Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[rhornsby]

Bottom line, what will the State really lose if this Motion is granted for the Defense? I say not much, considering the fact that most everything Casey lied about at Universal, she also lied about in her Written Statement which the State will be able to use.

Your opinion?

If the State loses, we will know how important they think the evidence was. Because, unlike the defense, they are allowed to appeal any judicial orders before the trial.

 

[Turnadot]

If the State loses, we will know how important they think the evidence was. Because, unlike the defense, they are allowed to appeal any judicial orders before the trial.

Well, I'm obviously not a lawyer or a judge, but I think the State will lose because LE, imo, should have mirandized her the moment she turned at the end of the hallway and said, 'I'm lying to you. I don't work here.'

The confrontation after that is fruit from the poisonous tree.

Mr. Hornsby, in your opinion, is the Universal Q&A crucial to the State's case?

 

[MissJames]

I don't think anyone (except maybe JB?) is saying she was tricked. Certainly I am not saying that. She was in custody is the point, at least by the time the Universal interrogation got under way.

My point is that this was a calculated risk on the part of LE. Give her the Miranda warnings and risk scaring her into shutting up...or don't give her the warnings and risk not being able to use her statements down the road. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Although I think Yuri and the prosecutors presented the best possible case they could--better than I thought they could do with the facts they had.

Hi AZ ,

Do you think JB did a good job yesterday by bringing up all the things Casey did? Was it necessary to his motion?
I actually thought he did a good job of making his point :truce:,
but wondered if went overboard.
I even have to say,he got what he wanted from the Sargeant this morning. I don't like it,but it is what it is.

 

[spqr]

Well my practical experience is much different. The reality is that when confronted by police, whether innocent or not, most citizens do not feel that they can just go on their merry way and ignore law enforcement officer's questions or presence. (And in the Casey Anthony situation, where would she have gone to? She was transported there by law enforcement.)

Even worse, my practical experience is that when the occasional person does try to decline law enforcement's overtures, law enforcement becomes more forceful, accusatory, and over bearing. The next time you get a stopped by a law enforcement officer, see how uninhibited you are - especially if you weren't speeding, or committing a traffic infraction (in your own opinion, not the officers).

BBM....Really? You have never been to New York City have you?

 

[MissJames]

Well my practical experience is much different. The reality is that when confronted by police, whether innocent or not, most citizens do not feel that they can just go on their merry way and ignore law enforcement officer's questions or presence. (And in the Casey Anthony situation, where would she have gone to? She was transported there by law enforcement.)

Even worse, my practical experience is that when the occasional person does try to decline law enforcement's overtures, law enforcement becomes more forceful, accusatory, and over bearing. The next time you get a stopped by a law enforcement officer, see how uninhibited you are - especially if you weren't speeding, or committing a traffic infraction (in your own opinion, not the officers).

I agree,the average citizen would usually feel LE had some authority over them .i don't think ICA did,because she thought she could outsmart them,but moot point.
My question is,given the air of authority surrounding LE,should everyone being interviewed ,regardless of guilt or innocence ,be mirandized? Where does LE draw the line?

I think YM and JA did the right thing in order to find Caylee. I'm sure they knew the statement or confession resulting would be thrown out,but they sacrificed that in order to find the baby.They just underestimated the depth of ICA's sociopothy.JMO

 

[Blaise]

It is an academic questions that I am not sure about; I have previously thought they would come in (and said so on WESH), but after reading one of AZLawyers posts changed my position.

So . . . we'll see you on WESH this evening saying, 'I changed my mind because of a typically well-written post by AZLawyer on websluths?'

And then look right in the camera and say, 'that's w w w . w e b s l u t h s . c o m.'

Blaise

 

[Turnadot]

BBM....Really? You have never been to New York City have you?

Just got off the phone with my sister who lives in Philly; she said people there would have no problems telling a cop to F off. Her husband is a cop.

I guess it depends on where someone lives?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Question:

Pardon my ignorance for this question, or if it has been asked (this is a long thread) ...

But is it TOO LATE for a "plea deal" ?

Thank You !!

 

[ynotdivein]

This afternoon during Gabriel Adam's direct questioning, after a period of JB fumbling around and nearly walking into the swamp of asking Adam to breach atty/client privilege, HHJP finally took over the line of questioning from JB and pursued it to his satisfaction.

Question: is this a common occurrence during hearings and/or trials?

 

[nyvictoria]

At today's hearing, I noticed Casey is reading depo and interview transcripts. Is she allowed to have legal papers in her cell?

