Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[bananarama]

FYI: beachbumming is now a verified attorney.

Welcome Beachbumming! This is my favorite thread and I'm interested in your perspective as well as our "seasoned" attorneys!

 

[beachbumming]

Welcome Beachbumming! This is my favorite thread and I'm interested in your perspective as well as our "seasoned" attorneys!

Thank you. So glad to be here!

 

[uklaw]

Is there anything in the jury selection that could cause any conviction to be overturned on appeal?

I am, in particular thinking of the fact that Judge Perry did not allow the Defense to refrain from exercising their Peremptory Challenges until they had conducted voir dire with all of the venirepeople. I also understand that Florida provides greater protection with respect to peremptory challenges that the US Constitution does and that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Rivera v. Illinois (Provided that all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reversal of a conviction because of the trial court’s good-faith error in denying the defendant’s peremptory challenge to a juror) would be of no assistance to the state in Floridian proceedings.

From Jury Blog http://www.juryblog.com/scotus-upholds-verdict-of-improper-foreperson/

Late last month the United States Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of a man, Michael Rivera, who was convicted by a jury whose foreperson, Deloris Gomez, was improperly allowed to sit on the jury. Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. __ (2009). During jury selection, Rivera’s attorney properly attempted to use one of his peremptory strikes against Gomez, but the trial judge wrongfully refused to allow the strike, erroneously believing the challenge was discriminatory since Gomez was a black woman.

....

Rivera was convicted of first degree murder. It was undisputed in the ensuing appeals that the trial judge erred in preventing the use of the peremptory strike because the strike was not discriminatory. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on the grounds that in Illinois (unlike Florida) there is no freestanding constitutional right to peremptory challenges.

...

The Court held that if a defendant is tried before a qualified-jury composed of individuals not challengeable for cause, the loss of a peremptory strike due to a state court’s good faith error is not a matter of federal constitutional concern. Rather, it is a matter for the State to address under its own laws.


Fortunately, peremptory strikes have strong constitutional protection under Florida law. In several opinions in recent years, the Supreme Court of Florida has recognized the unique and important role that peremptory challenges play during jury selection. The Court has held that “peremptory challenges are a necessary tool for achieving the constitutional right of a trial by an impartial jury.” See, Kopsho v. State, 959 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2007) and Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2004).

...

It is per se reversible error to prevent a defendant or attorney from exercising peremptory challenges at any time before the jury is sworn. See, Gilliam v. State, 514 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1987), and Peacher v. Cohn, 786 So. 2d 1282 (Fla 5th DCA 2001).
As a result, Michael Rivera’s conviction would almost certainly have been overturned had the trial taken place in Florida instead of Illinois.

 

[beachbumming]

Is there anything in the jury selection that could cause any conviction to be overturned on appeal?

I am, in particular thinking of the fact that Judge Perry did not allow the Defense to refrain from exercising their Peremptory Challenges until they had conducted voir dire with all of the venirepeople. I also understand that Florida provides greater protection with respect to peremptory challenges that the US Constitution does and that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Rivera v. Illinois (Provided that all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reversal of a conviction because of the trial court’s good-faith error in denying the defendant’s peremptory challenge to a juror) would be of no assistance to the state in Floridian proceedings.

1. Following voir dire both the state and the defense have an opportunity to argue before the court why certain potential jurors should be removed or "struck" for "cause." Examples include, biases, unable to convict based on religious beliefs, etc.

2. Each side is then allowed to use their peremptory strikes, meaning you don't have to give a reason as to why you are removing a potential juror.

3. Following the "striking of the jury" but before jurors are sworn in, the lawyers have an opportunity to make additional challenges if they believe a person was "struck" based on race, gender or religious affiliation.

4. If a higher courts finds that a person should have been removed for "cause" and the defense had to use one of their peremptory strikes instead, that is grounds for reversal.

5. If a higher courts finds that a person was removed based on race, gender or religious affiliation, that is also grounds for reversal.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question for the lawyers. I'm new here and this is my first post.

