Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[AZlawyer]

I asked this on another thread, and Beach suggested I might ask it here..... but I find it is actually a several part question...

1. Would the prison have to agree to allow KC to be interviewed after she is convicted?

2. Assuming she is allowed to do the interview, I was always under the impression a convicted criminal could not profit from their crime... correct or no?

3. Assuming #2 is correct and the criminal cannot profit from their crime, do the networks just get the interviews for free?

4. Or can any money be given to KC's family?

5. Or would the State have a right to any monies from interviews given the State paid for her defense?

Thank you so much!!!

1. I assume she would be allowed to communicate with media under the same restrictions as she could communicate with anyone else. I don't think the prison would be required to allow a TV crew into her cell with her.

2. If there is a "Son of Sam" law in Florida that has not been overturned as unconstitutional (and I think there is), then this should be true.

3. That depends. If the networks pay for an interview, and there is an effective "Son of Sam" or similar law, the money could be confiscated by the State for victim restitution...but who would be the victim in this case? The As??? I'm really not sure how this would be handled.

4. You mean the $ given to the As instead of to KC? I think, ordinarily, such funds could still be confiscated and given to the "victim," but again, I'm concerned that the As might BE the closest thing to living "victims" in this case.

5. I don't think the State paying for her defense would come into play at all.

I'd be interested in the opinion of any Florida lawyers. There are a lot of state law variations in these issues, and I don't pretend to know much about Florida law.

 

[LambChop]

If the father of Caylee has been identified would he not be entitled to any monies KC would make? And what about ZG with her lawsuit?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the father of Caylee has been identified would he not be entitled to any monies KC would make? And what about ZG with her lawsuit?

Maybe--but he hasn't been identified and doesn't appear likely to be identified. We have his partial DNA profile by eliminating from Caylee's DNA profile those parts contributed by Casey...and from the DNA results we know the father isn't George, Lee, Jesse, Brian B the neighbor lol, any of the FBI techs (wait I think they were all women!), or the Random Guy who provided the control sample used by the FBI. But that still leaves several million possible dads just in the Orlando area.

If Casey were allowed to KEEP any profits from interviews, etc. (a big if, assuming she's convicted), and if ZG wins her lawsuit, ZG could try to execute her judgment against any assets belonging to Casey. But she wouldn't count as a victim of the crimes for which Casey is charged.

 

[AZlawyer]

Wait! Wait! Just wait. Back up .... Casey did WHAT??? She wrote a fake obituary???? For this dude she claimed was Caylee's father?? If she did then that just proves what a complete nut job Casey really is- I mean she must be living in some other alternate universe no?

I know I missed months of document dumps while I was preparing for one of my trials and I missed this little gem?

Are you serious? Can you point me in the right direction for this information?

Yes, but then we'd better switch back to the "Legal Questions" topic before mean old 'Beach comes after us! :innocent:

Computer forensics report, p. 36:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/reports/computerforensicsreport.pdf

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello

You have probably answered this many times and in many ways. Probably for me, in fact-on other threads. But, I have to ask again.

Has Jose Baez broken any laws? Has the defense team broken any laws?
Who would be the party to say that laws had been broken, if that be the case?

Are lawyers held to the same laws as ordinary citizens?

What are ethics, when it comes to the profession of "law?" Is there an actual(in paper)standard of ethics when it comes to the law? A code?

As I write all those questions I do not expect you to indulge me, I could go do a little research...it is called the interwebz for a reason(I tell myself). But, any direction or quick info you could share is appreciated. Because I do research things, I know the value in someone "in the know" providing the kind of answers the pros on WS do-thank you to everyone who gives their time.

If you will, please tell me like you would explain to a child: 'cause that is how I really need to understand this. If a child noticed or commented that Mr. Baez or his team did something less than fair how would you explain that to a child? TIA.

Websleuth's legal eagles rock and/or roll! :rocker:

 

[AZlawyer]

Hello

You have probably answered this many times and in many ways. Probably for me, in fact-on other threads. But, I have to ask again.

Has Jose Baez broken any laws? Has the defense team broken any laws?
Who would be the party to say that laws had been broken, if that be the case?

Are lawyers held to the same laws as ordinary citizens?

What are ethics, when it comes to the profession of "law?" Is there an actual(in paper)standard of ethics when it comes to the law? A code?

As I write all those questions I do not expect you to indulge me, I could go do a little research...it is called the interwebz for a reason(I tell myself). But, any direction or quick info you could share is appreciated. Because I do research things, I know the value in someone "in the know" providing the kind of answers the pros on WS do-thank you to everyone who gives their time.

