DC to get this interview thrown out?

AZ...Love your input...Thank you!!

I don't mean to post or argue on this thread because I don't want a timeout...but IIRC the detectives took KC back home that night, after driving all over town with her (including going to Universal) and then showed up and arrested her the next day.

 

[Solace]

I don't mean to post or argue on this thread because I don't want a timeout...but IIRC the detectives took KC back home that night, after driving all over town with her (including going to Universal) and then showed up and arrested her the next day.

Also at the end of the interview Yuri says will you raise your right hand "Do you swear everything you've told us today is true, including all the lies and everything" and KC says "I do". Then Yuri and J. Allen leave and she is with the other detective who she likes and when that is over she says something to the effect I really am trying to help, etc. And he says I know, I know.

I get the impression that she feels it is over with and her lies have done the trick and she is NOT in custody; however, we shall see what Perry thinks.

 

[Intermezzo]

Also at the end of the interview Yuri says will you raise your right hand "Do you swear everything you've told us today is true, including all the lies and everything" and KC says "I do". Then Yuri and J. Allen leave and she is with the other detective who she likes and when that is over she says something to the effect I really am trying to help, etc. And he says I know, I know.

I get the impression that she feels it is over with and her lies have done the trick and she is NOT in custody; however, we shall see what Perry thinks.

bbm
:waitasec: Did she just swear the Lies were true? :dunno: :whoosh:

 

[Macushla]

I have a question about the upcoming trial. Let us say Judge Perry rules against some of the defense's motions, such as the Kronk motion. I believe I heard CM comment in court that he would bring it up again at trial. So here is my question: If the motion regarding his prior bad acts is denied again at trial, what happens if CM continues to attempt to bring them in while questioning RK? I would assume the Judge would simply tell the jury to ignore that question (although I doubt they will 'forget about it'). But what recourse does Judge Perry have it CM attempts more than once to do this? Not only with RK but with any other info or evidence that Judge Perry denied motions on? Is it up to HHJP to decide how much is too much and do something about it? Would it be a huge distraction at trial if Judge Perry did something like hold CM in contempt? Could it derail the trial itself?

 

[salvarenga]

01/06/2011 Order Directing the Judicial Administrative Commission to Retain Confidentiality and Not Disclose Identity of Certain Defense Witnesses (This Order to be Sealed)

Since HJBP recently gave the speech about no trial by surprise.....any guesses as to what this update from the MyClerk site is about?

 

[AZlawyer]

After reading your information concerning "in custody", it seems to me that Casey would have been free to separate herself from LE when they arrived at Universal (meaning she didn't arrive in custody) but I don't see her being as free to leave on her own as they exited Universal. In my mind, I think she was actually in custody at some point before they left or would have been arrested had she tried to leave alone. IMO only.

If the same information can be found in other places for the SA to use at trial, why is it so important to DC to get this interview thrown out?

AZ...Love your input...Thank you!!

I think it's important to defense counsel to get the Universal tape thrown out because it causes a chill to go down one's spine to listen to Casey calmly and coldly lie to the detectives, with no genuine concern whatsoever for the welfare of her daughter.

AZ, From yesterday's hearing and the comments that JB was making about having some paperwork to file about the expert reports do you think that JB & CM are going to try and and go against HJP ruling during the sanction hearing? And if that would happen to be the case can HJP hit them with the $500 a day and the civil contempt charge? And if they are charged with civil contempt what exactly is that?

Thank You so much for all the questions you answer, this is my first time asking one, but I have leaned so much by reading your answers to others.

They won't be sanctioned for asking him to change his ruling, only for ignoring his ruling.

I have a question about the upcoming trial. Let us say Judge Perry rules against some of the defense's motions, such as the Kronk motion. I believe I heard CM comment in court that he would bring it up again at trial. So here is my question: If the motion regarding his prior bad acts is denied again at trial, what happens if CM continues to attempt to bring them in while questioning RK? I would assume the Judge would simply tell the jury to ignore that question (although I doubt they will 'forget about it'). But what recourse does Judge Perry have it CM attempts more than once to do this? Not only with RK but with any other info or evidence that Judge Perry denied motions on? Is it up to HHJP to decide how much is too much and do something about it? Would it be a huge distraction at trial if Judge Perry did something like hold CM in contempt? Could it derail the trial itself?

I don't believe that CM will openly defy evidentiary rulings at trial. If he did, he could certainly be held in contempt. Also, I don't think he'd do it again after the first time lol, so it shouldn't get so bad that it would cause a mistrial.

01/06/2011 Order Directing the Judicial Administrative Commission to Retain Confidentiality and Not Disclose Identity of Certain Defense Witnesses (This Order to be Sealed)

Since HJBP recently gave the speech about no trial by surprise.....any guesses as to what this update from the MyClerk site is about?

Didn't the defense ask for the identities of certain witnesses to be confidential from the public/media for a period of time? If that motion was granted or hasn't yet been decided, the JAC would have to keep documents mentioning those witnesses (like time records of investigators who interviewed them) secret as well.

 

[logicalgirl]

01/06/2011 Order Directing the Judicial Administrative Commission to Retain Confidentiality and Not Disclose Identity of Certain Defense Witnesses (This Order to be Sealed)

Since HJBP recently gave the speech about no trial by surprise.....any guesses as to what this update from the MyClerk site is about?

Sorry to answer but AZ said she was not able to watch the hearing. These are Ann Finnell's witnesses for the penalty phase.

 

[Wagara]

I don't mean to post or argue on this thread because I don't want a timeout...but IIRC the detectives took KC back home that night, after driving all over town with her (including going to Universal) and then showed up and arrested her the next day.

You'll get no argument from me. I'm just looking at the aspect that the arrest might have been bumped up if she had decided to split and if an arrest at that moment would have deemed her to be "in custody" prior to the arrest. I probably didn't word it like I meant it.

Thanks AZ for your answer!