I've read in a couple of places that there's information that there was some kind of big fight at the Anthony's house on June 15? was it? Some neighbors told the police (or said it in a deposition), and then Lee told someone (was it the boyfriend?) the same thing. My question is why didn't either the prosecution or the defense ask either CA or GA when they were on the stand about this fight? Why didn't they ask what it was about?

thanks

Is lack of foundation why Cindy did not testify about the fight on June 15th about Casey stealing money from her grandparent's account? To the best of my recollection they had a fight when Casey got home after Cindy and Caylee went to visit Cindy's parents because Casey stole money from them.

Is it possible that it will be introduced to show there was a huge argument between Cindy and Casey that night? If this has been asked and answered I'd appreciate it if someone can give me the post #.

Thank you.

Edited to add: She is still on direct so perhaps it will be brought out on Tuesday? But I am not clear on if it is allowed to be mentioned at all.

Yes, I want to know about this too! I was really stooped when it wasn't brought up in Sat's testimony w Cindy. I guess the prosecution feels like they don't even need to bring it up, they're letting Baez do all the speculating. The prosecution is relying on facts, that's it. Not he said, she said. My Question for a lawyer is, can they call Cindy back up to testify again and ask her again about that night and the fight. I mean if they asked her once about that day, if she testified once about that day, can they then ask her to testify again about that same day? Seems like we've gone round and round about stupid duct tape on a can!

I think the SA did not ask because CA has always adamantly denied the alleged fight. Asking her would not serve the purpose of getting that information into evidence, if she's going to deny it.

BTW whatever the fight was about on the 15th (if there was one at all), I doubt it was about the stealing money, which had been discovered at least a month or so earlier.

Prior bad acts are only admissible for impeachment purposes as to a witness's credibility. Stealing is an act that could go to ICA's truthfulness but only during cross-examination if she took the stand. The theory is you don't want jurors thinking that because a defendant was guilty of something in the past, then they must be guilty of the present crime. The prosecution is not allowed to present evidence of prior bad acts of a defendant in their case-in-chief.

In this case, IIRC at some point in the pretrial motions hearings or rulings HHJP indicated that the stealing might come in to rebut Casey's statement that she was lying and stealing in order to find Caylee. But now that Casey has admitted that she was not trying to find Caylee at all, the information might not come in.

Is there anything in the jury selection that could cause any conviction to be overturned on appeal?

I am, in particular thinking of the fact that Judge Perry did not allow the Defense to refrain from exercising their Peremptory Challenges until they had conducted voir dire with all of the venirepeople. I also understand that Florida provides greater protection with respect to peremptory challenges that the US Constitution does and that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Rivera v. Illinois (Provided that all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reversal of a conviction because of the trial court’s good-faith error in denying the defendant’s peremptory challenge to a juror) would be of no assistance to the state in Floridian proceedings.

I was in pretrial prep at the time and might have missed something, but I thought HHJP had changed his mind on that and ultimately allowed the parties to question the entire panel before anyone was sworn in.

 

[cleo612]

There are a few videos that I have seen, depicting little Caylee being videotaped by someone who has absolutely no interaction with this child, at all. You can see that Caylee is trying to engage whomever is holding the camera in conversation, or she is seeking a response of some sort, but there is total silence from the videographer. They were obviously taped in the Anthony home.

Can these videos be brought in to rebut the defense team's continuous questioning about ICA being a good mother? Could the SA's question each member of the Anthony family to ask them if they were the one taping in order to rule out each of them, until the only person left is ICA?

If they can be brought in, whem during the trial would be the most strategic point to do so?

Those videos are so utterly chilling in their silence and in the looks on that precious baby's face--she just looks so confused, and then sad, and then just resigned to this non-responsive person behind the camera.

 

[Mystic]

In this case, IIRC at some point in the pretrial motions hearings or rulings HHJP indicated that the stealing might come in to rebut Casey's statement that she was lying and stealing in order to find Caylee. But now that Casey has admitted that she was not trying to find Caylee at all, the information might not come in.