If you will, please tell me like you would explain to a child: 'cause that is how I really need to understand this. If a child noticed or commented that Mr. Baez or his team did something less than fair how would you explain that to a child? TIA.

Websleuth's legal eagles rock and/or roll! :rocker:

Lawyers are definitely required to follow the same laws as everyone else. I can't think of any laws that JB has broken that we know of. But if you have some specific action in mind that you're wondering about, let me know.

Yes, there is an actual, on paper, standard of ethics for lawyers. Different ones for each state. Here are the Florida ones (go to the part that says "Rules of Professional Conduct"):

http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV?Openview&Start=1&Expand=4#4

Some lawyers also have their own rules of ethics, much like you do. These rules are not written down in the State Bar offices, but we try to follow them anyway because we are nice people. :twocents:

 

[Chiquita71]

Thank you AZ~

If it were to be found that a defense attorney received money from the sale of the pictures of the person he is defending-is accused of murdering...

is that against the law or just unethical? And, is that unethical under the Florida ethics code(don't answer that I will look it up)or unethical in that "he doesn't have to be a nice guy if he doesn't wanna clause?" The second one I can't look up, I don't think...lol.

I saw in the news that it has been questioned about where did Casey get the money to pay JB...I want to get across that I ask out of a wondering about how all of this actually works in the "real world." Since there are attorneys that would not act in unsavory ways because they have personal ethics, we are saying that some people are good people and some people are bad-? The ethics on paper and the laws surrounding the institution itself are not enough to have any power over someone like JB and the come and go professionals who have danced around being "nice"?

I do not mean to badger, its just it seems everyone(including myself)as a grown person on this planet who has a smidge of morals about them, finds things like the defense accusing innocent people of murder and blatantly ignoring the orders of the court: to be behaviors that deserve attention to be called to them.

Then we have the SA ask for sanctions(it took me a while to understand what that was all about!)but my understanding is that the SA felt the same way I was feeling. That the defense team was refusing to follow the rules, to do what they were supposed to be doing. And my understanding is HHJP agreed with that by "giving?" sanctions, placing sanctions on JB. Is that the judge saying they broke a rule? Is that the judge saying JB(because he was the one who it was for if I understand correctly, his name)is breaking ethics by what he is doing?

Is this like tenure for teachers? When teachers get tenure, it is very difficult to fire them after that, no matter what they did. And, is this like the priests? Even though they get accused and sometimes convicted of molestation and other crimes there is nothing done about it. Like, it is right in the news that someone is known to have molested several children but they are stationed in some other country working with children?

Maybe I am being a freak here, and if that is the case please ignore me I will understand. I don't mean to sound like a pollyanna and part of me is saying "you are asking stupid questions and bothering people and showing your ignorance" but I can't help but feel I am missing something here. Something I can't look up...ya know?

Thank you for your time. :cool2:

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZ~

If it were to be found that a defense attorney received money from the sale of the pictures of the person he is defending-is accused of murdering...

is that against the law or just unethical? And, is that unethical under the Florida ethics code(don't answer that I will look it up)or unethical in that "he doesn't have to be a nice guy if he doesn't wanna clause?" The second one I can't look up, I don't think...lol.

I saw in the news that it has been questioned about where did Casey get the money to pay JB...I want to get across that I ask out of a wondering about how all of this actually works in the "real world." Since there are attorneys that would not act in unsavory ways because they have personal ethics, we are saying that some people are good people and some people are bad-? The ethics on paper and the laws surrounding the institution itself are not enough to have any power over someone like JB and the come and go professionals who have danced around being "nice"?

I do not mean to badger, its just it seems everyone(including myself)as a grown person on this planet who has a smidge of morals about them, finds things like the defense accusing innocent people of murder and blatantly ignoring the orders of the court: to be behaviors that deserve attention to be called to them.

Then we have the SA ask for sanctions(it took me a while to understand what that was all about!)but my understanding is that the SA felt the same way I was feeling. That the defense team was refusing to follow the rules, to do what they were supposed to be doing. And my understanding is HHJP agreed with that by "giving?" sanctions, placing sanctions on JB. Is that the judge saying they broke a rule? Is that the judge saying JB(because he was the one who it was for if I understand correctly, his name)is breaking ethics by what he is doing?

Is this like tenure for teachers? When teachers get tenure, it is very difficult to fire them after that, no matter what they did. And, is this like the priests? Even though they get accused and sometimes convicted of molestation and other crimes there is nothing done about it. Like, it is right in the news that someone is known to have molested several children but they are stationed in some other country working with children?

