Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[The World According]

Since they have removed other experts from their witness list, unless and until they remove Dr. Lee the defense has to provide the report, do they not? Isn't the discovery rule pretty black and white, if he is on the list....the defense gets to see his report, period. Is that correct?
The very next sentence in their motion, they say that Dr. Freeman they are removing from their witness list. So clearly, they do KNOW TO REMOVE SOMEONE. WOW. Hubris...in biblical proportions.




Casey Defense Wants More Time For Expert Reports
Defense Says One Expert's Report Is 'Moot'

Quote:
Defense attorney Jose Baez also asked the court for an additional 45 days to comply with a court order for reports from two defense experts, Dr. Bill Rodriguez and Dr. Kathy Reichs.

Baez was fined by Judge Belvin Perry for not providing the reports in a timely manner. Perry said that any information that was not in the reports could not be presented at the trial.

http://www.wesh.com/r/26611777/detail.html

Read Motion: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26611795/detail.html

Video Report:http://www.wesh.com/video/26611998/detail.html

 

[AZlawyer]

Since they have removed other experts from their witness list, unless and until they remove Dr. Lee the defense has to provide the report, do they not? Isn't the discovery rule pretty black and white, if he is on the list....the defense gets to see his report, period. Is that correct?
The very next sentence in their motion, they say that Dr. Freeman they are removing from their witness list. So clearly, they do KNOW TO REMOVE SOMEONE. WOW. Hubris...in biblical proportions.


Casey Defense Wants More Time For Expert Reports
Defense Says One Expert's Report Is 'Moot'

Quote:
Defense attorney Jose Baez also asked the court for an additional 45 days to comply with a court order for reports from two defense experts, Dr. Bill Rodriguez and Dr. Kathy Reichs.

Baez was fined by Judge Belvin Perry for not providing the reports in a timely manner. Perry said that any information that was not in the reports could not be presented at the trial.

http://www.wesh.com/r/26611777/detail.html

Read Motion: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26611795/detail.html

Video Report:http://www.wesh.com/video/26611998/detail.html

It's certainly odd the way they say some experts are "removed" from the list but they seem to avoid quite saying that for Henry Lee. If I were the SA I would ask at the next hearing for confirmation that "moot" means "removed from the list." If so, I don't think JB would have to turn over Lee's report.

 

[denjet]

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.

So Jose can't call his "consultants" to rebut state's expert testimony ?? I mean even if Jose "consultants" don't testify about evidence or their findings, he can't call them ? Jose said something about some of his experts not being called to testify but may be used as a rebuttal witness or something to that affect ... it was in the motion for reconsideration ...
It's still baffling me as to what he can and can't do with these "alleged" expert witnesses without turning over their opinions/reports ...
TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

So Jose can't call his "consultants" to rebut state's expert testimony ?? I mean even if Jose "consultants" don't testify about evidence or their findings, he can't call them ? Jose said something about some of his experts not being called to testify but may be used as a rebuttal witness or something to that affect ... it was in the motion for reconsideration ...
It's still baffling me as to what he can and can't do with these "alleged" expert witnesses without turning over their opinions/reports ...
TIA

No, "consultant" means he's not going to call the person as a witness--instead the person is a member of the defense team.

"I might call this person in rebuttal" means the person is an expert witness and subject to disclosure requirements.

 

[sumbunny]

~meek wave~ Hi, again, AZ.

In your opinion who qualifies as an expert witness?
Mr Logan is due to testify at the frye hearing for the smell of decomposition in the trunk.
Yet on his C.V it mentions nothing about being able to detect odor in an expertly fashion.
http://www.borkensteincourse.org/faculty documents/LoganCV_Mar2010.pdf

How is he able to testify with no qualifications? Will HHJP need to qualify him as an expert in this field prior to allowing him to garnish an opinion?

Hope I explained myself coherently

Thank you again AZ you're such a patient person, and I deeply appreciate your time explaining the legalities of the case

 

[Macushla]

What happens if Dr. Werner Spitz is not well enough to testify at the trial? If a worst case scenario occurs and Dr. Spitz is 'no longer with us', would this be a huge problem for the defense in that Caylee's remains were cremated so another Forensic Pathologist would only be able to look at photos to form an opinion. Would the Defense be granted a continuance to give them time to find another expert and have that doctor examine both Dr. Garavaglia's report and Dr. Spitz report or notes if there is no report.

I am concerned about this because I can't see any way for the trial to go forward if one the defenses experts can not testify. What would be the options for everyone involved?

 

[AZlawyer]

~meek wave~ Hi, again, AZ.

In your opinion who qualifies as an expert witness?
Mr Logan is due to testify at the frye hearing for the smell of decomposition in the trunk.
Yet on his C.V it mentions nothing about being able to detect odor in an expertly fashion.
http://www.borkensteincourse.org/faculty documents/LoganCV_Mar2010.pdf

How is he able to testify with no qualifications? Will HHJP need to qualify him as an expert in this field prior to allowing him to garnish an opinion?

