Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[lauriej]

..is baez aware immediatley as to who filed the bar complaint against him, even if we are not?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ could you please explain to me just what the word 'aggravated' adds to a charge. For example, why is aggravated child abuse more serious than just child abuse? aggravated manslaughter more serious than manslaughter?

I know what aggravated means in everyday language, but just what does it mean when used in a legal sense?

Thank you kindly for all your help!

Aggravated means the crime is worse than normal--so causing serious bodily harm or using a deadly weapon in the course of child abuse would be "aggravated" child abuse, but beating a child with no permanent (physical) damage would be "normal" child abuse.

I have a question about 'tampering'. There is tampering with a witness, tampering with evidence. Is there such a thing as tampering with a case - or would that be covered under evidence? If JB let LB make her statements and he knew that she was lying or at the least unreliable, is that tampering with evidence?

Do our legal analysts have an opinion as to what tampering OCSO is investigating? Witnesses or evidence or both at this point?

There's no offense of tampering with a "case." Here are the tampering statutes. I've underlined some interesting bits. :innocent:

914.22 Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant.--

(1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to:

(a) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official investigation or official proceeding;

(b) Alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official investigation or official proceeding;

(c) Evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official investigation or an official proceeding;

(d) Be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process;

(e) Hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense or a violation of a condition of probation, parole, or release pending a judicial proceeding; or

(f) Testify untruthfully in an official investigation or an official proceeding,

commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from:

(a) Attending or testifying in an official proceeding or cooperating in an official investigation;

(b) Reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge the commission or possible commission of an offense or a violation of a condition of probation, parole, or release pending a judicial proceeding;

(c) Arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with an offense; or

(d) Causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or from assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

or attempts to do so, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) For the purposes of this section:

(a) An official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

(b) The testimony or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.

(4) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance:

(a) That the official proceeding before a judge, court, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the state, a state or local grand jury, or a state agency; or

(b) That the judge is a judge of the state or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the state or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the state or serving the state as an adviser or consultant.

918.13 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.--

(1) No person, knowing that a criminal trial or proceeding or an investigation by a duly constituted prosecuting authority, law enforcement agency, grand jury or legislative committee of this state is pending or is about to be instituted, shall:

(a) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation; or

(b) Make, present, or use any record, document, or thing, knowing it to be false.

(2) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

..is baez aware immediatley as to who filed the bar complaint against him, even if we are not?

Yes! He knows!

 

[faefrost]

Question about Attorney Client privilege? What actually insures that? Is it simply the lawyers license to practice law, or is there some harsher statutory penalty for violating it? Essentially if JB were to lose his license to practice law, what would then prevent him from opting to write a tell all book? (Because I'm going to guess that it won't be personal ethics)

 

[ThinkTank]

..is baez aware immediatley as to who filed the bar complaint against him, even if we are not?

He got a copy of it. He has a certain timeframe to respond to it, or have his legal representative respond to it.

 

[AZlawyer]

Question about Attorney Client privilege? What actually insures that? Is it simply the lawyers license to practice law, or is there some harsher statutory penalty for violating it? Essentially if JB were to lose his license to practice law, what would then prevent him from opting to write a tell all book? (Because I'm going to guess that it won't be personal ethics)

Jeez for most people losing their license is a good enough threat, so I've never thought beyond that lol. I suppose you could sue the lawyer for...I don't know...breach of fiduciary duty or something. Or constructive trust to take the profits of the book. Sounds like a fun lawsuit actually, not to sound like CM.

 

[Macushla]

I have noticed in a few non related cases I have been reading about where the defendent was found guilty of a serious charge, such as murder, when the case was appealed the 'ineffective counsel' card was played every time. This leads me to believe that the ineffective counsel appeal is used quite often in appeals. In apeals for murder convictions, would you say ineffective counsel is claimed often, sometimes, or did I just stumble across rare instances, one after another?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have noticed in a few non related cases I have been reading about where the defendent was found guilty of a serious charge, such as murder, when the case was appealed the 'ineffective counsel' card was played every time. This leads me to believe that the ineffective counsel appeal is used quite often in appeals. In apeals for murder convictions, would you say ineffective counsel is claimed often, sometimes, or did I just stumble across rare instances, one after another?