Maybe I am being a freak here, and if that is the case please ignore me I will understand. I don't mean to sound like a pollyanna and part of me is saying "you are asking stupid questions and bothering people and showing your ignorance" but I can't help but feel I am missing something here. Something I can't look up...ya know?

Thank you for your time. :cool2:

I don't think it would be against any actual law for JB to sell the pictures.

When we were discussing whether it would be against the ethical rules way back when, IIRC there was some reasonable disagreement on that point, but leaning toward the conclusion that it was unethical.

For me personally, it would feel wrong--that's that other ethics I was mentioning.

Now HHJP's sanctions...those were not for breaking the law, or the ethics rules, or the "nice guy" rules...those were for violating an order of the court. Which is sort of in between a law and an ethics rule in terms of seriousness.

I think a lot of what we see with JB is simple ignorance. He is probably not breaking any laws (I hope), he is maybe skirting around the edges of some ethics rules, he is violating some court orders although he always has his excuses and interpretations , his personal ethics are...unclear, but his inability to plan and execute a defense strategy is obvious.

SO, to recap, here's what we are looking for in a good lawyer:

Compliance with Laws
Compliance with Ethics Rules
Compliance with Court Orders
Personal Ethics
Competence

I would add "Style," but I fear that is asking too much at this point.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Lawyers are definitely required to follow the same laws as everyone else. I can't think of any laws that JB has broken that we know of. But if you have some specific action in mind that you're wondering about, let me know.

Yes, there is an actual, on paper, standard of ethics for lawyers. Different ones for each state. Here are the Florida ones (go to the part that says "Rules of Professional Conduct"):

http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV?Openview&Start=1&Expand=4#4

Some lawyers also have their own rules of ethics, much like you do. These rules are not written down in the State Bar offices, but we try to follow them anyway because we are nice people. :twocents:

Thank You for sharing your wisdom and knowledge about law along with your ability to "dumb it down" well enough that I can comprehend a great deal of the generalities.

As for quaterbacking the Baez comedy :bow:

Question# As for any laws that have been broken...Baez has numerous times stood before several judges as an officer of the court and spewed lies. If a witness who has sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth gets on the stand and purposely lies to the court they can be legally charged. Look at the A's and copious amount of times they have lied, well to everyone. The media, interviews with LE, depositions of both Civil and Criminal cases, withheld evidence which JB did when he went into the A's home and collected items and only when this information was about to come out IIRC a year or greater after the fact did he hand over to LE.

Then there is the media and brokering deals which Baez stood before JS and denied any connection too although he was caught on video survelliance with the ABC producer, the A's have stated he brokered that deal for the sum of $200,000. Baez had Casey bring in photos and videos to his office to sell which BTW was caught on camera. And how can we forget his PR guru the famous Todd Black. (sorry for tangent)

Why wouldn't any of these be considered breaking the law?

Novice Seeker

 

[ZsaZsa]

If ICA were to decide on an Alford plea would she still be subject to the same penalty- DP/LWOP, or does that plea earn her some leniency?

 

[jon_burrows]

If Casey decides to fire Baez and CM the night before her trial starts, what happens? Is she allowed to fire them at any time and cause further delays?

In this case, if Finnell is death penalty-qualified (and I think she is), she might just get stuck with the whole thing. But if Casey tries to fire the whole team, I believe HHJP would have the right to inquire as to the reason, to ensure that Casey is not simply causing delay.



Yes, but then they can't testify. "Consultant" = "this guy I was going to hire as an expert witness until he told me he agreed with the other side."

I don't know what the deadline is/was. If he's adding new experts, HHJP will presumably require him to have a good reason for doing so--e.g., "we just got this report from the SA and realized we needed an expert to respond."

But "bear in mind" as HHJP would say that he is going to cut the defense some slack to make sure, to the extent possible, that Casey's rights are not affected by her attorneys' inadequacies (so any conviction will "stick" on appeal). JB and CM might "deserve" to lose the right to present certain evidence, etc., but Casey deserves (in the constitutional sense only) a full and competent defense. And the Florida taxpayers deserve to have this done right the first time.

If that happens and Finnell is the last one standing can she take this to trial on her own and on time? Although I think she is a good lawyer she doesn't seem to know the facts well in this particular case. Can one lawyer try this case or would the trial be pushed back indefinitely until Finnell put together another 'dream team'? TIA

 

[Solace]

QUESTION FOR AZ:

What do you think about the diary saying '03 opposite the June 21 entry, since the report says the Diary was not made until 2004 and select few were sold to a certain store?

I would think this is strong evidence that the '03 was placed there as a smoke screen, but I am interested in what you think.

