Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[MyTinkieGirl]

Just heard..yet once again...on JVM, who had LKB on the show...the whole DT "it'll be explained in the first minutes of opening statements"....LKB made it seem like it's gonna be something BEYOND those type of statements.
First....IF it IS in fact a "bomb shell" the defense never revealed to the SA....IIRC, Baez did something similar in another of his cases....maybe not during opening statements (someone correct me, please, if I'm wrong). Would something like this cause an immediate mistrial??

Second....even though we all know KC's character, and she wouldn't still be sitting in jail given the opportunity...BUT, we also KNOW GA said he'd do "anything" for KC...or to trade places, etc....IF, the defense says something like "GA killed Caylee" and GA admits it on the stand under oath - like THAT matters to the A's....sorry, snarky.
But, basically, since the case has been formulated around KC being the guilty party....what would they do?? How, after all this time, would the SA be able to go back and build their case against GA...since they put all the pieces together with KC being the murderer??

All hypothetically stoopid....just been buggin me....thanks for any answer....appreciate all our "legal eagles" !!!!

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Just heard..yet once again...on JVM, who had LKB on the show...the whole DT "it'll be explained in the first minutes of opening statements"....LKB made it seem like it's gonna be something BEYOND those type of statements.
First....IF it IS in fact a "bomb shell" the defense never revealed to the SA....IIRC, Baez did something similar in another of his cases....maybe not during opening statements (someone correct me, please, if I'm wrong). Would something like this cause an immediate mistrial??

Second....even though we all know KC's character, and she wouldn't still be sitting in jail given the opportunity...BUT, we also KNOW GA said he'd do "anything" for KC...or to trade places, etc....IF, the defense says something like "GA killed Caylee" and GA admits it on the stand under oath - like THAT matters to the A's....sorry, snarky.
But, basically, since the case has been formulated around KC being the guilty party....what would they do?? How, after all this time, would the SA be able to go back and build their case against GA...since they put all the pieces together with KC being the murderer??

All hypothetically stoopid....just been buggin me....thanks for any answer....appreciate all our "legal eagles" !!!!

The DT is only required to exchange discovery with the SA--they are not obligated to disclose their theories. Therefore, if the DT comes up with a theory the SA team didn't anticipate, it's tough on the SA--no mistrial. That said, there has to be some evidence introduced at trial (or reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence introduced) that is consistent with the defense theory--they cannot posit a theory in which there exists no evidence (or reasonable inference) to support it.

If the DT theory is that GA did it and GA admits to it on the stand--the SA will simply cross-examine the heck out of him and continue on with the trial. If KC is acquitted of all charges, it's possible LE could then investigate GA for the crime and if they got an indictment against him, he would stand trial for it.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Soon after Casey was arrested there was a psychiatric evaluation done on her and I believe it was court ordered and had to do with her being released on bail. That evaluation was sealed by an appeals court. Can the state or dt use it in the trial?

The appeals court also ordered Casey Anthony's psychiatric evaluation sealed. The judge reviewed it before making Wednesday's decision.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/17039556/detail.html#ixzz1Mr4ke1VD

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Soon after Casey was arrested there was a psychiatric evaluation done on her and I believe it was court ordered and had to do with her being released on bail. That evaluation was sealed by an appeals court. Can the state or dt use it in the trial?

The appeals court also ordered Casey Anthony's psychiatric evaluation sealed. The judge reviewed it before making Wednesday's decision.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/17039556/detail.html#ixzz1Mr4ke1VD

If I'm not mistaken, in April, I believe the defense attempted to have the Examiner, Dr. Danziger, listed as a witness and testify to his evaluation during the guilt phase, but ultimately withdrew that request. At the time, the SA requested and received permission to depose Dr. D but ultimately the DT via the court put the kabash on finishing his deposition. Therefore, the DT cannot use it during the guilt phase of the trial because Dr. D is not listed on the witness list,the SA was not permitted to take a meaningful deposition re his evaluation, and there are admissibility issues since the evaluation is based on KC's statements which are hearsay for which I believe there are no hearsay exceptions. SA can't use it because it's hearsay and irrelevant to any issue being raised at trial.

