Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[AZlawyer]

Do you ever get tired of all of our random questions?


(Seriously, thanks for all that you J.D.'s add to this forum!)

Not really. Most of your questions make more sense than most of my clients' questions.

 

[allycat1208]

If KC sees psychiatrists regularly or even just once in a while, is it ever allowed to be disclosed what was said by her? I understand there are privacy laws, and I thought outside of being in prison that the only time a psychiatrist can disclose what a patient has said is if a client is threatening someone and deciding to take action to commit a crime or speaks about a crime already committed. This is not true if a client is in prison as well?

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Is it legal for lawyers and or experts that used to be on the defense team to go on the media and give their opinion on the case and about Casey?

Also, if there is an ex lawyer from the defense still on the case in secret is that legal? Is it legal for that lawyer to give advise on the case and then go on talk shows? Not a fact..just a question.

TIA :blowkiss:

 

[BChand]

Yes.

Dagnabit! I thought I was on to something there.

Thanks again.

 

[dani]

To AZLawyer re: your reply to my question in post #908 (Son of Sam). Sorry, I haven't figured out how to reply when there are multiple Qs & As in one post such as post #915.

I'm quoting your reply here:
"I haven't looked at this issue specifically. Assuming there is such a law in Florida and that it remains valid, it certainly wouldn't apply to anyone other than Casey."

BBM

In my research (before posting my original question) I came across this statement: "In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal." http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/20420-son-sam-law.html

This was what made me curious if Florida could "cut their losses" so to speak. Plus, I don't want ANYONE named Anthony (or on the DT) to profit from little Caylee's demise!

Evidently Florida does have the Son of Sam law. See "The "Son of Sam" Law in Florida is codified at F.S. 944.512." approx. 1/2 way down the web page in the same link.

Please understand, I am in NO WAY trying to be argumentative. I just have an inquiring mind. This is my favorite thread. You guys are AMAZING and I THANK YOU so much. :blowkiss:

 

[Kimster]

Patriciah is a verified attorney. :woohoo:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Patriciah is a verified attorney. :woohoo:

Welcome Patriciach. I'm looking forward to you input.

Bob.

 

[AZlawyer]

If KC sees psychiatrists regularly or even just once in a while, is it ever allowed to be disclosed what was said by her? I understand there are privacy laws, and I thought outside of being in prison that the only time a psychiatrist can disclose what a patient has said is if a client is threatening someone and deciding to take action to commit a crime or speaks about a crime already committed. This is not true if a client is in prison as well?

If she is seeing a psychiatrist as a patient, it should be confidential. Thus far, we have no information that she is being treated for any psychiatric problem.

Is it legal for lawyers and or experts that used to be on the defense team to go on the media and give their opinion on the case and about Casey?

Also, if there is an ex lawyer from the defense still on the case in secret is that legal? Is it legal for that lawyer to give advise on the case and then go on talk shows? Not a fact..just a question.

TIA :blowkiss:

Yes, it is legal for both current and former attorneys and experts to talk to media about the case.

To AZLawyer re: your reply to my question in post #908 (Son of Sam). Sorry, I haven't figured out how to reply when there are multiple Qs & As in one post such as post #915.

I'm quoting your reply here:
"I haven't looked at this issue specifically. Assuming there is such a law in Florida and that it remains valid, it certainly wouldn't apply to anyone other than Casey."

BBM

In my research (before posting my original question) I came across this statement: "In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal." http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/20420-son-sam-law.html

This was what made me curious if Florida could "cut their losses" so to speak. Plus, I don't want ANYONE named Anthony (or on the DT) to profit from little Caylee's demise!

Evidently Florida does have the Son of Sam law. See "The "Son of Sam" Law in Florida is codified at F.S. 944.512." approx. 1/2 way down the web page in the same link.

Please understand, I am in NO WAY trying to be argumentative. I just have an inquiring mind. This is my favorite thread. You guys are AMAZING and I THANK YOU so much. :blowkiss:

Thanks for the cite. I checked the statute and it applies to convicted felons and persons acting "on behalf" of a convicted felon, which to me means that Casey couldn't get profits "under the table," but someone else in the A family could profit as long as the profits were in no way funneled to Casey.

