Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[ynotdivein]

Oh AZ thank you thank you thankyou! We have been waiting for you all day.

So what happens to BC for not voicing up right there in court and pointing out that JB was lying?

And have you read this thing??? Once you have read it (and digested--I would offer Pepto Bismol but there seems to be a shortage in FL that's directing all nation-wide inventory to the Orlando area), we would LOVE to know what you think the ramifications are for KC's defense, etc. etc...

 

[AZlawyer]

Oh AZ thank you thank you thankyou! We have been waiting for you all day.

So what happens to BC for not voicing up right there in court and pointing out that JB was lying?

And have you read this thing??? Once you have read it (and digested--I would offer Pepto Bismol but there seems to be a shortage in FL that's directing all nation-wide inventory to the Orlando area), we would LOVE to know what you think the ramifications are for KC's defense, etc. etc...

Well, someone could file a bar complaint against BC for not speaking up. But who's going to file it? JB? "Um, I told a lie in court and BC said nothing..." :floorlaugh:

Yes, I've read BC's interview now. I think there are lots of potential ramifications for the people involved, but very few for KC's trial or appeal. Except, obviously, they can't use fake documents as evidence, and hopefully they will have enough sense not to put Laura B on the stand!

 

[beach]

Well, someone could file a bar complaint against BC for not speaking up. But who's going to file it? JB? "Um, I told a lie in court and BC said nothing..." :floorlaugh:

Yes, I've read BC's interview now. I think there are lots of potential ramifications for the people involved, but very few for KC's trial or appeal. Except, obviously, they can't use fake documents as evidence, and hopefully they will have enough sense not to put Laura B on the stand!

BBM

WHEW!!! I interpreted it the same but I sure am glad to hear you say it!

So, do you think that any potential charges that may be pending hanging around just...ya know...waiting.... :angel: Ok, I am not positive of the FL SOLs on either evidence or witness tampering, but I feel pretty sure it would prob be at least 2 yrs... So is it your opinion that should anyone be charged it would be done AFTER KC's murder trial so as not to delay it further?

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM

WHEW!!! I interpreted it the same but I sure am glad to hear you say it!

So, do you think that any potential charges that may be pending hanging around just...ya know...waiting.... :angel: Ok, I am not positive of the FL SOLs on either evidence or witness tampering, but I feel pretty sure it would prob be at least 2 yrs... So is it your opinion that should anyone be charged it would be done AFTER KC's murder trial so as not to delay it further?

Yeah, I think they'll wait until after KC's trial just to make sure she doesn't say she can't POSSIBLY proceed without JB....

 

[strawberry]

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.

Very respectfully snipped. BBM. Oh man that would have been priceless!! I would have sent him a dozen roses. He was probably in a state of shock though. I can think of times that something very strange and unbelievable happened and only later did I think well why didn't I do such and such...he probably was stunned. IMO

 

[ynotdivein]

So we get to proceed through trial with all this mess very openly hanging over JB's head... Um wow.

(That is not a question. I think at this point I am beyond formulating questions. :thud

 

[nums24]

Let's say that the tampering investigation warrants enough to file charges, your saying LE/SAO actually wait to file the charges to prevent delaying the trial?

If someone is being investigated for falsifying the TES documents, at this point will anything related to LB be allowed in the trial? Or would it be considered tainted, or fruit of a poison tree?

 

[AZlawyer]

Very respectfully snipped. BBM. Oh man that would have been priceless!! I would have sent him a dozen roses. He was probably in a state of shock though. I can think of times that something very strange and unbelievable happened and only later did I think well why didn't I do such and such...he probably was stunned. IMO

True. Especially if you're in a wheelchair and can't just jump to your feet and say, "Hold it just a second!"

Let's say that the tampering investigation warrants enough to file charges, your saying LE/SAO actually wait to file the charges to prevent delaying the trial?

If someone is being investigated for falsifying the TES documents, at this point will anything related to LB be allowed in the trial? Or would it be considered tainted, or fruit of a poison tree?

Yes, I believe the SA does not want to screw up KC's trial.

The defense could still call LB to the stand, but the SA would be pretty much forced at that point to cross-examine her on her alleged falsifying of records to help the defense. Surely even this defense team can see that LB is no good to them as a witness any more!

 

[faefrost]

True. Especially if you're in a wheelchair and can't just jump to your feet and say, "Hold it just a second!"



Yes, I believe the SA does not want to screw up KC's trial.

The defense could still call LB to the stand, but the SA would be pretty much forced at that point to cross-examine her on her alleged falsifying of records to help the defense. Surely even this defense team can see that LB is no good to them as a witness any more!

