Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[SunnyinMO]

I guess I wouldn't call it "no defense" to cross-examine the state's witnesses. I think that's what the defense team ought to be focusing on, "quite frankly" as JB would say. But I know what you mean. At this point, I think it's certain they will have at least a couple of expert witnesses, and I'm sure they'll want to call Lee, Cindy and George to "help" the defense.

AZ, first of all thanks for all you contribute!! You are de BOMB!! what IYO could Lee, Cindy or George say to help the defense? I can't imagine them saying anything to help but certainly a lot to further the State's case. I do think they will be used in the penalty phase and I do mean 'used' by the Defense.

 

[john's mom]

AZ thanks so much for hanging in here with us, you have helped so much by answering all of our questions, I for one really really appreciate it! And of course, I do have another question. All the cards and letters to Casey in jail that have been released, do you think that is all of them, or are there probably others that were not released? I was just thinking about her large circle of "friends", and wondered if it could be true that NONE of them ever sent her a note or a card while she's been in jail. Just wow, you know?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, first of all thanks for all you contribute!! You are de BOMB!! what IYO could Lee, Cindy or George say to help the defense? I can't imagine them saying anything to help but certainly a lot to further the State's case. I do think they will be used in the penalty phase and I do mean 'used' by the Defense.

BBM

I agree.

How could they help? I doubt they could ACTUALLY help at all, but I suppose they could say a bunch of nonsense like, "Casey was crying when she confessed that Caylee had been kidnapped" or "Casey never showed the slightest bit of anger or impatience toward Caylee" or "Zanny was a household word for 2 years" or "oh, yeah, I was searching for chlorophyll and accidentally spelled chloroform."

AZ thanks so much for hanging in here with us, you have helped so much by answering all of our questions, I for one really really appreciate it! And of course, I do have another question. All the cards and letters to Casey in jail that have been released, do you think that is all of them, or are there probably others that were not released? I was just thinking about her large circle of "friends", and wondered if it could be true that NONE of them ever sent her a note or a card while she's been in jail. Just wow, you know?

I think I saw one card from Annie...I think...

But there would be no reason (or legal excuse) to hold any back, unless it were something really unusual like a letter from a friend disclosing illegal activity requiring further investigation.

 

[ynotdivein]

BBM

I agree.

How could they help? I doubt they could ACTUALLY help at all, but I suppose they could say a bunch of nonsense like, "Casey was crying when she confessed that Caylee had been kidnapped" or "Casey never showed the slightest bit of anger or impatience toward Caylee" or "Zanny was a household word for 2 years" or "oh, yeah, I was searching for chlorophyll and accidentally spelled chloroform."

OH. MY. GOSH.

It is, then, exactly as dire for the defense as I suspected it was? (You don't have to answer this...)

 

[karengo]

I have what will probably turn out to be a stupid question but I am going to ask it anyway.

The defense is trying to get Casey's interviews thorown out becuase they did not mirandize her. But she is not under arrest during her interview and they are sworn statements.

What are the chances they will not allow her interviews?

Thanks!

 

[faefrost]

Is there anything in this recent flurry of motion, such as the motion to strike to motion to strike the motion... that seems in any way shape or form reasonable, potentially effective or even marginally sane legal arguments?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have what will probably turn out to be a stupid question but I am going to ask it anyway.

The defense is trying to get Casey's interviews thorown out becuase they did not mirandize her. But she is not under arrest during her interview and they are sworn statements.

What are the chances they will not allow her interviews?

Thanks!

Whether or not she was officially "under arrest" is not really the issue. You'd probably have to read the whole thread about "Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements" to see what I mean, but to summarize, yes, I think most or all of the Universal statements are likely to be thrown out. On the other hand, I can completely understand why the detectives decided to take that risk at a time when they were hoping to actually find Caylee.

I haven't looked at the October 14 statements, but did Casey even say anything that day that the SA is likely to want to introduce as evidence?? I mean, who cares if that statement is thrown out?

Is there anything in this recent flurry of motion, such as the motion to strike to motion to strike the motion... that seems in any way shape or form reasonable, potentially effective or even marginally sane legal arguments?

The Motion to Strike the Motion to Strike the witness list is silly, because there was nothing inherently wrong with the Motion to Strike the witness list that would justify striking the Motion to Strike. JB should have called it a "Response to Motion to Strike," but apparently he wanted to be cute. Or funny. Or something. :waitasec:

As far as the actual content of the explanation for the late witness list, I think he will be allowed to add anyone who was already on the State's list and anyone who is rebutting new information from the State. I personally doubt that Kathi B was genuinely listed for that reason, and I hope HHJP explores that issue a little more before allowing JB to thwart the 1st Amendment in this fashion.