 

[beeshie]

Based upon the defense's opening statement, do you think Casey will put on an affirmative defense?

Since her defense appears to be a he said/she said story, do you think Casey will testify?

If she doesn't testify, was it proper for Baez in the opening statement to quote George as saying Look what you've done. Your mother will never forgive you?

Along those lines, if there are no plans for Casey to testify (and since the prosecution showed tapes of her jailhouse visits), is it possible for her to receive a jailhouse visit from someone (anyone) and for her to give her drowning story to that person during that visit and have the defense show the tape in court as a way to avoid letting the prosecution cross-examine her?

 

[MissJames]

If she is seeing a psychiatrist as a patient, it should be confidential. Thus far, we have no information that she is being treated for any psychiatric problem.



Yes, it is legal for both current and former attorneys and experts to talk to media about the case.



Thanks for the cite. I checked the statute and it applies to convicted felons and persons acting "on behalf" of a convicted felon, which to me means that Casey couldn't get profits "under the table," but someone else in the A family could profit as long as the profits were in no way funneled to Casey.

BBM

In your opinion ,if CA or GA wrote a book or licensed any more videos or pictures ,and received funds,would they be able to continue contributing to ICA's account at prison. Would that preclude them from helping to pay an appeals lawyer ?

 

[AZlawyer]

Based upon the defense's opening statement, do you think Casey will put on an affirmative defense?

Since her defense appears to be a he said/she said story, do you think Casey will testify?

If she doesn't testify, was it proper for Baez in the opening statement to quote George as saying Look what you've done. Your mother will never forgive you?

Along those lines, if there are no plans for Casey to testify (and since the prosecution showed tapes of her jailhouse visits), is it possible for her to receive a jailhouse visit from someone (anyone) and for her to give her drowning story to that person during that visit and have the defense show the tape in court as a way to avoid letting the prosecution cross-examine her?

1. No. She is going for an actual innocence defense.

2. I think Casey almost has to testify. But it was a terrible idea to present a defense theory that requires the jury to believe a pathological liar.

3. Maybe Baez thought George would break down and confess that he started talking like a soap opera actor after finding Caylee dead.

4. The defense couldn't offer such a tape into evidence--the prosecution would have to offer it, because it would be hearsay if presented by the defense.

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM

In your opinion ,if CA or GA wrote a book or licensed any more videos or pictures ,and received funds,would they be able to continue contributing to ICA's account at prison. Would that preclude them from helping to pay an appeals lawyer ?

Just because they used the money to help Casey wouldn't necessarily mean they were acting "on her behalf." If they sold THEIR OWN story or THEIR OWN pictures, I think they could do what they wanted with the money. I think the language about acting on the felon's behalf is to prevent "sneaking around" the intent of the statute--e.g., if Casey wrote her story and then gave it to Cindy, who published "Casey's Story as Told to Her Mother, by Cindy Anthony," and then put the entire proceeds in a segregated account from which she transferred the maximum monthly contribution to Casey's jail account every month.

 

[Solomisskitty]

Will a PSI (pre-sentence investigation) be done prior to sentencing? Who do you suppose would be called if it is performed?

 

[cleo612]

I don't see how she can get out of a conviction for providing false info to a law enforcement officer who is searching for a missing person--but she's already served most of the time she would have to serve for those charges anyway, so I doubt she cares much about that.

At this point, I don't see how there is not going to be a conviction above and beyond the false information charges. Of course, that is just my opinion. LOL

I am curious as to whether or not they can impose additional charges at this late date based on their (proposed) testimony, such as: improper disposal of a human body, concealing a death, and any other sundry and assorted related charges?

 

[downport]

- What Florida prison will she be housed in after the conviction ?
- If she is given the death penalty, will she interact with the inmate population, or is she on lock down 24/7 till death ?
Thank you

 

[Katprint]

Just because they used the money to help Casey wouldn't necessarily mean they were acting "on her behalf." If they sold THEIR OWN story or THEIR OWN pictures, I think they could do what they wanted with the money. I think the language about acting on the felon's behalf is to prevent "sneaking around" the intent of the statute--e.g., if Casey wrote her story and then gave it to Cindy, who published "Casey's Story as Told to Her Mother, by Cindy Anthony," and then put the entire proceeds in a segregated account from which she transferred the maximum monthly contribution to Casey's jail account every month.