It's a very common argument. IMO the reason it is common is because it is not an argument made through the normal appeal process (although you might call it an "appellate" issue when speaking loosely). Instead, it is made through a separate "habeas corpus" proceeding. So it buys your client a lot more time if you can come up with arguments for two separate "appellate" proceedings.

Doesn't mean you'll win, of course.

 

[AZlawyer]

It's a very common argument. IMO the reason it is common is because it is not an argument made through the normal appeal process (although you might call it an "appellate" issue when speaking loosely). Instead, it is made through a separate "habeas corpus" proceeding. So it buys your client a lot more time if you can come up with arguments for two separate "appellate" proceedings.

Doesn't mean you'll win, of course.

ETA: Here's a flow chart to show you why it takes so dang long to get these cases through the system:

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/brokensystem2/images/flowchart.gif

 

[Aedrys]

ETA: Here's a flow chart to show you why it takes so dang long to get these cases through the system:

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/brokensystem2/images/flowchart.gif

Are the numbers in parentheses years? So the average case takes nine years to get through the system? Wow. (Btw, math is my not my best skill, lol).

 

[drip~drop]

Oh my. Yes. But one can only hope he would have known better. :innocent:



You mean the money she got for selling Caylee's pictures? What kind of accusations were you thinking of? I need more details to answer this one.

Twizzlers come to mind.:waitasec:
Also what did ica do for 8 hours a day at his office?
Just wondering.
imo

 

[AZlawyer]

Are the numbers in parentheses years? So the average case takes nine years to get through the system? Wow. (Btw, math is my not my best skill, lol).

No, the numbers are "steps," so it takes 9 steps to get through. Usually longer than 9 years unless things have sped up a lot since last time I was involved in this system (1995).

By the way, a couple of weeks ago the US Supreme Court handed down an opinion that is widely believed to make it MUCH harder to win an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Not that it was easy to begin with.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-587.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

Twizzlers come to mind.:waitasec:
Also what did ica do for 8 hours a day at his office?
Just wondering.
imo

Well, I don't see how she can sue him for consensual "activity," if that's what you mean. She could file a bar complaint, but that seems like a drop in the bucket at this point.

 

[txsvicki]

I'm convinced that Casey will get the death penalty, but with all the talk of Baez being such a lousy attorney do you think that she could actually win an appeal for ineffective counsel, or just delay her execution for years? I'm not following all the legal stuff about this case, but that is one thing that is concerning.

 

[Macushla]

What are the implications if the defense legal experts back out? What If Kathy Reichs, Dr. Logan and Dr. Rodriguez get upset because JB is portraying them as people who are not doing what they said they would do (If they did actually say they would testify) and let JB know in no uncertain terms that he should go find another expert because they have had it? Thorw in the fact that Dr. Spitz may not be able to write a report by 3/11, and you have a whole lot of people who suddenly disappear from the Defense Expert list. Are these people important enough to cause a delay while JB looks for replacements, or would the Judge decide that KC can get a fair trial if these experts never even show up in court?

 

[LambChop]

At the time that KC was out on bail and in JB's office all day if they set KC up with an office ID so she could get online would that be an ethics violation on JB's part? If she was set up as staff she might have had the ability to access a firm database. Not saying she did but just the fact her attorney would set something up so she could surf the net. I don't see KC sitting for 8 hours a day doing nothing more than going through pictures of Caylee.

 

[P1569]

Sorry if this has been asked previously.
But Baez stated something in court yesterday (paraphrasing) Wonder if the State for goes taking the experts depositions. Now with him saying this in court yesterday reminds me that he has not amended his expert witness list of all the experts that supposedly are not going to testify. My question is can these experts (Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. John Leeson, Dr. Michael Freeman) who Baez/Mason has in pleadings and in court say that they are not going to testify come to trial and testify for the defense? TIA

 

[chefmom]

Question about Attorney Client privilege? What actually insures that? Is it simply the lawyers license to practice law, or is there some harsher statutory penalty for violating it? Essentially if JB were to lose his license to practice law, what would then prevent him from opting to write a tell all book? (Because I'm going to guess that it won't be personal ethics)

Jeez for most people losing their license is a good enough threat, so I've never thought beyond that lol. I suppose you could sue the lawyer for...I don't know...breach of fiduciary duty or something. Or constructive trust to take the profits of the book. Sounds like a fun lawsuit actually, not to sound like CM.