Hope I explained myself coherently

Thank you again AZ you're such a patient person, and I deeply appreciate your time explaining the legalities of the case

He is not going to testify about what the odor really was (which would require expertise in that area)--he's going to testify that NO ONE is an expert in that area because it is bad science.

What happens if Dr. Werner Spitz is not well enough to testify at the trial? If a worst case scenario occurs and Dr. Spitz is 'no longer with us', would this be a huge problem for the defense in that Caylee's remains were cremated so another Forensic Pathologist would only be able to look at photos to form an opinion. Would the Defense be granted a continuance to give them time to find another expert and have that doctor examine both Dr. Garavaglia's report and Dr. Spitz report or notes if there is no report.

I am concerned about this because I can't see any way for the trial to go forward if one the defenses experts can not testify. What would be the options for everyone involved?

If I were HHJP, I would tell the defense it should not take long for a new expert to get up to speed, considering there is no body for him to examine. He would have to go from Dr. G's report and Dr. S's notes, recordings, etc.

If Dr. S had been deposed (he hasn't been deposed, has he?) they could just present his deposition to the jury.

 

[Macushla]

snip

If Dr. S had been deposed (he hasn't been deposed, has he?) they could just present his deposition to the jury.

The Prosecution could not cross examine him though, and I didn't think that was allowed or is that just for the defense because a defendant has 'the right to face his/her accuser'? Or am I making a muddle of things here?

 

[AZlawyer]

The Prosecution could not cross examine him though, and I didn't think that was allowed or is that just for the defense because a defendant has 'the right to face his/her accuser'? Or am I making a muddle of things here?

No, if he was deposed, then the prosecution would have had a chance to cross-examine him. Both sides get to ask questions at a deposition.

 

[denjet]

My question is about the sanctions and the motion for extension just filed ... If Judge Perry doesn't respond today, does Baez have to start paying the $500 a day or is it put on hold because of the filing regardless of how or when the judge will rule? I guess what I'm asking is does the order for sanctions go into effect today? And if the judge denies his motion for extension, regardless of when that is, does the fine end up being applied from the date the sanction order specified ?

 

[Solace]

Question for AZ. Reading the State's response to Motions and I did notice that re the July 3rd message "My Caylee is Missing", they say that Cindy asked Lee to help her post this. She did not ask him that and specifically says so in the exhibit pages to the Motion - that she figured it out herself.

This is not a huge mistake, but it is a mistake nonetheless. Cindy enlisted Lee's help in getting in touch with KC that night. Am I mistaken?

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is about the sanctions and the motion for extension just filed ... If Judge Perry doesn't respond today, does Baez have to start paying the $500 a day or is it put on hold because of the filing regardless of how or when the judge will rule? I guess what I'm asking is does the order for sanctions go into effect today? And if the judge denies his motion for extension, regardless of when that is, does the fine end up being applied from the date the sanction order specified ?

IIRC, HHJP has not ordered the $500/day sanction--he just threatened it.

Question for AZ. Reading the State's response to Motions and I did notice that re the July 3rd message "My Caylee is Missing", they say that Cindy asked Lee to help her post this. She did not ask him that and specifically says so in the exhibit pages to the Motion - that she figured it out herself.

This is not a huge mistake, but it is a mistake nonetheless. Cindy enlisted Lee's help in getting in touch with KC that night. Am I mistaken?

Cindy definitely enlisted Lee's help in tracking down KC that night.

I agree that Cindy didn't say, in the deposition attached to the SA's motion, that she had Lee help her with the MySpace post. However, she has been interviewed so many times and changed her story so many times that I hesitate to say that she's NEVER said that.

 

[lacohiba]

Is there a court date for DUSTIN S. KOLODZIEJ v j cheney mason filed in June? Will it interfere with ICA case?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is there a court date for DUSTIN S. KOLODZIEJ v j cheney mason filed in June? Will it interfere with ICA case?

That case is still in the early stages--apparently CM's motion to dismiss is pending--so it is unlikely to interfere with CM's preparation for the Anthony trial.

 

[Katprint]

I agree that Cindy didn't say, in the deposition attached to the SA's motion, that she had Lee help her with the MySpace post. However, she has been interviewed so many times and changed her story so many times that I hesitate to say that she's NEVER said that.

Cindy might have said it in the past; she might say it in the future then say that she never said it (like she did with the "dead body" smell in the car.)

I do think that the State might be a little bit confused about how Lee used MySpace to help Cindy find Casey.