 

[Fl Breeze]

I was under the impression that the jury could not consider the penalty (sentence for the crime) nor be told what the penalty would be, when making their decisions on guilt or innocence (guilt phase).

Is this true? and if true, how can AF tell them what the penalty for 1st degree murder is in Florida (LWOP or death) when she is questioning the potential juror?

Doesn't that then put into their head what the penalty is and would this possibly taint their decision?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I was under the impression that the jury could not consider the penalty (sentence for the crime) nor be told what the penalty would be, when making their decisions on guilt or innocence (guilt phase).

Is this true? and if true, how can AF tell them what the penalty for 1st degree murder is in Florida (LWOP or death) when she is questioning the potential juror?

Doesn't that then put into their head what the penalty is and would this possibly taint their decision?

The jurors will be instructed that they cannot consider sentencing on any of the charges during the guilt phase of the trial. However, this is a DP case therefore the jury must be DP qualified and that is why they are being told about the possible sentencing. As the jurors are human it is always possible that the potential sentence will taint their decision--however, they will be instructed by the judge not to consider it --just as they will be instructed to base their decision on only the evidence introduced at trial and nothing they heard in the media.

 

[jamesdoe]

May I ask if the DT can ask for a mistrial for the outburst in the courtroom today during the questioning of a potential juror? Juror was dismissed by court

TIA

 

[SoCalSleuth]

May I ask if the DT can ask for a mistrial for the outburst in the courtroom today during the questioning of a potential juror? Juror was dismissed by court

TIA

No, the only juror who was present and possibly heard it was excused--therefore no harm, no foul.

 

[whiteangora]

Hi - When the trial gets underway do we get a heads up as to what witnesses will be called each day? TYVM

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Hi - When the trial gets underway do we get a heads up as to what witnesses will be called each day? TYVM

No, not unless it comes up in open court for some reason such as a scheduling problem. You can pretty much assume, however, that the SA will go pretty much in chronological order--they should start with their strongest witness and end with a strong witness.

 

[mombomb]

Regarding the PJ who was being questioned when the outburst happened, when she was brought back in and HHCJBP began asking her what she heard, she said something like she thought she would have been able to remember what she heard, if not for the people who engaged her in conversation while waiting outside - in particular a man dressed in all black. That was when HH decided to excuse her.

I had been assuming that the PJs were guarded when they were asked to step out for a minute. How could someone get to them and "engage them in conversation"? Is that normal?

 

[AZlawyer]

Regarding the PJ who was being questioned when the outburst happened, when she was brought back in and HHCJBP began asking her what she heard, she said something like she thought she would have been able to remember what she heard, if not for the people who engaged her in conversation while waiting outside - in particular a man dressed in all black. That was when HH decided to excuse her.

I had been assuming that the PJs were guarded when they were asked to step out for a minute. How could someone get to them and "engage them in conversation"? Is that normal?

It would not be normal for them to be "guarded."

 

[suepitzl]

What is the signifigance of juror seat numbers? TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

What is the signifigance of juror seat numbers? TIA

None at all.

 

[ScubaTwinn]

Can HHJP really limit their opening arguments to seven minutes each?

 

[twall]

How is the jury foreperson decided?

Will any grand jury testimony be released to the public?

 

[Cher352]

Yesterday the judge said each side would get 1 strike for each alternate juror. Watching the day progress today I was fearful that there wouldn't be enough jurors to fill the alternate's seats. I was surprised when one of the PJs was moved out of the 1st twelve seats to the 5th alternate spot and the number of strikes were reduced.

Is it common for the defense, the prosecution and the judge to agree to move them around and work together like this?

 

[Joanner]

What might happen if an outburst, like what happened today, occurs during the trial?

 

[docwho3]

Is it possible that this outburst, which was recorded as it happened, has enabled
the defense team to be more daring in their defense strategy knowing that if they
lose they can always appeal and have that video as 'evidence' a fair trial
was not possible at that time? (I wonder- Is there any connection known
between this woman of the outburst and the defense?)

 

[LaLaw2000]

Will the DT be given a lot of leeway in their opening statement? I have watched and been present at trials where statements made in the opening statements were never even brought up again during the actual trial.

*One example is the Brad Cooper (Nancy) trial. The DT stated they would prove certain things and never did, or couldn't prove what they had said they would.