Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[Kentjbkent]

How can Inmate Jackson get away with 'filing' this motion?? Are there no repercussions for this?

http://tinyurl.com/428tuz7

Piggybacking off the above questions...

Exactly WHAT is the detailed process for filing a motion in a case (role of clerk) and how did this "slip by"?

ETA: Ok, I now see where this inmate actually handwrote this motion on lined notebook paper and filed it....wouldn't THAT have tipped off the clerk that it was not legitimate???

And will/can there be any legal ramifications for Mr. Jackson for impersonating an Officer of the Court? (I am assuming he claimed to be filing as an attorney on behalf of Casey Anthony since it was a motion?)

 

[Lera213]

another piggy back question on the Motion filed by inmate Jackson.

Will the judge have ICA state during the next hearing if she believes that JB is an ineffective council? Will the judge basically want on record ICA answer to this motion for the record? Or will the judge just dismiss it. If the Judge dismisses it, could this come up on appeal by ICA

 

[pip]

AZ- Would/could/should the court clerk have had to confirm with the DT to ask if this paperwork received should be filed as correspondence or a motion? It would have been obvious that it was from an incarcerated individual. I am just wondering if the DT may have said to file it as a motion on the basis, for example, that 'they didn't know for sure what the intention of the defendant is in regards to this motion right now'. Really curious.
TIA!

 

[chefmom]

Would this motion have been able to be mailed in, as I would assume an inmate in prison would most likely do, or would it have to have been hand delivered? :waitasec: And, if hand delivered, any way we could find out who delivered it? :innocent: TIA!

 

[ZsaZsa]

Would this motion have been able to be mailed in, as I would assume an inmate in prison would most likely do, or would it have to have been hand delivered? :waitasec: And, if hand delivered, any way we could find out who delivered it? :innocent: TIA!

It was sent by mail. The motion is on the Orlando Sentinel website.

 

[AZlawyer]

Morning AZ

How "normal" is it to have a revolving door on atty's?

Not normal at all.

How can Inmate Jackson get away with 'filing' this motion?? Are there no repercussions for this?

http://tinyurl.com/428tuz7

What are you going to do? Throw him in jail? :floorlaugh: Seriously, though, I'm sure it does violate some criminal law--whether or not anyone will care enough to prosecute is another matter.

Little tiny question: Does Judge Perry have to formally respond to CJackson's motion, or can he just file it under "Nutcase" and go on about his day?

another piggy back question on the Motion filed by inmate Jackson.

Will the judge have ICA state during the next hearing if she believes that JB is an ineffective council? Will the judge basically want on record ICA answer to this motion for the record? Or will the judge just dismiss it. If the Judge dismisses it, could this come up on appeal by ICA

I just posted this in the other thread but probably belongs here.
Popping in cause this one really caught my eye. I'm thinking (maybe?) that CJ just did everyone a favor in regards to the "ineffective counsel" argument for appeals. Since this is written as a motion wouldn't the judge have to have a hearing on it? He would have to ask KC if in fact this was written on her behalf and if she feels that her counsel is "ineffective" or if she is still happy with the way they are defending her?

If she states that she is happy with her DT as of this date, then there goes the ineffective counsel appeal IMHO.
What do you think?

No, the judge does not have to have a hearing on a motion that is not ACTUALLY filed by one of the parties. If I were HHJP, though, I would ask KC at the next hearing if she authorized the filing and/or wishes to have JB removed--just in case.

But even if she says she is happy with her DT, that will not prevent an ineffective assistance of counsel claim down the road. Most inmates are completely unaware of the fact that their attorneys are ineffective until they get new (appellate) counsel who informs them of that fact. Inmates are not expected to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of their own counsel.

Piggybacking off the above questions...

Exactly WHAT is the detailed process for filing a motion in a case (role of clerk) and how did this "slip by"?

ETA: Ok, I now see where this inmate actually handwrote this motion on lined notebook paper and filed it....wouldn't THAT have tipped off the clerk that it was not legitimate???

And will/can there be any legal ramifications for Mr. Jackson for impersonating an Officer of the Court? (I am assuming he claimed to be filing as an attorney on behalf of Casey Anthony since it was a motion?)

The process is that you hand the motion to the clerk. I doubt that the clerk has the discretion to reject a motion that PURPORTS to be a legitimate filing in the case, even if it obviously is not.

Mr. Jackson did not impersonate an attorney; the motion is available on the news thread if you would like to read it.

AZ- Would/could/should the court clerk have had to confirm with the DT to ask if this paperwork received should be filed as correspondence or a motion? It would have been obvious that it was from an incarcerated individual. I am just wondering if the DT may have said to file it as a motion on the basis, for example, that 'they didn't know for sure what the intention of the defendant is in regards to this motion right now'. Really curious.
TIA!

It was filed with the title that was written on it--that is standard procedure. It is, indeed, a motion--it is just filed by someone who has no legal standing to file motions in this case.

I am 100% certain that the clerk would not have called the defense team to ask how to enter a filing that was not filed by the defense team.

 

[wasalurker]

Not normal at all.



What are you going to do? Throw him in jail? :floorlaugh: Seriously, though, I'm sure it does violate some criminal law--whether or not anyone will care enough to prosecute is another matter.








No, the judge does not have to have a hearing on a motion that is not ACTUALLY filed by one of the parties. If I were HHJP, though, I would ask KC at the next hearing if she authorized the filing and/or wishes to have JB removed--just in case.

But even if she says she is happy with her DT, that will not prevent an ineffective assistance of counsel claim down the road. Most inmates are completely unaware of the fact that their attorneys are ineffective until they get new (appellate) counsel who informs them of that fact. Inmates are not expected to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of their own counsel.



The process is that you hand the motion to the clerk. I doubt that the clerk has the discretion to reject a motion that PURPORTS to be a legitimate filing in the case, even if it obviously is not.

Mr. Jackson did not impersonate an attorney; the motion is available on the news thread if you would like to read it.



It was filed with the title that was written on it--that is standard procedure. It is, indeed, a motion--it is just filed by someone who has no legal standing to file motions in this case.

I am 100% certain that the clerk would not have called the defense team to ask how to enter a filing that was not filed by the defense team.

Thank you for all your answers.

 

[A.M.]

AZ - I have a question:

Can the defense say pretty much anything they want during their opening statement without the prosecution objecting? Can they come up with any outlandish theory they want about why Casey acted the way she did during those 31 days, without the State being able to intervene?

Thanks in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ - I have a question:

Can the defense say pretty much anything they want during their opening statement without the prosecution objecting? Can they come up with any outlandish theory they want about why Casey acted the way she did during those 31 days, without the State being able to intervene?

Thanks in advance!

Anything they want? No. They can come up with any theory that is consistent with the evidence, however. And you would be surprised how many ways circumstantial evidence can be interpreted.

 

[Joanner]

Do you think that George, Cindy and Lee will be allowed to be present in the courtroom, as they will be testifyng at some point.

 

[Katprint]

How can Inmate Jackson get away with 'filing' this motion?? Are there no repercussions for this?

http://tinyurl.com/428tuz7

What are you going to do? Throw him in jail? :floorlaugh: Seriously, though, I'm sure it does violate some criminal law--whether or not anyone will care enough to prosecute is another matter.

I expect the Warden may receive letters from concerned citizens asking why the prison isn't doing a better job of keeping its inmates in line, and is letting them file frivolous pleadings, commit abuse of process, attempt to interfere with the orderly operations of the courts, obstruct justice, etc. The prison may revoke some of his privileges (TV, radio, library, recreation, commissary, cell assignment, etc.) as they are permitted to do without having to formally prosecute him.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

http://www.state.mi.us/mdoc/asp/otis2profile.asp?mdocNumber=282320

submitted as reference - Mr. Jackson has earned himself accommodations at Baraga Max in MI - I can't recall where he was before, but it wasn't level V. Methinks the administration in MI has decided he can't play nice. Do notice his potential first release date has passed. I think he'll be incarcerated a looonnnnggg time. Do google him (name plus county) he's quite the con artist (a perfect fit for ICA).

Mods, if I am out of line here, please delete.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you think that George, Cindy and Lee will be allowed to be present in the courtroom, as they will be testifyng at some point.

IMO the judge is very likely to exclude them despite their claimed "victim" status, as they are unable to maintain composure in the courtroom and their credibility is very much at issue. (Lee, I think, has not even attempted to claim "victim" status, so he should certainly be excluded from the courtroom.)

I expect the Warden may receive letters from concerned citizens asking why the prison isn't doing a better job of keeping its inmates in line, and is letting them file frivolous pleadings, commit abuse of process, attempt to interfere with the orderly operations of the courts, obstruct justice, etc. The prison may revoke some of his privileges (TV, radio, library, recreation, commissary, cell assignment, etc.) as they are permitted to do without having to formally prosecute him.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Katprint, I'm so glad you're here. You always give the serious answer after I give the flippant answer. :blowkiss:

 

[Just Jayla]

If the defense team tries to move in the direction that GA had something to do with Caylee's disappearance or death, can the prosecution object/ask that the judge limit the defense's questions of George to only what was addressed in their deposition of him, or does this rule apply only to expert witnesses?

 

[goldleaf]

When Cindy was testifying about the Febreeze and dryer sheets, Mr. Ashton did not make a big deal out of her lies, is that because the State is using them to testify and don't want to label George and Cindy "Liars"?

 

[faefrost]

Regarding JB's questioning of the states submitting of the New York hair banding Frye decision, Is already argued case law considered evidence or subject to cross examination? JB is objecting because he can not cross examine any witnesses from that case, but is that how it works? I thought that once a case is adjudicated and an order or ruling made public it was fair game to reference so long as it is properly cited? I didn't think that discovery, evidentiary or witness testimony rules applied to prior court decisions in that way? Am I missing something major there?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the defense team tries to move in the direction that GA had something to do with Caylee's disappearance or death, can the prosecution object/ask that the judge limit the defense's questions of George to only what was addressed in their deposition of him, or does this rule apply only to expert witnesses?

No, that would not be an appropriate objection for a non-expert witness.

When Cindy was testifying about the Febreeze and dryer sheets, Mr. Ashton did not make a big deal out of her lies, is that because the State is using them to testify and don't want to label George and Cindy "Liars"?

I think he did challenge the fact that her statement was inconsistent with her prior statements. :waitasec:

IMO there is no way that the State is hoping to preserve the general credibility of Cindy and George. The SA will force them kicking and screaming to testify about a few things they admitted during the "31 days" or soon after Casey was arrested. The jury will believe those things DESPITE the fact that CA and GA will come across as giant liars in general, because, after all, if a witness is willing to lie for the defendant, the things they say that HURT the defense are all the more believable.

Regarding JB's questioning of the states submitting of the New York hair banding Frye decision, Is already argued case law considered evidence or subject to cross examination? JB is objecting because he can not cross examine any witnesses from that case, but is that how it works? I thought that once a case is adjudicated and an order or ruling made public it was fair game to reference so long as it is properly cited? I didn't think that discovery, evidentiary or witness testimony rules applied to prior court decisions in that way? Am I missing something major there?

I don't JB was complaining about the State referencing a prior court decision; I think he was complaining about the State relying directly on the evidence (deposition transcript?) that was submitted to that other court. Essentially, the state was trying to introduce witness testimony through a deposition transcript taken in another case? If that's what was happening, I would have made the same objection.

I didn't watch the hearing, only followed along on the thread, so I hope I got that right.

 

[magnolia]

Do you think the "air sample" evidence passed the Frye test?

 

[faefrost]

I don't JB was complaining about the State referencing a prior court decision; I think he was complaining about the State relying directly on the evidence (deposition transcript?) that was submitted to that other court. Essentially, the state was trying to introduce witness testimony through a deposition transcript taken in another case? If that's what was happening, I would have made the same objection.

I didn't watch the hearing, only followed along on the thread, so I hope I got that right.

I think you did. It became a little clearer later in the conversation. The state submitted the NY case and also the transcript of the Frye hearing. One of the key witnesses in that hearing was also someone that KC's defense team had hired, but had not used for testimony. So the questions were regarding whether or not HHJP could read the transcripts or was limited to just the NY courts decision.

 

[janine]

I have a question!

So I hear a lot of talk about 'mistrials' and this case isn't the only time I've heard it mentioned. Can one of you lawyers please explain WHY a defendant/DT would ever wish for a mistrial?
I can only imagine that it would be if they thought things weren't going well in the original trial and would like a re-do. But why talk of it now, before it even begins?
A mistrial would only mean more time sitting in jail for the defendant who 'swears by their innocence'.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this issue.

TIA