Would doing that trigger a mistrial?

 

[AZlawyer]

Would doing that trigger a mistrial?

No, the defense would just call LB to the stand, then the SA would cross-examine her about creating false docs to help the defense, then she would leave the courtroom and all the jurors would write in their little notebooks, "liar," and disregard her testimony.

 

[nums24]

True. Especially if you're in a wheelchair and can't just jump to your feet and say, "Hold it just a second!"



Yes, I believe the SA does not want to screw up KC's trial.

The defense could still call LB to the stand, but the SA would be pretty much forced at that point to cross-examine her on her alleged falsifying of records to help the defense. Surely even this defense team can see that LB is no good to them as a witness any more!

While waiting for your reply, I started researching:

False evidenceSubdivision (a)(4) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, regardless of the client's wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer's obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence. A lawyer does not violate this rule if the lawyer offers the evidence for the purpose of establishing its falsity. If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants the lawyer to introduce false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered. If the persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer the false evidence. If only a portion of a witness's testimony will be false, the lawyer may call the witness to testify but may not elicit or otherwise permit the witness to present the testimony that the lawyer knows is false.

The duties stated in this rule apply to all lawyers, including defense counsel in
criminal cases.

The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact.

Additionally:

The lawyer's duty not to assist witnesses, including the lawyer's own client, in offering false evidence stems from the Rules of Professional Conduct, Florida statutes,and caselaw.
Rule 4-1.2(d) prohibits the lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent.
Rule 4-3.4(b) prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness to testify falsely.
Rule 4-8.4(a) prohibits the lawyer from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so.
Rule 4-8.4(b) prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
Rule 4-8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Rule 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Rule 4-1.6(b) requires a lawyer to reveal information to the extent the lawyer
reasonably believes necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime.
This rule, 4-3.3(a)(2), requires a lawyer to reveal a material fact to the tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client, and 4-3.3(a)(4) prohibits a lawyer from offering false evidence and requires the lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures when false material evidence has been offered.
Rule 4-1.16 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law and permits the lawyer to withdraw from representation if the client persists in a course of action that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent or repugnant or imprudent.
Rule 4-1.16(c) recognizes that notwithstanding good cause for terminating representation of a client, a lawyer is obliged to continue representation if so ordered by a tribunal.
To permit or assist a client or other witness to testify falsely is prohibited by section 837.02, Florida Statutes (1991), which makes perjury in an official proceeding a felony, and by section 777.011, Florida Statutes (1991), which proscribes aiding, abetting, or counseling commission of a felony.

Florida caselaw prohibits lawyers from presenting false testimony or evidence.Kneale v. Williams, 30 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1947), states that perpetration of a fraud is outside the scope of the professional duty of an attorney and no privilege attaches to communication between an attorney and a client with respect to transactions constituting the making of a false claim or the perpetration of a fraud. Dodd v. The Florida Bar, 118
So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1960), reminds us that "the courts are . . . dependent on members of the bar to . . . present the true facts of each cause . . . to enable the judge or the jury to [decide the facts] to which the law may be applied. When an attorney . . . allows false testimony . . . [the attorney] . . . makes it impossible for the scales [of justice] to balance." See The
Fla. Bar v. Agar, 394 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1981), and The Fla. Bar v. Simons, 391 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1980).
The United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986),
answered in the negative the constitutional issue of whether it is ineffective assistance of counsel for an attorney to threaten disclosure of a client's (a criminal defendant's) intention to testify falsely​

.

None of this is applicable here?

The quote begins on page 94: http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/0A266C6138C4A15685256B29004BD617/$FILE/RRTFB%20CHAPTER%204.pdf?OpenElement

 

[AZlawyer]

While waiting for your reply, I started researching:




Additionally:


None of this is applicable here?

The quote begins on page 94: http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/0A266C6138C4A15685256B29004BD617/$FILE/RRTFB%20CHAPTER%204.pdf?OpenElement

Of course the defense can't present the false evidence! I was just saying it wouldn't prevent them from calling LB to give OTHER evidence--but then the SA would cross-examine her about the false evidence. So it would be a waste, a huge waste, to call her to the stand at all.

 

[Macushla]

There has been no response from HHJP regarding JB's motion requesting an extension of time for some of the expert witnesses. Where does that leave the deadline already ordered by the court for getting the reports to the State? I believe the deadline was last Friday or the day before, so is everything in limbo? Does silence from HHJP mean that he is tacitly giving permission because he as not ruled AGAINST the request or does it mean that the deadlines are still in place because he has not granted the request?

