Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[strawberry]

Wasn't the reason for listing KB as a witness that she interviewed MD? Does this mean that their response or whatever it was is moot?

 

[AZlawyer]

Bringing my question from the "Will Casey Testify" thread to this more appropriate venue:

If KC at any time expresses to her lawyers a strong desire to get on the stand, how much leeway do they have to tell her firmly and unequivocally NO? If she says she wants to despite their protestations, do they HAVE to put her on the stand? Is there ground for mistrial if post-conviction she says, "I wanted to take the stand and my lawyers would not allow it?"

They have a lot of leeway to convince her she's being an idiot up until the moment that a decision actually has to be made, but ultimately, it's her call whether to take the stand. IMO if they just say "no" (and then how would they enforce that "no"?) it would be unethical and moreover would create a great issue for Casey to use in post-conviction proceedings.

 

[AZlawyer]

Wasn't the reason for listing KB as a witness that she interviewed MD? Does this mean that their response or whatever it was is moot?

I think they listed some other fake reasons as well. But didn't the defense also say that THEY might call Maya as a witness? GMAB (look it up yourself, Cheney).

I wish KB's station would get off its butt and intervene to protest her being placed on the witness list, considering that she likely knows nothing that wouldn't be protected by the journalist's privilege.

 

[ynotdivein]

They have a lot of leeway to convince her she's being an idiot up until the moment that a decision actually has to be made, but ultimately, it's her call whether to take the stand. IMO if they just say "no" (and then how would they enforce that "no"?) it would be unethical and moreover would create a great issue for Casey to use in post-conviction proceedings.

Thank you AZ... in the event that KC does wish to take the stand... how on earth does her team go about preparing her for the inevitably devastating cross that will ensue?

(Been watching bits of FL v Sutton on In Session and his testimony--well, more accurately, his attitude on the stand--would have sealed my opinions against him were I a juror. Can't imagine KC being able to maintain her cool superiority as Sutton IMO did, but I guess I could see her breaking down in real tears this time, if she were moved to feel very sorry for herself for being so hard done by...)

 

[Macushla]

The discussion on whether or not KC will testify is just fascinating. While reading everyone's opinions I started to wonder: IF KC does decide to testify and she gets up there and says "I was involved in drugs and these bad drug dealers took Caylee and because they thought I was talking to the cops, they killed her and planted all this evidence to make it look like I did it. I couldn't say anything because they also threatened the rest of my family." What happens? Beside the State ripping the story to pieces, can the defense come back and say you have to find her not guilty because the State never even looked for these bad guys? Or is this type of scenario way too far out there?

 

[Katprint]

Me too. The court might be reluctant to allow its release, however, as long as there is any danger that the case might need to be retried. At some point several years down the road, we might get to see it.

It is difficult for me to imagine what might be on that video that might unduly prejudice a potential retrial jury pool more than the fact that the defendant was previously convicted of the crime(s), not to mention the seriously prejudicial evidence that will be introduced at trial including the autopsy photos, the re-creation of Caylee's duct-taped skull prior to decomposition, etc.

IIRC, the defense asserted undue prejudice and invasion of privacy as reasons why the jail video should not be released. Baez referred to the release as being a violation of Casey's "constitutional" rights and the judge asked, "Which ones?" which IMO was a hint that Baez needed to assert Casey's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. IMO the part of the video where Casey was taken to the infirmary on the pretext that she might need psychological treatment - but the jail staff said they had been requested by law enforcement to take her there before her attorney could arrive in hopes of obtaining incriminating footage, and Baez was admittedly delayed from meeting with Casey when he arrived at the jail - constituted indirect custodial questioning in violation of Casey's invocation of her right to have an attorney present during any questioning. Furthermore, IMO the part of the video which showed any part of the attorney-client meeting once Baez finally got to Casey is a violation of Casey's attorney-client confidential communication privilege.

Bottom line: The jailhouse video should NEVER be released.

Katprint
Who would really like to see what is on that video
Always only my own opinions

 

[MissJames]

It is difficult for me to imagine what might be on that video that might unduly prejudice a potential retrial jury pool more than the fact that the defendant was previously convicted of the crime(s), not to mention the seriously prejudicial evidence that will be introduced at trial including the autopsy photos, the re-creation of Caylee's duct-taped skull prior to decomposition, etc.

IIRC, the defense asserted undue prejudice and invasion of privacy as reasons why the jail video should not be released. Baez referred to the release as being a violation of Casey's "constitutional" rights and the judge asked, "Which ones?" which IMO was a hint that Baez needed to assert Casey's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. IMO the part of the video where Casey was taken to the infirmary on the pretext that she might need psychological treatment - but the jail staff said they had been requested by law enforcement to take her there before her attorney could arrive in hopes of obtaining incriminating footage, and Baez was admittedly delayed from meeting with Casey when he arrived at the jail - constituted indirect custodial questioning in violation of Casey's invocation of her right to have an attorney present during any questioning. Furthermore, IMO the part of the video which showed any part of the attorney-client meeting once Baez finally got to Casey is a violation of Casey's attorney-client confidential communication privilege.

Bottom line: The jailhouse video should NEVER be released.

Katprint
Who would really like to see what is on that video
Always only my own opinions[/B]/SIZE]

BBM

me too!

If there is a mistrial or the guilty verdict is overturned on appeal,can the State change strategies and include some of the things they choose not to in this trial? That's assuming the judge rules it's allowable.

 

[nums24]

JB just filed a Motion to Strike State's Motion to Show Cause, is it too late for him to have filed this because the hearing has been scheduled? How crazy is it to file a motion to strike, when HHJP clearly stated in his order that the defense has still not complied with his order?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZ... in the event that KC does wish to take the stand... how on earth does her team go about preparing her for the inevitably devastating cross that will ensue?

<respectfully snipped>

Heck if I know. I mean, a good defense attorney would run through all the cross with her, but she has no real way to explain it except to say she was lying when she said she lied, or she was lying when she said she was telling the truth after she lied, or...well, anyway, there's no good way out of this one.

The discussion on whether or not KC will testify is just fascinating. While reading everyone's opinions I started to wonder: IF KC does decide to testify and she gets up there and says "I was involved in drugs and these bad drug dealers took Caylee and because they thought I was talking to the cops, they killed her and planted all this evidence to make it look like I did it. I couldn't say anything because they also threatened the rest of my family." What happens? Beside the State ripping the story to pieces, can the defense come back and say you have to find her not guilty because the State never even looked for these bad guys? Or is this type of scenario way too far out there?

The State would rip her story to pieces, the defense would say there was reasonable doubt because there could be these other bad guys out there, and the jury IMO would say no way Jose.

BBM

me too!

If there is a mistrial or the guilty verdict is overturned on appeal,can the State change strategies and include some of the things they choose not to in this trial? That's assuming the judge rules it's allowable.

They could, but why would they? They're making all the right decisions so far.

JB just filed a Motion to Strike State's Motion to Show Cause, is it too late for him to have filed this because the hearing has been scheduled? How crazy is it to file a motion to strike, when HHJP clearly stated in his order that the defense has still not complied with his order?

I suppose, technically, there's no deadline on a motion to strike. How crazy was it to file it? Mucho crazy. He should be sweating bullets after reading the order setting the hearing. He should be brushing up on his groveling. He should not be pushing his luck with more silly motions to strike. :twocents:

 

[AZlawyer]

It is difficult for me to imagine what might be on that video that might unduly prejudice a potential retrial jury pool more than the fact that the defendant was previously convicted of the crime(s), not to mention the seriously prejudicial evidence that will be introduced at trial including the autopsy photos, the re-creation of Caylee's duct-taped skull prior to decomposition, etc.

IIRC, the defense asserted undue prejudice and invasion of privacy as reasons why the jail video should not be released. Baez referred to the release as being a violation of Casey's "constitutional" rights and the judge asked, "Which ones?" which IMO was a hint that Baez needed to assert Casey's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. IMO the part of the video where Casey was taken to the infirmary on the pretext that she might need psychological treatment - but the jail staff said they had been requested by law enforcement to take her there before her attorney could arrive in hopes of obtaining incriminating footage, and Baez was admittedly delayed from meeting with Casey when he arrived at the jail - constituted indirect custodial questioning in violation of Casey's invocation of her right to have an attorney present during any questioning. Furthermore, IMO the part of the video which showed any part of the attorney-client meeting once Baez finally got to Casey is a violation of Casey's attorney-client confidential communication privilege.

Bottom line: The jailhouse video should NEVER be released.

Katprint
Who would really like to see what is on that video
Always only my own opinions

You're right--I don't think JS relied on the right to counsel issue, but I'm sure the defense would re-raise that issue if there were any chance of the video being released down the road.

I would love to see it too, but IMO setting up this video was overreaching on the part of LE.

 

[beach]

Whether they use it or not has nothing to do with whether it is released to the public. Didn't JS rule that it could not be released to the public because (paraphrasing) it might taint the jury pool? If so, then his order still stands. And the fact that the State doesn't plan to use the video doesn't change the fact that it might taint the jury pool.



Because it is unhelpful to the prosecution. From the descriptions we've heard, Casey's reaction was equally consistent with guilt or with innocence.

It is difficult for me to imagine what might be on that video that might unduly prejudice a potential retrial jury pool more than the fact that the defendant was previously convicted of the crime(s), not to mention the seriously prejudicial evidence that will be introduced at trial including the autopsy photos, the re-creation of Caylee's duct-taped skull prior to decomposition, etc.

IIRC, the defense asserted undue prejudice and invasion of privacy as reasons why the jail video should not be released. Baez referred to the release as being a violation of Casey's "constitutional" rights and the judge asked, "Which ones?" which IMO was a hint that Baez needed to assert Casey's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. IMO the part of the video where Casey was taken to the infirmary on the pretext that she might need psychological treatment - but the jail staff said they had been requested by law enforcement to take her there before her attorney could arrive in hopes of obtaining incriminating footage, and Baez was admittedly delayed from meeting with Casey when he arrived at the jail - constituted indirect custodial questioning in violation of Casey's invocation of her right to have an attorney present during any questioning. Furthermore, IMO the part of the video which showed any part of the attorney-client meeting once Baez finally got to Casey is a violation of Casey's attorney-client confidential communication privilege.

Bottom line: The jailhouse video should NEVER be released.

Katprint
Who would really like to see what is on that video
Always only my own opinions

Summarizing from the News Thread and I have not read every article referencing this, but from what I can tell - the SA feels it is too big of a risk re: appellate issues.

I want to see it as bad as anyone but I agree with this decision and the reason for it (if I am understanding it correctly). Let's call it what it is - the real reason LE had her brought in WAS to witness her reaction.

 

[logicalgirl]

You're right--I don't think JS relied on the right to counsel issue, but I'm sure the defense would re-raise that issue if there were any chance of the video being released down the road.

I would love to see it too, but IMO setting up this video was overreaching on the part of LE.

Legally was it? Not speaking of using it as evidence in a trial - but because Caylee's body had just been found - to make sure (to them) they were holding/charging the right person?

 

[AZlawyer]

Legally was it? Not speaking of using it as evidence in a trial - but because Caylee's body had just been found - to make sure (to them) they were holding/charging the right person?

Legally was it wrong? I think so, yes. IMO they were NOT doing it to make sure they were charging the right person--they were doing it in hopes of shocking her into making a verbal or non-verbal admission without her counsel present. They were already fully convinced (and correctly so) that they were charging the right person.

 

[ynotdivein]

What are the rules for determining a "hostile" witness? If a witness is determined to be "hostile" mid-stream, how does that change how the lawyer doing the questioning handles said witness?

