Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Amil]

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.

Good question...arrested 7/16 @ 4:33 PM - looks like she spent the night of the 15th at her home, but that was it.
http://www.wftv.com/download/2008/0717/16907762.pdf

 

[LancelotLink]

I would love to get opinions on the Motion to Suppress Statements Made To George, Cindy, Lee Anthony, Maya Derkovic, Robyn Admas, Sylvia Henrnandez
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331430/detail.html

It states that George, Cindy and Lee acted as agents of the state by talking to her, trying to ask questions. It also states that because this is a captial murder case, they believe heightened standards of due process apply.

However, she was arrested for lying to law enforcement, child neglect, and obstructing a criminal investigation.

Does this motion concerning George, Cindy and Lee have any chance? Could the jail visit tapes be suppressed? Were they acting as agents of the state when they visited ICA? Cindy had declared war with LE, George was talking out of both sides of his face, Lee was working with DC, and LE, but all were supposedly trying to find Caylee.
TIA
Mods, does this motion merit a thread?

 

[AZlawyer]

I would love to get opinions on the Motion to Suppress Statements Made To George, Cindy, Lee Anthony, Maya Derkovic, Robyn Admas, Sylvia Henrnandez
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331430/detail.html

It states that George, Cindy and Lee acted as agents of the state by talking to her, trying to ask questions. It also states that because this is a captial murder case, they believe heightened standards of due process apply.

However, she was arrested for lying to law enforcement, child neglect, and obstructing a criminal investigation.

Does this motion concerning George, Cindy and Lee have any chance? Could the jail visit tapes be suppressed? Were they acting as agents of the state when they visited ICA? Cindy had declared war with LE, George was talking out of both sides of his face, Lee was working with DC, and LE, but all were supposedly trying to find Caylee.
TIA
Mods, does this motion merit a thread?

OK, I haven't researched Florida law on this one, but I don't see HHJP deciding that the Anthonys were trying to get Casey to "come clean" during the visits to help out LE. It seemed more like they were trying to get more details about the fake nanny, etc., so they could continue running LE down rabbit holes. Although there was one visit alone with George in which he SAID, at least, that he was trying to get her to tell the truth, but IIRC when the tape came out we were all :waitasec: trying to figure out what George thought were the "tough questions" he had asked her.

 

[watergirl]

I would love to get opinions on the Motion to Suppress Statements Made To George, Cindy, Lee Anthony, Maya Derkovic, Robyn Admas, Sylvia Henrnandez
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331430/detail.html

It states that George, Cindy and Lee acted as agents of the state by talking to her, trying to ask questions. It also states that because this is a captial murder case, they believe heightened standards of due process apply.

However, she was arrested for lying to law enforcement, child neglect, and obstructing a criminal investigation.

Does this motion concerning George, Cindy and Lee have any chance? Could the jail visit tapes be suppressed? Were they acting as agents of the state when they visited ICA? Cindy had declared war with LE, George was talking out of both sides of his face, Lee was working with DC, and LE, but all were supposedly trying to find Caylee.
TIA
Mods, does this motion merit a thread?

Love how you summarize the As here - it really emphasizes what a veritable cornucopia of personal agendas they had going on simultaneously, which sadly trumped any justice for Caylee. Everyone had to do things on their own terms and then somehow squeeze Caylee in around them. Gah!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question - but I was wanting some clarification. For some reason I can't seem to grasp the ultimate importance of the water/no water issue. Can someone break it down? I see it as

1. Defense wants people to believe the site where the body was dumped was searched, and no body was found - and this occured when Casey was in jail. (Then it was later found there when she was still in jail, creating, in their mind, reasonable doubt).

2. SA claims the site was underwater and therefore could not have been effectively searched. The body/remains were underwater, then discovered when the water receded.

Is this correct? Also, what on Earth does it prove regarding Casey's guilt or innocence if the body was moved at any time? I mean it's not as if only a murderer could move a body. Seems to point more to assistance than innocence to me.

 

[Skully]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question - but I was wanting some clarification. For some reason I can't seem to grasp the ultimate importance of the water/no water issue. Can someone break it down? I see it as

1. Defense wants people to believe the site where the body was dumped was searched, and no body was found - and this occured when Casey was in jail. (Then it was later found there when she was still in jail, creating, in their mind, reasonable doubt).

2. SA claims the site was underwater and therefore could not have been effectively searched. The body/remains were underwater, then discovered when the water receded.

Is this correct? Also, what on Earth does it prove regarding Casey's guilt or innocence if the body was moved at any time? I mean it's not as if only a murderer could move a body. Seems to point more to assistance than innocence to me.

What I get from all of this is: The area where Caylee was found was never searched by TES because it was under water, so JB is saying no, you did search there before the hurricane and the body wasn't there, so it had to be placed there at a later time when ICA was in jail. But I agree, doesn't mean anything to me either, if that was the case, just means the body was somewhere else and somebody moved it for her so Caylee could be found and this would be the argument, that she didn't have the body or know where it was, so SODDI..... hope that makes sense

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question - but I was wanting some clarification. For some reason I can't seem to grasp the ultimate importance of the water/no water issue. Can someone break it down? I see it as

1. Defense wants people to believe the site where the body was dumped was searched, and no body was found - and this occured when Casey was in jail. (Then it was later found there when she was still in jail, creating, in their mind, reasonable doubt).