 

[beach]

BBM....Really? You have never been to New York City have you?

Just got off the phone with my sister who lives in Philly; she said people there would have no problems telling a cop to F off. Her husband is a cop.

I guess it depends on where someone lives?

We've been pretty lenient on this Q & A thread the past couple of days, allowing follow-ups to attorney responses; however this would turn into a topical discussion. If you want to talk in more depth, please generate a new thread.

Thanks

 

[kjpaw]

For the lawyers: Can the testimony of the witnesses during these hearings be used for impeachment purposes during the actual trial?

 

[Katprint]

Help? What? No, not at all. Not the tiniest bit. But I think we might be veering off from the "legal questions" theme of the thread... :waitasec:

ETA: Oh. When I said the "suspect not yet named as a suspect," I meant Casey, at the time of the Universal "chat." HTH

Bolded and underlined by me.

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

As AZlawyer point out, the words used by the police to describe Casey ("suspect" or a "person of interest" or a person with "interesting" stories or whatever) do not determine whether or not she was in custody. Similarly, how cooperative or uncooperative Casey was (leaving aside the issue of whether or not telling a bunch of lies while outwardly maintaining a pleasant demeanor constitutes being cooperative) does not determine whether or not she was in custody.

The determinative factor will be whether Casey was legally "in custody". A person who voluntarily comes to the police station for purposes of questioning is not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings particularly when the police advise the suspect that he is not under arrest and free to leave. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1972) However, an initial non-custodial interrogation may become custodial as the circumstances change.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement provides this guide concerning Non-Custodial Interrogation:
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content...65ada/01-03--Non-custodial-Interrogation.aspx

"01-03: Non-custodial Interrogation
Case: Bedoya v. State, 26 FLW D434, 5th DCA
Date: February 16, 2001
Facts: Bedoya was a suspect in the gruesome murder of a female high school student. A police investigator called Bedoya and said he wanted to talk to him about the killing. Bedoya agreed to go to the sheriff’s department but needed a ride. Two deputies picked him up at his house and drove him to the department. The investigator specifically told him that, “You need to go to the rest room, you need…want water or anything like that, just give us a holler here. We’ll stop…You know that you’re not under arrest and that at anytime you want to just walk out of here, you can walk out of here.” Bedoya eventually confessed to the murder. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the confession because he was not given his Miranda warnings.

RULING: The appellate court ruled the confession was admissible. They held that he was not in custody at the time and therefore Miranda warnings were not required. The court in this case stated that custody should be determined by four factors:

1) the manner in which the police summon the suspect for questioning;
2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation;
3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his guilt;
and
4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave.

Applying these factors to the present case, the court decided the suspect was not in custody. The fact that the investigator may have intended to place the subject under arrest if he obtained a full confession did not render the setting “custodial” for purposes of Miranda."

IMO this is one of those close calls where Judge Perry's decision is likely to be less favorable to the defense than Judge Strickland's decision would have been.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Bittiness39]

WTH was JB thinking putting his former attorney on the stand? Is JB more interested in the parallel investigation than his client?

A few more flubs like that and he might make me think he has lost his mind.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Bolded and underlined by me.

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

As AZlawyer point out, the words used by the police to describe Casey ("suspect" or a "person of interest" or a person with "interesting" stories or whatever) do not determine whether or not she was in custody. Similarly, how cooperative or uncooperative Casey was (leaving aside the issue of whether or not telling a bunch of lies while outwardly maintaining a pleasant demeanor constitutes being cooperative) does not determine whether or not she was in custody.

The determinative factor will be whether Casey was legally "in custody". A person who voluntarily comes to the police station for purposes of questioning is not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings particularly when the police advise the suspect that he is not under arrest and free to leave. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1972) However, an initial non-custodial interrogation may become custodial as the circumstances change.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement provides this guide concerning Non-Custodial Interrogation:
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content...65ada/01-03--Non-custodial-Interrogation.aspx

"01-03: Non-custodial Interrogation
Case: Bedoya v. State, 26 FLW D434, 5th DCA
Date: February 16, 2001
Facts: Bedoya was a suspect in the gruesome murder of a female high school student. A police investigator called Bedoya and said he wanted to talk to him about the killing. Bedoya agreed to go to the sheriff’s department but needed a ride. Two deputies picked him up at his house and drove him to the department. The investigator specifically told him that, “You need to go to the rest room, you need…want water or anything like that, just give us a holler here. We’ll stop…You know that you’re not under arrest and that at anytime you want to just walk out of here, you can walk out of here.” Bedoya eventually confessed to the murder. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the confession because he was not given his Miranda warnings.