Hi AZ, I am wondering about this as well. Casey last statement to LE is that the nanny kidnapped her and Casey was looking for her. Although JB's OS is not evidence is it then in some way a new statement from Casey? Guess I'm thinking SA has prepared accordingly for trial and it doesn't seem right that now certain items will not be brought in when JB did not enter any discovery to it nor did ICA sign a new statement. I'm confused?

thank you

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Let's say a weird thing happens and she's found not guilty on the murder/manslaughter charges...would you say by the nature of their defense - admitting she lied to investigators (Caylee drowned, therefore the Universal Studios Zanny story HAS to be false) is she definitely sunk on the providing false info charges? I can't imagine she has any way around those...

 

[momshrink]

I have a question for the lawyers. I'm new here and this is my first post.

I've read in a couple of places that there's information that there was some kind of big fight at the Anthony's house on June 15? was it? Some neighbors told the police (or said it in a deposition), and then Lee told someone (was it the boyfriend?) the same thing. My question is why didn't either the prosecution or the defense ask either CA or GA when they were on the stand about this fight? Why didn't they ask what it was about?

thanks

:wagon:

 

[Intermezzo]

Did Baez have the responsibility to inform the Court this was an accident and not murder?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Marcia Clark, the prosecuting attorney in the OJ case, said on InSession a couple days ago, that they knew several weeks before the OJ trial started that they were going to lose the case. Is that possible? How could she know they were going to lose? Or was she just doing what talking heads do and talking through both sides of her mouth?

So in this case, could the prosecution already have known they are going to lose this case several weeks ago?

 

[chakti]

I don't know if this is a legal question or not but, what the heck is CM and the rest of the team there for ? We know JB and ICA don't have a clue. They are a train wreck waiting to happen but shouldn't all the years of practice from the rest of the team be able to put together a better story then this one ?

 

[Pink Panther]

Now that CA and GA seem to have seen the light, if they have additional information regarding Caylee's death that they did not reveal prior, will the prosecution be allowed to introduce it? Or is the prosecution bound to the information that is in the depositions and LE interviews?

 

[nursebeeme]

Folks, please remember this is a question and answer thread. A place to ask questions of our verified lawyers. Not a discussion thread. Thanks

 

[joypath]

In this case, IIRC at some point in the pretrial motions hearings or rulings HHJP indicated that the stealing might come in to rebut Casey's statement that she was lying and stealing in order to find Caylee. But now that Casey has admitted that she was not trying to find Caylee at all, the information might not come in.

SO RESPECTFULLY "snipped" :truce: but I'm struggling with the BBM part SINCE opening statements are not to be considered as FACT. Does the defense gang and the SA team have to stipulate to the "newer" story/excuse/fantasy :crazy: of the felon's "actions"? HOW does the opening statement CHANGE the documents & interviews that felon-inmate gave & SIGNED to LE?:banghead::banghead:

 

[reeseeva]

Who will give the closing statements for the Prosecution?

Please say Jeff Ashton....

TY

 

[Macushla]

IF there was a fight on the 15th and Cindy confronted KC because of things that Caylee may have babbled about on the ride back from visiting Cindy's father and mother, would that be a reason not to allow the fight into evidence? Since Caylee can not testify, it is hearsay - is that correct?

 

[niaa]

CA can be called back to the stand. This may be a strategic decision on the part of the prosecution, as it may not further their theory of the case and wouldn't be a problem if the defense cross-examined on that point. That testimony could present pros and cons for both sides to where neither side wants to go down that road.

Wouldn't the DT want testimony about the fight for the penalty phase to try to justify her actions ?

 

[Rapunzel]

If someone's testimony is impeached, can they continue to testify???

 

[beachbumming]

If someone's testimony is impeached, can they continue to testify???

Impeachment of a witness' testimony goes to show the person is not credible and therefore shouldn't be believed. But that is for the jury to decide. Example, JB is trying to impeach GA's testimony on cross-examination hoping that the jury will not believe GA. However, if the jury does believe GA then JB was unsuccessful in impeaching GA.