Obviously, this book was not in KC's hands in 2003 since it was not sold to the store until 2004.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Please remember this is not a discussion thread. Pose a question for one of our VERIFIED attorneys and await a response. Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank You for sharing your wisdom and knowledge about law along with your ability to "dumb it down" well enough that I can comprehend a great deal of the generalities.

As for quaterbacking the Baez comedy :bow:

Question# As for any laws that have been broken...Baez has numerous times stood before several judges as an officer of the court and spewed lies. If a witness who has sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth gets on the stand and purposely lies to the court they can be legally charged. Look at the A's and copious amount of times they have lied, well to everyone. The media, interviews with LE, depositions of both Civil and Criminal cases, withheld evidence which JB did when he went into the A's home and collected items and only when this information was about to come out IIRC a year or greater after the fact did he hand over to LE.

Then there is the media and brokering deals which Baez stood before JS and denied any connection too although he was caught on video survelliance with the ABC producer, the A's have stated he brokered that deal for the sum of $200,000. Baez had Casey bring in photos and videos to his office to sell which BTW was caught on camera. And how can we forget his PR guru the famous Todd Black. (sorry for tangent)

Why wouldn't any of these be considered breaking the law?

Novice Seeker

OK, telling lies to a judge would definitely violate ethics rules but probably not any laws, depending on the exact nature of the lies. BUT I personally can't recall any intentional lies he told to a judge. Can you remind me?

JB collecting DNA samples for Caylee would not be considered "withholding evidence" or anything illegal. LE could (and did) get its own samples too--these were just duplicates.

The media deals wouldn't break any laws that I know of but might violate ethics rules.

If ICA were to decide on an Alford plea would she still be subject to the same penalty- DP/LWOP, or does that plea earn her some leniency?

A plea would not take the DP off the table unless it was part of a plea agreement with the SA.

If that happens and Finnell is the last one standing can she take this to trial on her own and on time? Although I think she is a good lawyer she doesn't seem to know the facts well in this particular case. Can one lawyer try this case or would the trial be pushed back indefinitely until Finnell put together another 'dream team'? TIA

If HHJP thought the others were being fired as a ploy to buy time, he might make her proceed on her own. If not, he'd probably give her more time. This isn't going to happen anyway, though.

QUESTION FOR AZ:

What do you think about the diary saying '03 opposite the June 21 entry, since the report says the Diary was not made until 2004 and select few were sold to a certain store?

I would think this is strong evidence that the '03 was placed there as a smoke screen, but I am interested in what you think.

Obviously, this book was not in KC's hands in 2003 since it was not sold to the store until 2004.

I think it is excellent evidence that the diary was not written in 03. However, it might be kept out of evidence as being of uncertain probative value and high prejudicial value if there is nothing further to prove that it was written in 08. I'm kind of leaning toward 05 myself.

 

[doogiesgirl]

AZlawyer,

I don't know if this is a fact as I have not checked the witness list. But I've read many posts that say Mallory is not listed on either witness list. Is it possible for the state (or the defense also I guess) to have a witness or two they don't want disclosed to the public or the defense so they inform the judge and ask that the name be sealed?

TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer,

I don't know if this is a fact as I have not checked the witness list. But I've read many posts that say Mallory is not listed on either witness list. Is it possible for the state (or the defense also I guess) to have a witness or two they don't want disclosed to the public or the defense so they inform the judge and ask that the name be sealed?

TIA

No. I mean, they could ask, but we would at least see the motion asking to seal the witness's name. And they would certainly have to tell the defense in sufficient time for the defense to prepare to cross-examine the person. The defense would probably also have to be given a chance to take the person's deposition.

 

[ynotdivein]

In Brad Conway's interview, he tells the officers about learning that JB solicited the MN-waiver-letter from GA/CA without going through BC. He's then asked if there were other similar instances of JB acting like this, and seems to indicate that yes there certainly were, but that they would be protected under atty-client privilege.

I think I get that the MN-waiver-letter is not privileged because it happened entirely outside BC's awareness and so was not protected (right?)... but then what does that say for all the other instances, where BC does think they are privileged? Is he hinting that JB was acting unethically in ways that BC was made aware of through his clients?

Also, what are the implications of this interview for the defense team? For the chances of appeal? It's clear that the investigators are focusing on JB's actions (and maybe Mort's) in the tampering investigations. Does he get to sail along as "lead counsel" and everyone pretends it's all ok until charges are filed? Can KC appeal on the grounds that her lawyer was being unethical? (Even though I suspect she is fully aware of and possibly directing parts of this behavior. Wasn't Mort visiting her a whole bunch while the LB mess was unfolding? Sorry, that's not a lawyer question.)