Florida was the jurisdiction where Ron Goldman's family was successful in piercing the corporate veil of Lorraine Brooke Associates, which was a corporation set up in the name of Simpson's children to collect the $1 million advance for OJ's book "if I DID IT: Confessions of a Killer" although there was no evidence that the children were funneling money to their father. If Caylee's father pops up after Casey is convicted - when he is less likely to be thrown under the bus - then IMO he could give the Anthonys a run for their money. In the meantime, there is nobody with a better right to any profits indirectly derived from Caylee's death.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Pink Panther]

JA did not formally submeit Dr. G as an expert witness to the court! Is this a problem?

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

I have a question about the allegations made int he opening statement. I'm sure this was asked a million times, I can't find it anywhere

I remember hearing that the defense doesn't have to PROVE anything. That burden is on the state.
So, does this mean that the defense can go and say whatever they'd like... and not have to prove it? Or, will they have to prove George abused Casey and Kronk someone stole & stashed the body. Everyone keeps saying that Casey will have to testify to try to prove abuse... but do they really have to prove it?

 

[megsy]

I have two questions that I'm sure have already been asked and answered :loser:

Because of the defense's opening statement, can we assume that Casey has not told them the absolute truth? In other words, can they outright lie in their opening statement?

Also, if she told them where she tossed the remains (before they were found) would they be legally obligated to tell law enforcement?

 

[Katprint]

I have a question about the allegations made int he opening statement. I'm sure this was asked a million times, I can't find it anywhere

I remember hearing that the defense doesn't have to PROVE anything. That burden is on the state.
So, does this mean that the defense can go and say whatever they'd like... and not have to prove it? Or, will they have to prove George abused Casey and Kronk someone stole & stashed the body. Everyone keeps saying that Casey will have to testify to try to prove abuse... but do they really have to prove it?

At the beginning of the case, the defense doesn't have to prove that the defendant is innocent; the prosecution has to prove that the defendant is guilty. If the prosecution introduced no evidence, or inadequate evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal as a matter of law. If the prosecution presents sufficient evidence of guilt during its case-in-chief and the defense doesn't controvert that evidence or offer some reason why the defendant should not be found guilty, then the defendant should be convicted.

The presumption of innocence is a "rebuttable presumption" which means it can be disproven by evidence to the contrary. There are "irrebuttable presumptions" aka "conclusive presumptions" which cannot be disproven regardless how much evidence to the contrary, such as the laws providing that people under a certain age cannot consent to sex, or that the child of a wife cohabiting with her non-sterile, non-impotent husband is "conclusively" presumed to be child of the marriage (even if the wife had an adulterous relationship with that child's biological father who subsequently files a paternity action to gain visitation rights), or that juries understand and follow jury instructions. So, if the prosecution proves that Casey is guilty, the defense must offer its own evidence controverting the prosecution's case. The defense cannot merely chant "the defense doesn't have to prove anything."

The jury is supposed to wait until after they have received all of the evidence before they make their decision. During the trial, the judge repeatedly tells them not to deliberate or discuss the case with anyone. However, when all of the evidence has been presented then the jury will begin deliberating, deciding and (hopefully) reaching their verdicts.

As far as the claims made in opening statements go, the court has instructed and will again instruct the jury that the statements by the attorneys are not evidence. The statements, by themselves, prove nothing. Normally, the defense opening statement is intended to help the jurors keep an open mind until the defense has the opportunity to present its case i.e. by introducing evidence and testimony which will controvert the prosecutions case and/or establish an affirmative defense. If either side tells the jury that they will prove XYZ but they fail to present any evidence of XYZ, the other side can point that failure out during closing arguments. One of the reasons why most attorneys spend huge amounts of time and effort on motions in limine is to know for certain exactly what evidence is or is not coming in. It can be a big mistake to promise what you can't deliver.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions