Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[Joanner]

No, I have nothing in mind, just wondering.

 

[ZsaZsa]

When will the Fla Bar Assn make a determination as to the complaints made against Baez? If they decide he has been guilty of unethical or illegal behavior how will that impact the trial if at all?

 

[jon_burrows]

Assuming GA/CA get convicted of perjury in a DP case. Would that prevent them from making any more money off of Caylee? For example:

- Media outlets paying for pictures
- Media flying them to New York, California, etc for interviews and set them up in 5 star hotels and give them tickets to plays, tourist attractions, etc.
- Would they have to shut the CMA Foundation down?

-or-

Could they say the interview is about them and how they're feeling. In this case they would still hand over pictures. Could they make money that way?

I'm getting too wordy...what would it take to shut down the Caylee money making machine for the Anthonys?

 

[Katprint]

The only possible reason for this haphazard-seeming activity from the defense team (besides incompetence) would be to hide the "real defense strategy" by confusing the SA with all this other garbage.

AKA "trial by ambush." LOL! If so, Judge Perry isn't going to like it much. As a constitutional matter, he will probably have to permit it but he isn't going to like it. His unhappiness may affect sentencing - IMO there is no way Casey is getting off scot free no matter how spectacular her surprise defense is.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[AZlawyer]

When will the Fla Bar Assn make a determination as to the complaints made against Baez? If they decide he has been guilty of unethical or illegal behavior how will that impact the trial if at all?

The Fla Bar Assn can take as long as it wants to.

Whatever decision it makes will have no effect whatsoever on the trial.

Assuming GA/CA get convicted of perjury in a DP case. Would that prevent them from making any more money off of Caylee? For example:

- Media outlets paying for pictures
- Media flying them to New York, California, etc for interviews and set them up in 5 star hotels and give them tickets to plays, tourist attractions, etc.
- Would they have to shut the CMA Foundation down?

-or-

Could they say the interview is about them and how they're feeling. In this case they would still hand over pictures. Could they make money that way?

I'm getting too wordy...what would it take to shut down the Caylee money making machine for the Anthonys?

Don't get your hopes up. People commit perjury every single day in every court in the country and don't get prosecuted for it.

A conviction for perjury would not in any way prevent them from making money off of Caylee.

 

[missm]

I'm glad we're talking perjury here. I thought I'd come out of lurking on this thread and ask something I've always wanted to know:

I'm sure it's a bit speculative, but what are the ballpark chances anyone will go after CA or GA for all the obvious lying and covering up they have done in attempt to save the inmate? Specifically I am thinking washing the pants, deliberately giving the wrong hairbrush, changing stories as often as the weather? How would the powers that be make a decision on whether or not it would be worth the time or money to go after them? What would influence that decision?

Also- and I truly apologize if this is an idiotic question, but when a person is charged with a crime and it seems pretty common sense that they did it, is there always a trial? I'm thinking say, of Joe Bloggs who is caught on security camera clearly robbing a bank or shooting somebody, for instance. It's not like he can actually say, "No, that isn't me," when clearly it is. I guess what I truly do not understand is why there's an expensive trial for what seems to be such an obvious, "common sense" type of crime/case. If the inmate was dirt poor and from the wrong side of the tracks so to speak, would there even be a fuss about all of this in the first place? Surely they would have locked her up by now, and thrown away the key.

Look, I know everybody says justice is blind, yadda yadda, and that's the "right" answer, but clearly it isn't 100% of the time. I know not every case will hit the media, but I guess I do not rightfully understand why this case and inmate is "so special" that they deserve all the state resources and money that's been allocated for this trial, when anybody with common sense can put 2+2 together and see she did it: decomposing body leaving a toddler sized stain in the trunk, the child not being reported missing for 31 days, the lying about everything under the sun. Why are some caes debated, while others just go straight to jail? DYKWIM?

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm glad we're talking perjury here. I thought I'd come out of lurking on this thread and ask something I've always wanted to know:

I'm sure it's a bit speculative, but what are the ballpark chances anyone will go after CA or GA for all the obvious lying and covering up they have done in attempt to save the inmate? Specifically I am thinking washing the pants, deliberately giving the wrong hairbrush, changing stories as often as the weather? How would the powers that be make a decision on whether or not it would be worth the time or money to go after them? What would influence that decision?

Also- and I truly apologize if this is an idiotic question, but when a person is charged with a crime and it seems pretty common sense that they did it, is there always a trial? I'm thinking say, of Joe Bloggs who is caught on security camera clearly robbing a bank or shooting somebody, for instance. It's not like he can actually say, "No, that isn't me," when clearly it is. I guess what I truly do not understand is why there's an expensive trial for what seems to be such an obvious, "common sense" type of crime/case. If the inmate was dirt poor and from the wrong side of the tracks so to speak, would there even be a fuss about all of this in the first place? Surely they would have locked her up by now, and thrown away the key.

Look, I know everybody says justice is blind, yadda yadda, and that's the "right" answer, but clearly it isn't 100% of the time. I know not every case will hit the media, but I guess I do not rightfully understand why this case and inmate is "so special" that they deserve all the state resources and money that's been allocated for this trial, when anybody with common sense can put 2+2 together and see she did it: decomposing body leaving a toddler sized stain in the trunk, the child not being reported missing for 31 days, the lying about everything under the sun. Why are some caes debated, while others just go straight to jail? DYKWIM?

BBM #1: The chances of anyone going after CA and GA are tiny to nonexistent. Seriously, I can't think of many cases I have handled in which SOMEONE wasn't committing perjury. And changing your story doesn't even prove perjury--you could just have a terrible memory. Washing the pants is too easy to explain as just an automatic response to finding smelly laundry; giving the wrong hairbrush was petty and stupid but ultimately couldn't fool the DNA tests. The SA is looking at them as an annoyance, not as potential defendants.

BBM #2: If someone commits a crime and it is obvious they did it, 99% of the time there will not be a trial because they will just plead guilty or will work out a plea deal with the prosecution. This is not one of those cases, however. There is no "smoking gun" evidence against Casey, although the circumstantial evidence is getting stronger and stronger with every ruling from HHJP.

 

[RR0004]

I agree. You would think the DT would want to drop the subject of LB like a hot potato.



She can refuse to travel to Florida for trial. I suppose she could be subpoenaed, by initiating a petition in New Jersey or wherever she lives now attaching an order from HHJP, to appear someplace in New Jersey to testify via phone or video.

If she then decided to take the 5th, there might be arguments about whether she waived that right through prior testimony (same subject but different proceeding, so maybe not), or she might be granted immunity so that she could testify.

Couldn't they have attorney ready to be a rebuttal witness in case the State brings up "falsifying" documents? Maybe they don't want LB on the stand?

 

[5stars]

If Casey said I slept with JB,I was confused with what was happening in the courtroom with my love for him!Can that be an appeal issue?

 

[AZlawyer]

Couldn't they have attorney ready to be a rebuttal witness in case the State brings up "falsifying" documents? Maybe they don't want LB on the stand?

Yes, that's what I meant--that maybe the defense wants LB's attorney to testify that she was forced to "cooperate" by the State and that's why she is (falsely) now testifying that she was never at the exact spot and wrote additional things on the documents. But I don't understand why the defense thinks the State is going to call LB as a witness. She has nothing to say.

If Casey said I slept with JB,I was confused with what was happening in the courtroom with my love for him!Can that be an appeal issue?

Not strictly appeal, but perhaps post-conviction relief, which we might as well call appeal for now. But she would have to show that there was some actual effect on the outcome of the trial. And I will go out on a limb here and say that this argument has exactly no chance whatsoever of success.

 

[RR0004]

Yes, that's what I meant--that maybe the defense wants LB's attorney to testify that she was forced to "cooperate" by the State and that's why she is (falsely) now testifying that she was never at the exact spot and wrote additional things on the documents. But I don't understand why the defense thinks the State is going to call LB as a witness. She has nothing to say.



Not strictly appeal, but perhaps post-conviction relief, which we might as well call appeal for now. But she would have to show that there was some actual effect on the outcome of the trial. And I will go out on a limb here and say that this argument has exactly no chance whatsoever of success.

Thanks,AZ...I hadn't read downstream.

ETA: Mark N. seemed pretty certain that Casey would testify...wonder if there is scuttlebutt down at the courthouse. Ya think he knows something? He seemed fairly certain.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks,AZ...I hadn't read downstream.

ETA: Mark N. seemed pretty certain that Casey would testify...wonder if there is scuttlebutt down at the courthouse. Ya think he knows something? He seemed fairly certain.

I think he realizes that the defense team is in a desperate situation. With the evidence that's coming in (hair banding, chloroform, Casey's statements to LE, etc.), and the evidence that's not coming in (mental health experts), Casey needs to spin a new story to convince the jury.

 

[steadychick]

If the State questions George and Cindy early on, brings up all the inconsistencies in the things they have said and in their previous testimonies, more than likely the A's will get angry. Is there an advantage at that point for the State to have them proclaimed hostile witnesses?

 

[uklaw]

Quite frankly, if I had a client like Casey who insisted on going with an obviously false alibi like the Zenaida/Zanny/Zany/Zani story, I would have withdrawn a long time ago. $90K or even $200K would not be enough to entice me.
Always only my own opinions

Snipped by me.

I assume your one of the board lawyers?

I thought it was quite difficult to withdraw from the case once you had filed a notice of appearance and generally, without client's consent, required financial issues (unpaid bill), conflict-of-interest etc.

Can you really get to withdraw because you don't like your client's defense? Seems to go against everything a lawyer is to represent.

 

[uklaw]

The only possible reason for this haphazard-seeming activity from the defense team (besides incompetence) would be to hide the "real defense strategy" by confusing the SA with all this other garbage.

Don't you think it would be kinda ingenious if they managed to pull that off though?

 

[LambChop]

Wouldn't anything LB's attorney tell JB be heresay? Is this attorney from Florida or from NJ? Now that the attorney is on the witness list will SA call him in for a deposition? Sound to me as if JB is fishing for information on another pending case.

 

[AZlawyer]

If the State questions George and Cindy early on, brings up all the inconsistencies in the things they have said and in their previous testimonies, more than likely the A's will get angry. Is there an advantage at that point for the State to have them proclaimed hostile witnesses?

The only advantage to having a witness declared "hostile" is that you get to ask leading questions of that witness (e.g., "And then you washed the pants, didn't you?" instead of "And what did you do with the pants?").

Snipped by me.

I assume your one of the board lawyers?

I thought it was quite difficult to withdraw from the case once you had filed a notice of appearance and generally, without client's consent, required financial issues (unpaid bill), conflict-of-interest etc.

Can you really get to withdraw because you don't like your client's defense? Seems to go against everything a lawyer is to represent.

Katprint is one of the WS lawyers, yes.

Lawyers are not slaves. You can drop a client for any reason. But different states have different rules about how difficult it is to actually withdraw from representation of a client. In AZ, at least, it is quite easy unless the trial is coming up very soon, in which case you have to have a decent reason like conflict of interest, etc. Keep in mind you can have a conflict of interest between, e.g., your interest in being a moral person and your client's interest in being a lying cad.

Originally Posted by AZlawyer
The only possible reason for this haphazard-seeming activity from the defense team (besides incompetence) would be to hide the "real defense strategy" by confusing the SA with all this other garbage.

Don't you think it would be kinda ingenious if they managed to pull that off though?

Kinda sneaky but yes, kinda ingenious too.

Wouldn't anything LB's attorney tell JB be heresay? Is this attorney from Florida or from NJ? Now that the attorney is on the witness list will SA call him in for a deposition? Sound to me as if JB is fishing for information on another pending case.

Depends on what he's going to say. If he's going to say that the SA threatened her with prosecution if she didn't cooperate, it won't be hearsay if the SA called him directly to make the threat.

I don't know if the SA will bother to depose him. They might already know what he's going to say.

 

[john's mom]

I think he realizes that the defense team is in a desperate situation. With the evidence that's coming in (hair banding, chloroform, Casey's statements to LE, etc.), and the evidence that's not coming in (mental health experts), Casey needs to spin a new story to convince the jury.

Can Baez really stand in the courtroom and tell a new story at this point? He's gotta know she did it, so can he really (legally) tell a new whopper at this point?


I understand it's his job to defend her,attack the evidence, the science, SODDI, etc. But can he come to court with a tale and tell it?

 

[AZlawyer]

[/B]

Can Baez really stand in the courtroom and tell a new story at this point? He's gotta know she did it, so can he really (legally) tell a new whopper at this point?


I understand it's his job to defend her,attack the evidence, the science, SODDI, etc. But can he come to court with a tale and tell it?

Of course. He needs a theory of the case--i.e., a story consistent with the evidence and also consistent with Casey's innocence--in order to win.

 

[uklaw]

Keep in mind you can have a conflict of interest between, e.g., your interest in being a moral person and your client's interest in being a lying cad.

Would that be seen as a bona fide conflict of interest? I could see that where the Defendant was going to testify and perjure herself and insisted that her attorney call her and he knew she was going to commit perjury. But to just turn round and say "I quit... my client's a lying cad"; wouldn't the defeat the basic tenets and hallmarks of being a criminal defense attorney (defending a client no matter how unpopular they or their case is).