In Lee's deposition by the State, he says that on July 3, 2008, Cindy asked him to help her find Casey because Cindy hasn't seen Casey or Caylee for "weeks." Lee accessed Casey's Myspace and Facebook accounts to find out where Casey was going to be that night.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/depos/lanthonydepo073009.pdf page 63:

"Q ... let's go with the first conversation that you had with your mom on the 3rd.
A. Um-hum
Q. What does she tell you?
A. It was -- it was real short. It was just, you know: Lee, I need your help, you know. I haven't -- I know she waid that Casey hadn't been home but I didn't put two and two together with Caylee because, you know, whatever. Casey hadn't been home. I hadn't been able to talk to her today. I'm worried. I need your help. So, yead, I need you to help me find her; is what she says, referring to Casey, so --
Q. And this is around eight o'clock.
A. Exactly."

page 66:
"A ... so when I went on MySpace and I eventually found it through a Facebook, which I didn't have an account but I eventually saw it where she was heading that night. She was supposed to meet up with, you know, a friend of hers or an acquaintance or something at a party at the Dragon Room downtown.
So, you know, once I got that information, I was like, perfect. I know where she's going to be. I'll just show up and say: What's going on?
I called my mom back and said, She's going to be at the Dragon Room tonight, you know. I found her. You know, what do you want me to do from here?
And then that's, you know, where she said, you know: Casey and Caylee have not been home.
That's when my mom kind of gives me more of the story, you know: Casey and Caylee have not been home for weeks."

On pages 84 and 85, Lee denied helping Cindy write the MySpace blog post.

IMO, this minor mistake - if it is a mistake - does not harm the State's position. If anything, the State's position is stronger if Cindy wrote and posted the MySpace post all by herself without Lee's assistance. There is no authentication issue i.e. Cindy cannot (or at least, should not) claim that the MySpace post was somehow altered by Lee.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Solace]

Cindy might have said it in the past; she might say it in the future then say that she never said it (like she did with the "dead body" smell in the car.)

I do think that the State might be a little bit confused about how Lee used MySpace to help Cindy find Casey.

In Lee's deposition by the State, he says that on July 3, 2008, Cindy asked him to help her find Casey because Cindy hasn't seen Casey or Caylee for "weeks." Lee accessed Casey's Myspace and Facebook accounts to find out where Casey was going to be that night.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/depos/lanthonydepo073009.pdf page 63:

"Q ... let's go with the first conversation that you had with your mom on the 3rd.
A. Um-hum
Q. What does she tell you?
A. It was -- it was real short. It was just, you know: Lee, I need your help, you know. I haven't -- I know she waid that Casey hadn't been home but I didn't put two and two together with Caylee because, you know, whatever. Casey hadn't been home. I hadn't been able to talk to her today. I'm worried. I need your help. So, yead, I need you to help me find her; is what she says, referring to Casey, so --
Q. And this is around eight o'clock.
A. Exactly."

page 66:
"A ... so when I went on MySpace and I eventually found it through a Facebook, which I didn't have an account but I eventually saw it where she was heading that night. She was supposed to meet up with, you know, a friend of hers or an acquaintance or something at a party at the Dragon Room downtown.
So, you know, once I got that information, I was like, perfect. I know where she's going to be. I'll just show up and say: What's going on?
I called my mom back and said, She's going to be at the Dragon Room tonight, you know. I found her. You know, what do you want me to do from here?
And then that's, you know, where she said, you know: Casey and Caylee have not been home.
That's when my mom kind of gives me more of the story, you know: Casey and Caylee have not been home for weeks."

On pages 84 and 85, Lee denied helping Cindy write the MySpace blog post.

IMO, this minor mistake - if it is a mistake - does not harm the State's position. If anything, the State's position is stronger if Cindy wrote and posted the MySpace post all by herself without Lee's assistance. There is no authentication issue i.e. Cindy cannot (or at least, should not) claim that the MySpace post was somehow altered by Lee.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Thanks for all the replies. I read and re-read and Lee never says he helped her with this and I was surprised that they offered an exhibit which does not back this up, but it is not huge, but I would rather it did not happen.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

So sorry, I was lazy, so I didn't go thru all the posts to check if this was asked and answered.....but, last nite on Discovery ID channel, they had a show on this case....loads of video clips and pics....do the A's get residuals every time something to do with this case is shown on TV ??

Thanks so much, AZlawyer, for all your "free" legal help !!!
AND...for putting it in a way that doesn't muk things up even more !

 

[Solace]

So sorry, I was lazy, so I didn't go thru all the posts to check if this was asked and answered.....but, last nite on Discovery ID channel, they had a show on this case....loads of video clips and pics....do the A's get residuals every time something to do with this case is shown on TV ??

Thanks so much, AZlawyer, for all your "free" legal help !!!
AND...for putting it in a way that doesn't muk things up even more !

I believe they were paid $20,000 total.

 

[AZlawyer]

So sorry, I was lazy, so I didn't go thru all the posts to check if this was asked and answered.....but, last nite on Discovery ID channel, they had a show on this case....loads of video clips and pics....do the A's get residuals every time something to do with this case is shown on TV ??

Thanks so much, AZlawyer, for all your "free" legal help !!!
AND...for putting it in a way that doesn't muk things up even more !

It completely depends on what the contract says...but I think Solace is right and they were paid a flat fee.

 

[Snaz]

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!!!