 

[karengo]

Thank you for your reply looks like I have some reading to do

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I have a question. I don't know criminal law at all, so .... with this renewed motion to suppress KC's statements....does that open her up in any way for questioning by the State? I mean, they could put in her motion that the police not only held her without mirandizing (sp?) her, beat her up, raped her, etc....how does the State get to rebut her claims if she won't take the stand? So....anything goes. They could just claim whatever and the State doesn't have the "right to confront their accuser"?
TIA

 

[JWG]

** [SNIP] **

I haven't looked at the October 14 statements, but did Casey even say anything that day that the SA is likely to want to introduce as evidence?? I mean, who cares if that statement is thrown out?

** [SNIP] **

Well...good question. Ages ago I watched the video of her in the interview room waiting to be processed, and I don't really recall anyone asking her questions. They just let her talk, and occasionally they would politely respond to indicate they were listening, but essentially it was all one-way communication. God that girl could talk.

She did not say anything, IMO, that was terribly useful. However, her demeanor was interesting. She was casual...no big deal. When the detectives were out of the room, she groomed.

So I could see the state wanting to use the video if they felt they did not have enough demeanor videos already.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Whether or not she was officially "under arrest" is not really the issue. You'd probably have to read the whole thread about "Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements" to see what I mean, but to summarize, yes, I think most or all of the Universal statements are likely to be thrown out. On the other hand, I can completely understand why the detectives decided to take that risk at a time when they were hoping to actually find Caylee.

respectfully snipped for purpose..

AZ, the Universal statements are where she admits to lying to police. How does that help find Caylee...she said, it doesn't...Why would Universal interview not come into trial, this is the crux of her case. She lied, liedd, lieddd and finally admitted to lying...wouldn't that be crucial to show her state of mind at that time? Would it go to consciousness of guilt??? I so hope that doesn't get thrown away....it shows she had no concerns/worry/care about where Caylee was, nevermind WHO Caylee was with....JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[JWG]

Whether or not she was officially "under arrest" is not really the issue. You'd probably have to read the whole thread about "Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements" to see what I mean, but to summarize, yes, I think most or all of the Universal statements are likely to be thrown out. On the other hand, I can completely understand why the detectives decided to take that risk at a time when they were hoping to actually find Caylee.

** [SNIP] **

The Motion to Strike the Motion to Strike the witness list is silly, because there was nothing inherently wrong with the Motion to Strike the witness list that would justify striking the Motion to Strike. JB should have called it a "Response to Motion to Strike," but apparently he wanted to be cute. Or funny. Or something. :waitasec:

** [SNIP] **

I find it telling that Mason is the one who authored the motion to have those statements tossed, while Baez authored the Motion to Strike the Motion to Strike. Not a lot of mentoring going on there.

 

[Just Jayla]

Whether or not it matters from a legal standpoint, the attempted use of Belich as a rebuttal witness to the state's rebuttal witnesses of Laura Buchanan is a pretty transparent attempt to simply keep Belich out of the courtroom.

Buchanan would not be put on the stand until after the prosecution was done presenting its case. The state's rebuttal witnesses would not be put on the stand until after the defense was done. And finally, Belich would not be put on the stand until after the state were done rebutting. Pretty much at the tail end of the trial. So it's pretty clear he's attempting to lock the reporter out of the trial.

However, in her own deposition, Buchanan admitted to altering the TES documents and further admitted that if she searched on Hopespring she did not search where Caylee's body was eventually found. She's not credible. She'd be a horrible witness for the defense - perhaps as bad as Joy Wray. Rebuttal witnesses or not, Buchanan will never be put on the stand. And Baez knows it.

So there you have it...Baez has listed a reporter to rebut a half dozen or so witnesses who will rebut a witness he never plans to call.

BBM

My thoughts exactly. He's doing this as a strategic measure to lock her out of the trial which would prevent her from reporting on a day by day basis...pointing out the "mistruths" as they happen...how transparent...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Where does this lie on the chessboard as far as KB, ABC television, the public at large and their First Amendment rights, if those parties feel that 1-JB is intentionally trying to block her and they can prove it and 2-By blocking her, JB is violating that right?

Does KB/ABC Television have to sue? Bring it up to federal? Or can they send a rep before HHJP on a motion to have her removed from the witness list on the grounds above?

As usual, my question format sucks, but hopefully your lawyer brains will catch my drift and lemme know about KB's recourse.

 

[Macushla]

Can the State bring up at trial the fact that KC sold pictures of Caylee to ABC? Could they use this to show that she was 'profiting' from her daughter's disappearance and because she was making so much money she would not want to cooperate with LE because doing so might shut off the money faucet? Or would this infomration be way to prejudicial for jurors to hear?

 

[LCoastMom]

respectfully snipped for purpose..

Originally Posted by azlawyer
Whether or not she was officially "under arrest" is not really the issue. You'd probably have to read the whole thread about "Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements" to see what I mean, but to summarize, yes, I think most or all of the Universal statements are likely to be thrown out. On the other hand, I can completely understand why the detectives decided to take that risk at a time when they were hoping to actually find Caylee.

AZ, the Universal statements are where she admits to lying to police. How does that help find Caylee...she said, it doesn't...Why would Universal interview not come into trial, this is the crux of her case. She lied, liedd, lieddd and finally admitted to lying...wouldn't that be crucial to show her state of mind at that time? Would it go to consciousness of guilt??? I so hope that doesn't get thrown away....it shows she had no concerns/worry/care about where Caylee was, nevermind WHO Caylee was with....JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Weren't most of her same lies written out in her official statement prior to going to Universal? Whether she admits to lying or not the State will still have the lies she signed her name to. Right? Or if the interview is canned, does that take her statement with it?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question. I don't know criminal law at all, so .... with this renewed motion to suppress KC's statements....does that open her up in any way for questioning by the State? I mean, they could put in her motion that the police not only held her without mirandizing (sp?) her, beat her up, raped her, etc....how does the State get to rebut her claims if she won't take the stand? So....anything goes. They could just claim whatever and the State doesn't have the "right to confront their accuser"?
TIA

They don't have to rebut anything unless she has evidence of it. In this case, though, I don't think the facts are in dispute...except perhaps for whether or not KC was handcuffed at some point. In other words, I don't think the State plans to "rebut" the allegation that LE did not give KC a Miranda warning--I think they will agree with that allegation. There is no indication of a Miranda warning on the Universal recording, and she was given one afterward, which would have been silly if she had already been given one.

As far as the handcuffing, presumably JB thinks he has a witness. One of the As, perhaps? Or an officer who was present?

respectfully snipped for purpose..

AZ, the Universal statements are where she admits to lying to police. How does that help find Caylee...she said, it doesn't...Why would Universal interview not come into trial, this is the crux of her case. She lied, liedd, lieddd and finally admitted to lying...wouldn't that be crucial to show her state of mind at that time? Would it go to consciousness of guilt??? I so hope that doesn't get thrown away....it shows she had no concerns/worry/care about where Caylee was, nevermind WHO Caylee was with....JMHO

Justice for Caylee

I don't think it is crucial to the case. Her lies are coming in one way or another--at the very least her lies to her family before the police arrived should come in!

The reason they might be excluded is because HHJP might find she was "in custody" for some or all of the relevant time period (and "in custody" can be a heck of a lot less than "under arrest") and that no Miranda warnings were given.

Where does this lie on the chessboard as far as KB, ABC television, the public at large and their First Amendment rights, if those parties feel that 1-JB is intentionally trying to block her and they can prove it and 2-By blocking her, JB is violating that right?

Does KB/ABC Television have to sue? Bring it up to federal? Or can they send a rep before HHJP on a motion to have her removed from the witness list on the grounds above?

As usual, my question format sucks, but hopefully your lawyer brains will catch my drift and lemme know about KB's recourse.

IMO Kathi and her station could, and should, attempt to intervene for purposes of arguing that the addition of Kathi to the witness list was nothing more than an attempt to thwart the 1st Amendment. Maybe I'm dense, but I can't for the life of me comprehend what JB's little "Motion to Strike Motion to Strike" says she's going to testify about.

Can the State bring up at trial the fact that KC sold pictures of Caylee to ABC? Could they use this to show that she was 'profiting' from her daughter's disappearance and because she was making so much money she would not want to cooperate with LE because doing so might shut off the money faucet? Or would this infomration be way to prejudicial for jurors to hear?

I don't think it would be prejudicial in particular, but how would it be relevant to show that she killed her child? Unless the SA planned to argue that she killed her child for the PURPOSE of later selling photos, which I think would be a terrible and unwise argument. I don't think this information is helpful to the SA's case--just distracting.

Weren't most of her same lies written out in her official statement prior to going to Universal? Whether she admits to lying or not the State will still have the lies she signed her name to. Right? Or if the interview is canned, does that take her statement with it?

Yes, her lies are in the written statement as well. But IIRC the defense is also asking for the written statement to be excluded. Personally, I think that one is a long shot and the written statement will come in.

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

AZLawyer:

Regarding the supression of the Universal interview:

Does it matter at all that this was no where near a murder or even crime investigation at the time? They were looking for a missing child less than 24 hours after the 911 call? And at least trying to establish a starting point for the missing child investigation?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer:

Regarding the supression of the Universal interview:

Does it matter at all that this was no where near a murder or even crime investigation at the time? They were looking for a missing child less than 24 hours after the 911 call? And at least trying to establish a starting point for the missing child investigation?

Well, first of all, Yuri 100% suspected Casey of the commission of a crime during the Universal "chat." He just didn't know which crime it was--murder or neglect. He had dropped all pretense of belief in the nanny story and was trying to get Casey to confess to...well...whatever the truth was, which he assumed (correctly) was something involving some level of wrongdoing on her part or she would not have been lying about it.

Here are the results in some recent Florida cases about suppression of statements:

2008--Lee v. State--17-year-old Anthony Lee (weird coincidence with the name!) was questioned at his own home about an accusation that he had sex with an underage girl. The deputy told Lee's parents that he just wanted to get Lee's side of the story, so they kept him out of school to meet with the deputy. The deputy confronted Lee with the evidence against him, and he admitted to the crime. Lee's statements were suppressed on the ground that he was "in custody" and not given Miranda warnings. He was found to be "in custody" because he would not reasonably have felt free to decline the deputy's invitation to meet with him. The court noted that the "in custody" finding was supported by the fact that the deputy treated Lee as a suspect rather than a witness, confronted him with the evidence against him, challenged him repeatedly when he lied, and did not tell him he was free to leave. (BTW I still have not found anywhere in the Universal transcript where anyone tells Casey she's free to leave.)

2010--Ross v. State--Son of murder victims came to sheriff's office voluntarily to meet with victim's advocate. He then agreed to speak with detectives, who were "conversational," assured him he was not being arrested, and answered his questions about the investigation, but also confronted him with inconsistencies in his story. The court found that the defendant was not "in custody" at first, but was "in custody" as soon as the lead detective told Ross that he knew he was lying and was only trying to figure out why.

2010--Noto v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation while police were following car due to suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Officer took driver's license and registration, then confronted driver with his suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Driver's admissions were supressed due to lack of Miranda warnings. Although the discussion was "conversational and casual," the driver was "in custody" because he was accused of involvement in a crime, and because the officer had his license and registration in his possession.

2010--England v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation. Driver gave permission for officer to search the car. Officer located baggie of marijuana on floorboard and said to driver and passenger that they would both be arrested unless one of them wanted to "own up" to the drugs. Passenger admitted the drugs were his. Statement was suppressed due to failure to give Miranda warnings. Passenger was "clearly" in custody when the question was asked because he was not told he was free to leave and was confronted with evidence of a crime and asked to admit to it.

 

[LambChop]

If the officers did handcuff KC and place her into the patrol car could it have been because her mother, CA, had officially complained that her daughter had stolen money and stole her car? At that early date no one was thinking that KC had done anything unlawful with Caylee only that Caylee was missing. I'm thinking it could have been only 10 minutes because CA then refused to press charges against her daughter.

 

[AZlawyer]

If the officers did handcuff KC and place her into the patrol car could it have been because her mother, CA, had officially complained that her daughter had stolen money and stole her car? At that early date no one was thinking that KC had done anything unlawful with Caylee only that Caylee was missing. I'm thinking it could have been only 10 minutes because CA then refused to press charges against her daughter.

It doesn't really matter what the reason was--the question is whether, at the times she was giving the statements to LE, KC would reasonably have felt less "free to leave" because of the fact that she had previously been handcuffed. IMO...maybe a little. This (if true) will just be one fact tossed into the mix of facts to determine whether the statements will be thrown out.

But yes, they might have handcuffed her because CA was saying "she stole my car and lots of money." Seems like a reasonable response from LE to handcuff the perp.

I think we will see more facts and allegations come out at what I assume will be an evidentiary hearing (i.e., a hearing with witnesses and exhibits) regarding the statements. For example, IIRC George at some point very early on said that he and Cindy were asked by LE to make sure Casey didn't leave the house that first night. So that will be one more fact thrown into the mix...are you "free to leave" if your parents are told not to let you leave? And will the officers agree that this request was made? If not, HHJP will have to decide whom to believe.