RULING: The appellate court ruled the confession was admissible. They held that he was not in custody at the time and therefore Miranda warnings were not required. The court in this case stated that custody should be determined by four factors:

1) the manner in which the police summon the suspect for questioning;
2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation;
3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his guilt;
and
4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave.

Applying these factors to the present case, the court decided the suspect was not in custody. The fact that the investigator may have intended to place the subject under arrest if he obtained a full confession did not render the setting “custodial” for purposes of Miranda."

IMO this is one of those close calls where Judge Perry's decision is likely to be less favorable to the defense than Judge Strickland's decision would have been.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Hi Kat, great to see you on this thread, I've read your very valuable and knowledgeable posts for the entire length of this case, "elsewhere".

Based on your post, are you then of the opinion that Casey was not ever "arrested"? That's the way I'm reading your post, but I'd like for you to specifically reflect on the word, "arrested".

Thanks so much!

 

[faefrost]

WTH was JB thinking putting his former attorney on the stand? Is JB more interested in the parallel investigation than his client?

A few more flubs like that and he might make me think he has lost his mind.

A follow up to LB's question. Was that point where HHJP intervened to prevent JB from breaking privilege while questioning his former associate attorney as bad as it seemed? I understand why HHJP stepped in. He had to protect KC's privilege and her right to a fair trial. But what would the consequences have been if he had not, or if JB had chosen to proceed with his line of questioning? Are there any consequences for any of them as a result of the judge needing to step in? Or is it "no blood, no foul" type rules? Could an ethics charge be made because the judge had to step in to maintain the attorney client privilege? Will this brief scene come back to haunt JB? Or any of the other minor questionable admissions that we have been hearing. Smuggling third party communications past jail security policies, submitting as truth what we are now hearing were clearly known lies. etc.

Will any actions come out of what we have sen today?

 

[LolaMoon08]

A follow up to LB's question. Was that point where HHJP intervened to prevent JB from breaking privilege while questioning his former associate attorney as bad as it seemed? I understand why HHJP stepped in. He had to protect KC's privilege and her right to a fair trial. But what would the consequences have been if he had not, or if JB had chosen to proceed with his line of questioning? Are there any consequences for any of them as a result of the judge needing to step in? Or is it "no blood, no foul" type rules? Could an ethics charge be made because the judge had to step in to maintain the attorney client privilege? Will this brief scene come back to haunt JB? Or any of the other minor questionable admissions that we have been hearing. Smuggling third party communications past jail security policies, submitting as truth what we are now hearing were clearly known lies. etc.

Will any actions come out of what we have sen today?

To add on to this...

IF Jose had proceeded and the bridge between attorney/client privilege had been crossed... would the State then be able to ask Mr. Adams any questions that pertained to what he and Casey had discussed?

Also, had Mr. Adams not made the court aware that he was uncomfortable with the line of questioning because it pertained to his attorney/client privilege with Casey, could there have been any legal ramifications for Mr. Adams? Could he be disbarred?

 

[AZlawyer]

In today's hearing JB while questioning Det. Yuri kept talking about ICA lies. My question, did JB do this as a tactic? Basically since the SA office will offer this themselves he thought if it came from him directly it would be less sting for the defense?

My comment if this is indeed what JB was doing...it was an epic fail in my opinion.

Hi AZ ,

Do you think JB did a good job yesterday by bringing up all the things Casey did? Was it necessary to his motion?
I actually thought he did a good job of making his point :truce:,
but wondered if went overboard.
I even have to say,he got what he wanted from the Sargeant this morning. I don't like it,but it is what it is.

I think he made his point that Yuri obviously suspected her, but I think Yuri kind of trapped him into making the parallel point that KC was telling them one blatant lie after another. I don't think that was the way JB had originally planned to make his point. And I don't think JB planned the examination of that witness very well.

AZ or Others, Is it normal for a Defence Attorney to ask for the States evidence be admitted into evidence? I found this a bit odd when JB did it, but if it can be normal protocol I am curious.

Yes, it's pretty normal for many of the exhibits to be useful to both parties, so either party might offer an exhibit into evidence that happens to be on the other party's list.

IIRC, the first written statement given by KC was done shortly after the officers' arrival and prior to the handcuffing incident. If so, will this make a huge difference in whether the judge allows this particular statement to be admitted?

Was it? Yes, that would make a really big difference. IMO anything before the handcuffing is in.

If all of the statements made by ICA prior to her formal arrest are deemed inadmissible, can't the state still present the same information in another fashion? IOW, can't they bring up the lying, stealing, etc. as obtained during their investigation after the fact? Can't they still use other people's testimony to bring out the Nanny story, unemployment, etc.? If so, I think that even if JP grants the defense this motion, it's not going to ruin the state's case.

IMO there is no way the defense is going to be able to avoid all mention of Zanny, etc. Casey made similar statements in the 911 call and to Cindy and Lee (long before Cindy and Lee supposedly became "Junior Detectives" working for Yuri lol). All the other information you mentioned will also come out through other sources.

I agree,the average citizen would usually feel LE had some authority over them .i don't think ICA did,because she thought she could outsmart them,but moot point.
My question is,given the air of authority surrounding LE,should everyone being interviewed ,regardless of guilt or innocence ,be mirandized? Where does LE draw the line?

I think YM and JA did the right thing in order to find Caylee. I'm sure they knew the statement or confession resulting would be thrown out,but they sacrificed that in order to find the baby.They just underestimated the depth of ICA's sociopothy.JMO

The line is pretty fuzzy at times. But the problem with Mirandizing every single witness is that it (justifiably) makes people feel a little defensive and sometimes makes them stop talking. IMO if an officer feels that the word "interrogation" would be a good description of what he plans to do, he should read the suspect his/her Miranda rights. Or not, if he really really wants to find a potentially alive and in-danger toddler and doesn't mind losing the ability to use the suspect's statements against him/her.

Question:

Pardon my ignorance for this question, or if it has been asked (this is a long thread) ...

But is it TOO LATE for a "plea deal" ?

Thank You !!

Nope!

This afternoon during Gabriel Adam's direct questioning, after a period of JB fumbling around and nearly walking into the swamp of asking Adam to breach atty/client privilege, HHJP finally took over the line of questioning from JB and pursued it to his satisfaction.

Question: is this a common occurrence during hearings and/or trials?

Not common, but it isn't unheard-of either. But, um, it tends to occur a little more often when the lawyer is not so good at asking questions. :innocent:

For the lawyers: Can the testimony of the witnesses during these hearings be used for impeachment purposes during the actual trial?

Yes.

WTH was JB thinking putting his former attorney on the stand? Is JB more interested in the parallel investigation than his client?

A few more flubs like that and he might make me think he has lost his mind.

I'm not too sure what he was thinking, since he apparently didn't talk to the guy first. :waitasec:

A follow up to LB's question. Was that point where HHJP intervened to prevent JB from breaking privilege while questioning his former associate attorney as bad as it seemed? I understand why HHJP stepped in. He had to protect KC's privilege and her right to a fair trial. But what would the consequences have been if he had not, or if JB had chosen to proceed with his line of questioning? Are there any consequences for any of them as a result of the judge needing to step in? Or is it "no blood, no foul" type rules? Could an ethics charge be made because the judge had to step in to maintain the attorney client privilege? Will this brief scene come back to haunt JB? Or any of the other minor questionable admissions that we have been hearing. Smuggling third party communications past jail security policies, submitting as truth what we are now hearing were clearly known lies. etc.

Will any actions come out of what we have sen today?

It was pretty bad, actually. No lawyer should be asking, "And what did we tell our client?" or anything like that without blaring red lights and sirens immediately going off in his head: WAIT! STOP! WITHDRAW THE QUESTION! PRIVILEGE ALERT! But HHJP saved the day for the defense--no harm, no foul, no open door, no ethics charge, no haunting.

To add on to this...

IF Jose had proceeded and the bridge between attorney/client privilege had been crossed... would the State then be able to ask Mr. Adams any questions that pertained to what he and Casey had discussed?

Also, had Mr. Adams not made the court aware that he was uncomfortable with the line of questioning because it pertained to his attorney/client privilege with Casey, could there have been any legal ramifications for Mr. Adams? Could he be disbarred?

Bold #1: IMO yes, at least as to that particular conversation about what they told Casey about family visits.

Bold #2: No. Casey has the right to waive the privilege, and JB was (allegedly) acting on Casey's behalf in asking the question. But it was the professional thing to do to make sure that his former client was not inadvertently waiving the privilege.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Through the testimony given so far, does it appear to you, that George and Lee Anthony were "Agents of the State."

 

[AZlawyer]

Through the testimony given so far, does it appear to you, that George and Lee Anthony were "Agents of the State."

:floorlaugh::lol::laughcry::rolling:

:bedtime:fftobed:

See you all tomorrow!