2. SA claims the site was underwater and therefore could not have been effectively searched. The body/remains were underwater, then discovered when the water receded.

Is this correct? Also, what on Earth does it prove regarding Casey's guilt or innocence if the body was moved at any time? I mean it's not as if only a murderer could move a body. Seems to point more to assistance than innocence to me.

Their argument seems to be that some people searched the "exact spot" at a time after October 14, 2008 (IIRC) when Casey went to jail for the last time, that the "exact spot" was not under water at that time, and that they didn't see any remains. Assuming that were true (which of course it isn't), then one could conclude (if one ignored all other evidence) that the body was not there until after Casey went to jail, which means someone else put it there, which means EITHER (1) Casey had an accomplice, OR (2) Casey is innocent. And, assuming they had any evidence to present on this point, the jury would get to decide if explanation #2 was reasonably possible.

I think they would also like to argue that, if the remains were put there after 10/14/08, Caylee might have been ALIVE after that date, therefore obviously not killed by Casey, who was in jail at the time. I think this argument is an even tougher "sell" given the forensic evidence. They will have to try to get the experts to say that it is possible that the remains would have looked as they did after fewer than 60 days. If they are going to say the remains were not there during the early November 2008 TES searches, they will have to argue that the remains could have looked as they did after only about 30 days. And DC's videotaped search was even later than the TES searches...

 

[sleutherontheside]

Regarding the defense questioning David W. Hall as a botanist. Would the fact that he co-authored an article with Jane H. Bock (defense expert) create any conflict?

I know that experts are called upon to comment on and at times, refute peer opinions.

Would the fact that this motion implies that Dr. Hall is not a respected professional in his field (leaving out his credentials) coupled with Dr. Bock having previously co-authored articles with him be an issue???

 

[Numbers]

Regarding the defense questioning David W. Hall as a botanist. Would the fact that he co-authored an article with Jane H. Bock (defense expert) create any conflict?

I know that experts are called upon to comment on and at times, refute peer opinions.

Would the fact that this motion implies that Dr. Hall is not a respected professional in his field (leaving out his credentials) coupled with Dr. Bock having previously co-authored articles with him be an issue???

I'd say that if Dr. Hall is "no good," that will reflect in the poorly on Dr. Bock.

And I do wonder if Baez & Co. are aware of this collaboration? <snort>

 

[AZlawyer]

Regarding the defense questioning David W. Hall as a botanist. Would the fact that he co-authored an article with Jane H. Bock (defense expert) create any conflict?

I know that experts are called upon to comment on and at times, refute peer opinions.

Would the fact that this motion implies that Dr. Hall is not a respected professional in his field (leaving out his credentials) coupled with Dr. Bock having previously co-authored articles with him be an issue???

No conflict. But Dr. Bock might be cross-examined on whether she thought Dr. Hall was only an "alleged" botanist when she collaborated with him.

 

[watcher9]

Ann Finnell has handled homicide and death penalty cases since 1981 - almost 30 years, according to her website. Doesn't say how many cases.

Would that qualify her to be a death penalty attorney able to replace CM?
Even if she were hired originally to be the mitigation lawyer?

 

[lisalei321]

New question....

When does Attorney/Client privilege end? Lets say KC gets the death penalty, lets say the state of Florida does what it does when someone gets the DP, after the sentence is carried out, can JB then write a book or talk about (think tv talk shows etc...)what it was like defending her? And include all the "stuff" that would normally be covered by Attorney/Client privilege?

 

[AZlawyer]

Ann Finnell has handled homicide and death penalty cases since 1981 - almost 30 years, according to her website. Doesn't say how many cases.

Would that qualify her to be a death penalty attorney able to replace CM?
Even if she were hired originally to be the mitigation lawyer?

I believe when she came on board the media reported that she was death-penalty qualified, so yes, she could take over from CM if she was so inclined.

New question....

When does Attorney/Client privilege end? Lets say KC gets the death penalty, lets say the state of Florida does what it does when someone gets the DP, after the sentence is carried out, can JB then write a book or talk about (think tv talk shows etc...)what it was like defending her? And include all the "stuff" that would normally be covered by Attorney/Client privilege?

Some legal authorities say that A/C privilege ends when a client dies; others disagree. I don't know what the Florida case law says, though.

 

[lauriej]

The list of penalty phase witnesses provided today does identify Casey Anthony's close family members, including her parents and brother, many friends, ex-boyfriends and others already long associated with the case. Included on that list are familiar names such as Jesse Grund, Ricardo Morales Anthony Rusciano, Anthony Lazzaro and Amy Huizenga.