Would it make sense to just wait until Friday's status hearing to rule on this? I know they held an emergency hearing about another time sensitve issue and this seems to be very time sensitve too. Can HHJP just leave it hanging out there with no answer?

 

[AZlawyer]

There has been no response from HHJP regarding JB's motion requesting an extension of time for some of the expert witnesses. Where does that leave the deadline already ordered by the court for getting the reports to the State? I believe the deadline was last Friday or the day before, so is everything in limbo? Does silence from HHJP mean that he is tacitly giving permission because he as not ruled AGAINST the request or does it mean that the deadlines are still in place because he has not granted the request?

Would it make sense to just wait until Friday's status hearing to rule on this? I know they held an emergency hearing about another time sensitve issue and this seems to be very time sensitve too. Can HHJP just leave it hanging out there with no answer?

The deadline is still in place unless and until HHJP changes it. It is pretty risky to ask a judge to change a deadline and not to ask for an expedited ruling prior to the deadline passing, but I guess JB and CM were confident of their request being granted. :waitasec: It was their responsibility to ask for a faster briefing schedule and hearing if they didn't want to take that chance. It is not the judge's responsibility.

I assume it will be discussed at the status hearing.

 

[ynotdivein]

Any thoughts on why the SA would release BC's interview now, of all times? Is the investigation complete? Was there some deadline that they had to disclose it? Why the media embargo on reporting it? Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

 

[Just Jayla]

I am certain this has been covered, but it still bugs me and I need a refresher on this one-Why did Judge Rodriguez deny the motion to compel DomC to be deposed? By "why" I mean, what legal, solid basis? Is it possible Judge R. really felt there is privilege? Can he go out on a liberal interpretation limb and view "privilege" differently in the sense that it kinda sorta encompasses contract law (DC's contract with the A's, KC, Baez), contract law being very key in civil proceedings?
IOW, in criminal law, I know the bottom line is that clients and attorneys are the only generally recognized privileges-However, privilege is clearly looked upon differently in civil courts, or Oprah could never sue her housekeepers, right?
Of course, we know if Oprah was doing something illegal, the housekeeper would have to report her criminally, but what happens if Oprah sues for the outting? What happens if the Anthony's sue DC? Shouldn't illegal activity be discluded from any contract? Cause frankly, we are talking about possible criminal activity, if DC tampered with evidence and others knew about it...
I am probably chasing my tail on this one-Is the simple answer that Judge R. does not feel it is necessary for DC to divulge "secrets" that delve into the criminal realm, only statements related to the suit? 'Cause I think Mr. Morgan and Mitnik have been pretty convincing that the aspects of the criminal case clearly do impact ZG's case-He has to demonstrate ZG could not have been the kidnapper KC said she was. Why would Judge R. not see this, unless it is something convoluted, like my suggestion above?
Or was Judge R. just pulling the denial from his...ear?

Esquires...I have bolded the part that I suppose I really would like to know about-The rest of my babbling is just me throwing stuff out there, but if I am onto something, tell me-I would also be satisfied to hear that Judge Takei, er, Rodriguez is just weird.

 

[AZlawyer]

Any thoughts on why the SA would release BC's interview now, of all times? Is the investigation complete? Was there some deadline that they had to disclose it? Why the media embargo on reporting it? Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

I tend to think there is nothing exciting about any of these decisions. The SA seems to dump docs when their outbox gets pretty stuffed. Maybe they wanted to get the diary info out, and this stuff was just ready to go at the same time. Maybe they wanted to make sure the defense had the information about LB available as soon as possible so the defense wouldn't say they'd been blindsided and needed more time to find a new witness for their "it was dry and Caylee's body wasn't there" silliness. Maybe the court reporter just gave them a big stack of transcribed interviews.

And I'm pretty sure the media "embargo" is just that the reporters are trying to figure out what the heck is going on. WS is ahead of them as usual.