BBM

Okay! Going a step further with this, let's assume that KC is found guilty, JB is disbarred, and then JB does indeed write a tell-all book, with all of the juicy details about what she did when she was out, how they spent their days, their personal relationship, (Wait! Hold on! I have vomit rising in my throat! Hang on! :sick Whew! Anyway, he tells all of the things that would normally fall under ACP because these are the things that would make for a big-selling book. Since KC has been found guilty, could she sue him for the profits of the book about her crime even if she were suing under the guise of breach of duty? KWIM? Even though she was suing for breach, she would still be receiving monies that were had because of the crime she committed. What do you think?

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm convinced that Casey will get the death penalty, but with all the talk of Baez being such a lousy attorney do you think that she could actually win an appeal for ineffective counsel, or just delay her execution for years? I'm not following all the legal stuff about this case, but that is one thing that is concerning.

I think the argument will certainly be made (and therefore would delay an execution), but I doubt it will be a winning argument based on what I've seen so far. The question will be, what has JB done wrong that could have been done differently in a way that would actually affect the result of the trial?

What are the implications if the defense legal experts back out? What If Kathy Reichs, Dr. Logan and Dr. Rodriguez get upset because JB is portraying them as people who are not doing what they said they would do (If they did actually say they would testify) and let JB know in no uncertain terms that he should go find another expert because they have had it? Thorw in the fact that Dr. Spitz may not be able to write a report by 3/11, and you have a whole lot of people who suddenly disappear from the Defense Expert list. Are these people important enough to cause a delay while JB looks for replacements, or would the Judge decide that KC can get a fair trial if these experts never even show up in court?

If the experts back out because they simply won't support the defense arguments, I don't think JB will get more time. More time to do what? :waitasec: As for Dr. Spitz, if he can't write a report, then someone else can write a report based on his notes. It can't take much time, because there's no body to examine any more.

It's not an unfair trial if you just can't find any experts who will agree with you.

At the time that KC was out on bail and in JB's office all day if they set KC up with an office ID so she could get online would that be an ethics violation on JB's part? If she was set up as staff she might have had the ability to access a firm database. Not saying she did but just the fact her attorney would set something up so she could surf the net. I don't see KC sitting for 8 hours a day doing nothing more than going through pictures of Caylee.

Why would she need a staff ID? Why not just click "Internet Explorer"?

But if her bond restrictions included not going on the internet, then it would be an ethics violation to help her circumvent the bond restrictions.

Sorry if this has been asked previously.
But Baez stated something in court yesterday (paraphrasing) Wonder if the State for goes taking the experts depositions. Now with him saying this in court yesterday reminds me that he has not amended his expert witness list of all the experts that supposedly are not going to testify. My question is can these experts (Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. John Leeson, Dr. Michael Freeman) who Baez/Mason has in pleadings and in court say that they are not going to testify come to trial and testify for the defense? TIA

HHJP has said that they can't testify to anything that isn't in a report or in their depositions. So if the SA doesn't take their depositions, and they don't file reports, IMO they are out.

BBM

Okay! Going a step further with this, let's assume that KC is found guilty, JB is disbarred, and then JB does indeed write a tell-all book, with all of the juicy details about what she did when she was out, how they spent their days, their personal relationship, (Wait! Hold on! I have vomit rising in my throat! Hang on! :sick Whew! Anyway, he tells all of the things that would normally fall under ACP because these are the things that would make for a big-selling book. Since KC has been found guilty, could she sue him for the profits of the book about her crime even if she were suing under the guise of breach of duty? KWIM? Even though she was suing for breach, she would still be receiving monies that were had because of the crime she committed. What do you think?

OK, if I understand what you're asking, if she sued JB for breach of fiduciary duty, and asked for the profits of this hypothetical book as damages, then would those damages be subject to seizure based on the "Son of Sam" law?

I think the answer is no. And even if the proceeds were seized, they might be paid to CA and GA as the closest things we've got to "victims." But there are so many "if"s in this scenario that I truly don't think it will ever happen.

 

[joypath]

AZlawyer! :yourock:

WOW, you :hero: can sum it up and 'splain it!

Accept my thanks for all you do, here's my retainer! :cupcake::cupcake::cupcake:

 

[Ssejors]

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.

Right on the money AZ. TY ! Appreciate all of your info.