..how does the penalty phase witness list come about? can a witness flat out "decline" ? i'm very surprised to see the above 5 names on this list.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I'm wondering...since Baez has now been fined for willful defiance, can the prisoner use this as an appeals issue once she is found guilty?

It's clear that His Honor will not allow these fishing expeditions to implicate innocent people. It appears to me he has slandered JJ's/RK's reputation and defamed their character, can they bring a civil lawsuit against Baez? He has talked smack outside the courtroom, I understand in a courtroom setting that cannot be held against Baez but he has gone on national TV using this as his platform before he brought it in a courtroom...

Also, after this trial is said and done, can the court (His Honor) or the state prosecutors ask the Florida Bar Assoc. for an investigation against Baez, using his ethics, his blatant lies, his disrespect and willful disregard of the law, being an officer of the court?

:seeya: Sorry for all those questions, I'm just wondering where Baez will sit after this case is over. He has shown how immature he is, how unethical he is and how inexperienced he is...He really should be feeling humilated by this time but I'm betting he's not :crazy:...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Uicipher]

Hypothetic question:
Casey throws common sense out the window (not new) and insists on testifying.
Baez advises her not to.
Casey decides to ignore her attorney.
Can Baez do anything to stop Casey from taking the stand?

 

[AZlawyer]

..how does the penalty phase witness list come about? can a witness flat out "decline" ? i'm very surprised to see the above 5 names on this list.

The lawyers list whomever they want to list--it doesn't mean the witnesses have actually agreed to say anything helpful to the defense. The witnesses can be subpoenaed to appear and testify if they won't appear voluntarily.

I'm wondering...since Baez has now been fined for willful defiance, can the prisoner use this as an appeals issue once she is found guilty?

It's clear that His Honor will not allow these fishing expeditions to implicate innocent people. It appears to me he has slandered JJ's/RK's reputation and defamed their character, can they bring a civil lawsuit against Baez? He has talked smack outside the courtroom, I understand in a courtroom setting that cannot be held against Baez but he has gone on national TV using this as his platform before he brought it in a courtroom...

Also, after this trial is said and done, can the court (His Honor) or the state prosecutors ask the Florida Bar Assoc. for an investigation against Baez, using his ethics, his blatant lies, his disrespect and willful disregard of the law, being an officer of the court?

:seeya: Sorry for all those questions, I'm just wondering where Baez will sit after this case is over. He has shown how immature he is, how unethical he is and how inexperienced he is...He really should be feeling humilated by this time but I'm betting he's not :crazy:...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

The sanctions are not by themselves an appeal issue, but will surely be mentioned if ineffective assistance of counsel becomes an issue. (The sanctions by themselves are not IAC either, because Casey's substantive rights were not harmed by JB's actions.)

Slander is a much more narrow concept than most people think. If you can find something JB said outside the courtroom about JJ or RK that was a strictly factual statement (not opinion) and was provably false, then we can talk.

IMO HHJP is not bothering with Bar complaints, as he plans to handle JB his own way. The Bar will likely ignore any complaints from the prosecutors, as they assume opposing counsel has a bias lol. But I'm quite sure that ordinary Florida citizens have been and will be letting the Bar know what they think of JB.

Hypothetic question:
Casey throws common sense out the window (not new) and insists on testifying.
Baez advises her not to.
Casey decides to ignore her attorney.
Can Baez do anything to stop Casey from taking the stand?

Nope.

 

[countzero]

The lawyers list whomever they want to list--it doesn't mean the witnesses have actually agreed to say anything helpful to the defense. The witnesses can be subpoenaed to appear and testify if they won't appear voluntarily.

respectfully snipped.

Hi AZ, hope I get this right. With listing these former friends names, do you feel this means JB has received their consent to appear as penalty phase witnesses? I understand that lawyers can list whomever they want. But in this specific case if a witness is subpoenaed to appear vs. appearing on their own, how does an involuntarily testimony help ICA?

The jury will need to feel the passion the witness is conveying as they plea for ICA's life to be spared and given a lighter sentence.

Thanks for all you contribute.

 

[AZlawyer]

respectfully snipped.

Hi AZ, hope I get this right. With listing these former friends names, do you feel this means JB has received their consent to appear as penalty phase witnesses? I understand that lawyers can list whomever they want, but in this specific case, if a witness is subpoenaed to appear vs. appearing on their own, how does an involuntarily testimony help ICA?

The jury will need to feel the passion the witness is conveying as they plea for ICA's life to be spared and given a lighter sentence.

Thanks for all you contribute.

No, I definitely think JB has NOT received their consent to appear as penalty phase witnesses, because AFAIK these people hate her. Also, penalty phase witnesses are not permitted to plead for the defendant's life. They have to answer relevant questions about whatever JB thinks is mitigation evidence for Casey.

 

[LambChop]

No, I definitely think JB has NOT received their consent to appear as penalty phase witnesses, because AFAIK these people hate her. Also, penalty phase witnesses are not permitted to plead for the defendant's life. They have to answer relevant questions about whatever JB thinks is mitigation evidence for Casey.

Can JB ask a witness if they think her life should be spared?