Sorry to go on and on, but the Conway transcript was really astonishing! Thank you in advance :blowkiss:

 

[logicalgirl]

In Brad Conway's interview, he tells the officers about learning that JB solicited the MN-waiver-letter from GA/CA without going through BC. He's then asked if there were other similar instances of JB acting like this, and seems to indicate that yes there certainly were, but that they would be protected under atty-client privilege.

I think I get that the MN-waiver-letter is not privileged because it happened entirely outside BC's awareness and so was not protected (right?)... but then what does that say for all the other instances, where BC does think they are privileged? Is he hinting that JB was acting unethically in ways that BC was made aware of through his clients?

Also, what are the implications of this interview for the defense team? For the chances of appeal? It's clear that the investigators are focusing on JB's actions (and maybe Mort's) in the tampering investigations. Does he get to sail along as "lead counsel" and everyone pretends it's all ok until charges are filed? Can KC appeal on the grounds that her lawyer was being unethical? (Even though I suspect she is fully aware of and possibly directing parts of this behavior. Wasn't Mort visiting her a whole bunch while the LB mess was unfolding? Sorry, that's not a lawyer question.)

Sorry to go on and on, but the Conway transcript was really astonishing! Thank you in advance :blowkiss:

Hello AZ? Have you seen our "urgent! AZLawyer" Beacon? Would you please comment on the "ethics" BC has discussed in the "BC Transcipts? Many thanks in advance.

 

[beach]

OK, telling lies to a judge would definitely violate ethics rules but probably not any laws, depending on the exact nature of the lies. BUT I personally can't recall any intentional lies he told to a judge. Can you remind me?

<snip>

A whopper was discovered today. It is in the transcript of Conway's LE interview. Specifically pdf pg. 26 forward in this doc.

Mr. Conway contradicts JB's proffer to the court that he (BC) had direct knowledge that the TES records contained exculpatory evidence as, "Bulls**t. It didn't happen." :angel:

 

[AZlawyer]

In Brad Conway's interview, he tells the officers about learning that JB solicited the MN-waiver-letter from GA/CA without going through BC. He's then asked if there were other similar instances of JB acting like this, and seems to indicate that yes there certainly were, but that they would be protected under atty-client privilege.

I think I get that the MN-waiver-letter is not privileged because it happened entirely outside BC's awareness and so was not protected (right?)... but then what does that say for all the other instances, where BC does think they are privileged? Is he hinting that JB was acting unethically in ways that BC was made aware of through his clients?

Also, what are the implications of this interview for the defense team? For the chances of appeal? It's clear that the investigators are focusing on JB's actions (and maybe Mort's) in the tampering investigations. Does he get to sail along as "lead counsel" and everyone pretends it's all ok until charges are filed? Can KC appeal on the grounds that her lawyer was being unethical? (Even though I suspect she is fully aware of and possibly directing parts of this behavior. Wasn't Mort visiting her a whole bunch while the LB mess was unfolding? Sorry, that's not a lawyer question.)

Sorry to go on and on, but the Conway transcript was really astonishing! Thank you in advance :blowkiss:

The "privileged" comment means, to me, that George and/or Cindy told Brad of other direct communications from JB that Brad felt were inappropriate.

The implications for JB and anyone else shown to be involved if the Laura B docs were faked will be serious. IMO JB would be disbarred if anyone could prove that he actually knew fake docs were being prepared to help his client.

He can "sail along," yes, for now. If charges are filed against him, IMO he would need to resign on the ground that his personal interests would be interfering with taking care of his client's interests.

Having an unethical lawyer is not grounds for appeal.

Hello AZ? Have you seen our "urgent! AZLawyer" Beacon? Would you please comment on the "ethics" BC has discussed in the "BC Transcipts? Many thanks in advance.

Well, the detectives did a pretty good job of having BC explain the ethics. You can't contact represented persons (GA and CA) to discuss the case without their attorney's knowledge and consent. You sure as HECK can't ask someone else's clients to waive or un-waive waitasec a conflict of interest behind their lawyer's back!!!

Obviously if there was an intentional creation of fake evidence of which the lawyer was aware, that would be a MAJOR MAJOR no-no ethically.

What else was there? Oh, jeez, lying to the judge, right. I mean, that one really seems like it was intentional rather than a "misunderstanding". Hopefully the Florida Bar will FINALLY take some notice! :banghead: But Brad was ethically required to get the judge's attention RIGHT THEN and say, "Your Honor, I apologize for the interruption, but I must bring to your attention that the statement just made by JB is untrue. I did not, in fact, see any such documents in my review of the TES records." Even if your clients get pi$$ed and fire you, you have to do it. You can't just sit there while another lawyer lies to the court.