 

[logicalgirl]

Legally was it wrong? I think so, yes. IMO they were NOT doing it to make sure they were charging the right person--they were doing it in hopes of shocking her into making a verbal or non-verbal admission without her counsel present. They were already fully convinced (and correctly so) that they were charging the right person.

Er...isn't that kind of the same thing?:waitasec: I mean, I didn't think the original intention was to use this tape in the trial against her - do you?

 

[krisskross]

I dont think the making of the tape was with the trial in mind. That said, I think it was a foolish move.
Makes it hard for the OC Jail to maintain they are are a neutral and separate entity from OCSD.

 

[AZlawyer]

What are the rules for determining a "hostile" witness? If a witness is determined to be "hostile" mid-stream, how does that change how the lawyer doing the questioning handles said witness?

Basically, if you are calling your "own" witnesses, you can't ask leading questions (e.g., "And then you cleaned the car, didn't you?" instead of "And then what did you do next?"), but if you are calling a "hostile" witness, you can. The determination of whether to treat a witness as a "hostile" witness comes down to this: would the person be likely to "follow" you if you ask leading questions? In other words, do they want to help you? Or are they going to get all...well...hostile about it?

Er...isn't that kind of the same thing?:waitasec: I mean, I didn't think the original intention was to use this tape in the trial against her - do you?

I guess I did. But I don't claim to have thought about it much. What other intention could there have been?

 

[Joan (Canada)]

Has anyone seen the motion from the defense, re: Strike the State's motion to show cause. It befuddles me that he would enter such a motion at this late date when it's already on the docket for a hearing. My thoughts, he is upset because in his e-mail to Judge Perry's judicial assistant, he asked if they could meet in chambers to clear up any confusion. Really, what could he say in his motion.

 

[Amil]

When the state says "no witnesses or exhibits" what do they mean? Is it that the defense hasn't presented any witnesses or exhibits and that is the reason for the filing or does it mean the State doesn't have anything more to add?

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

You're right--I don't think JS relied on the right to counsel issue, but I'm sure the defense would re-raise that issue if there were any chance of the video being released down the road.

I would love to see it too, but IMO setting up this video was overreaching on the part of LE.

Summarizing from the News Thread and I have not read every article referencing this, but from what I can tell - the SA feels it is too big of a risk re: appellate issues.

I want to see it as bad as anyone but I agree with this decision and the reason for it (if I am understanding it correctly). Let's call it what it is - the real reason LE had her brought in WAS to witness her reaction.

Legally was it? Not speaking of using it as evidence in a trial - but because Caylee's body had just been found - to make sure (to them) they were holding/charging the right person?

Legally was it wrong? I think so, yes. IMO they were NOT doing it to make sure they were charging the right person--they were doing it in hopes of shocking her into making a verbal or non-verbal admission without her counsel present. They were already fully convinced (and correctly so) that they were charging the right person.

Er...isn't that kind of the same thing?:waitasec: I mean, I didn't think the original intention was to use this tape in the trial against her - do you?

I dont think the making of the tape was with the trial in mind. That said, I think it was a foolish move.
Makes it hard for the OC Jail to maintain they are are a neutral and separate entity from OCSD.

ICA had no reaction to the bag of bones found in the Little Econ River but she had quite a reaction to the remains found at Suburban...

Wasn't this taped in a common area of the jail? How was the jail to know she'd have that reaction?

Consciousness of guilt, always shines through, IMO...but I agree with keeping it sealed, if only to preserve appellate issues, which is what the State is also saying. They have tons more against her and the hardest burden for her will be the 31 days of not reporting,the smell of death in the car, the partying done that entire month, her outragous lies, the tatt...her frame of mind will be one of not caring or worrying...

Has the jailhouse visit where ICA looses her cool with her parents in as well as her being told of Caylee's reward and ICA saying, wow, that's half my bond? Are those in??? JMHO

Justice for Caylee