I am certain this has been covered, but it still bugs me and I need a refresher on this one-Why did Judge Rodriguez deny the motion to compel DomC to be deposed? By "why" I mean, what legal, solid basis? Is it possible Judge R. really felt there is privilege? Can he go out on a liberal interpretation limb and view "privilege" differently in the sense that it kinda sorta encompasses contract law (DC's contract with the A's, KC, Baez), contract law being very key in civil proceedings?
IOW, in criminal law, I know the bottom line is that clients and attorneys are the only generally recognized privileges-However, privilege is clearly looked upon differently in civil courts, or Oprah could never sue her housekeepers, right?
Of course, we know if Oprah was doing something illegal, the housekeeper would have to report her criminally, but what happens if Oprah sues for the outting? What happens if the Anthony's sue DC? Shouldn't illegal activity be discluded from any contract? Cause frankly, we are talking about possible criminal activity, if DC tampered with evidence and others knew about it...
I am probably chasing my tail on this one-Is the simple answer that Judge R. does not feel it is necessary for DC to divulge "secrets" that delve into the criminal realm, only statements related to the suit? 'Cause I think Mr. Morgan and Mitnik have been pretty convincing that the aspects of the criminal case clearly do impact ZG's case-He has to demonstrate ZG could not have been the kidnapper KC said she was. Why would Judge R. not see this, unless it is something convoluted, like my suggestion above?
Or was Judge R. just pulling the denial from his...ear?

Esquires...I have bolded the part that I suppose I really would like to know about-The rest of my babbling is just me throwing stuff out there, but if I am onto something, tell me-I would also be satisfied to hear that Judge Takei, er, Rodriguez is just weird.

I wish I remembered all the details. IIRC, DC and KC's attorneys were both being (purposely?) confusing and possibly inaccurate in front of Judge R. regarding with whom DC had contracts and when. There is no such thing as a PI-client privilege, so IMO DC's only privilege was for work product and communications with KC or members of the defense team while DC was employed by JB as part of the KC defense team.

I hesitate to say that Judge R. made the wrong decision without double-checking what lies, um mistruths, he was relying upon at the time.

 

[Numbers]

I know this is just a very small shack, way out at the end of the fairway, far from the main tent, but it really chaps my butt. Do you think Baez will get anything (from disbarred to demerits to a light slap) for passing notes between ICA and the Anthonys?

We have Lee texting "Jose has notes for each of us," we have ICA's letters saying Jose brings her notes, we have hints/mentions of notes in Cindy's letter. Can/will any of this be used against him?

And will his feeble excuses (I'm torn between "They were verbal messages" and "I never did that") satisfy the Bar Assoc?

TIA.

 

[john's mom]

The deadline is still in place unless and until HHJP changes it. It is pretty risky to ask a judge to change a deadline and not to ask for an expedited ruling prior to the deadline passing, but I guess JB and CM were confident of their request being granted. :waitasec: It was their responsibility to ask for a faster briefing schedule and hearing if they didn't want to take that chance. It is not the judge's responsibility.

I assume it will be discussed at the status hearing.

AZ, Do you think HHJP will say "I told you what the deadlines were, and if you didn't adhere to them, your expert cannot be used at trial. YOU LOSE. "

or, being that 'death is different' will he allow the extra time? (Even though he already said that 30 days was too long) Baez is taking a huge risk here, no?


ETA~~ Just dawned on me.....maybe he's taking huge risk now, then he can appeal later, because he was not allowed .....__________ (Fill in the blank)

 

[AZlawyer]

I know this is just a very small shack, way out at the end of the fairway, far from the main tent, but it really chaps my butt. Do you think Baez will get anything (from disbarred to demerits to a light slap) for passing notes between ICA and the Anthonys?

We have Lee texting "Jose has notes for each of us," we have ICA's letters saying Jose brings her notes, we have hints/mentions of notes in Cindy's letter. Can/will any of this be used against him?

And will his feeble excuses (I'm torn between "They were verbal messages" and "I never did that") satisfy the Bar Assoc?

TIA.

I used to think he would have problems with the Bar about this issue. But it's been a really, really long time since this first came out and no one seems to care.... Rhornsby dropped by one day and said he thought it was fine to pass notes. But it is against not only the jail rules but an actual criminal statute, so I respectfully disagree.

AZ, Do you think HHJP will say "I told you what the deadlines were, and if you didn't adhere to them, your expert cannot be used at trial. YOU LOSE. "

or, being that 'death is different' will he allow the extra time? (Even though he already said that 30 days was too long) Baez is taking a huge risk here, no?


ETA~~ Just dawned on me.....maybe he's taking huge risk now, then he can appeal later, because he was not allowed .....__________ (Fill in the blank)

This is a tough one (for HHJP). He doesn't want to create appellate issues, but he doesn't want to go back on his word either. I think he'll probably address each expert separately and may issue different rulings depending on the specific reasons for the failure to obtain reports from each of them.

Yes, Baez is taking a huge risk. The "battle of the experts" is his client's best defense--get the focus off KC's lies and onto the any little imperfections in the forensic evidence. He needs these people, and he waited too long to really pay attention to getting their testimony lined up.