Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[bonniez451]

Not the jury system per se. I don't know any way to FORCE people to be diligent, which is required for any system to be successful - not just with regard to our legal system. People can live in a democracy yet fail to educate themselves about the facts and issues nor bother to vote in the elections. People can have dental insurance which covers 100% of preventative dental care yet fail to get their teeth cleaned - for no additional cost - every six months. People can be given free public education up to 12th grade yet fail to attend classes or study.

The courts have their hands full just getting people to respond to their jury summons as required by law. Jury service is a pain in the butt. The jury pay in California is not enough to even pay for a day's parking in the San Francisco Bay area, much less anywhere near enough to reimburse jurors for their lost wages. I'd like to see jurors made more comfortable, maybe with free lunches and free parking, which might help the jurors feel more appreciated for the hard work they are [supposed to be] doing. The recent improvements to the reporting system where you check in electronically the day before to find out whether you REALLY have to physically report to the courthouse to serve on a jury - instead of spending 3 days sitting in uncomfortable chairs in the jury room without ever being sent to a courtroom - have lessened jurors resentment somewhat.

Also, California recently finished a couple of decades of major tweaks to jury instructions to turn legalese into plain English so they were easier to understand. It was clear from the interviews with the Casey Anthony jurors that they didn't even bother to try to read the complicated jury instructions they were given, much less try to understand them and follow them. Making sure the jurors can understand the jury instructions is critical tweaking IMO.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Thank you for your response,totally agree with you about the jury instructions and the problem I see like my own small county comes down to expsenses that small counties cannot afford.

 

[AZlawyer]

Since KC was convicted on the lying charges, is it not unusual that those convictions did not include a probationary period. Even misdemeanors quite often have a probationary period, ,I thought. Or was there not a probationary period because the judge choose the maximum penalty if I recall.

Also if probation was served in jail, which I still consider ridiculous, but I guess it is an easy gig for the probation department, how on earth could that run concurrent with prison/jail sentence since that jail time for the lying charges was applied to time served., concurrent to the same time as the so called probation time . That alone should invalidate the probation time if really served and would not be double jeopardy. Maybe I am dense, I just do not get it. Everybody seem to be covering up for their errors except Judge Strickland. Another year in jail and credit for the probation time sounds just right to me.

There was no probation on the lying charges because Casey got the maximum sentence (1 year) for each count.

I don't think there would be any problem with the probation time running concurrently with the jail time on the other counts. What I think does NOT make sense is the fact that her "time served" on the check fraud charges was counted toward the "time served" for the lying charges.

 

[krkrjx]

There was no probation on the lying charges because Casey got the maximum sentence (1 year) for each count.

I don't think there would be any problem with the probation time running concurrently with the jail time on the other counts. What I think does NOT make sense is the fact that her "time served" on the check fraud charges was counted toward the "time served" for the lying charges.

Could there be any recourse for fixing that error now? It was, apparently, an error made by county personnel who tallied up the days Casey had spent in jail. I suppose it is too sticky a situation to consider, even if it could be corrected legally, because it would appear to be nothing more than some kind of vendetta toward Casey Anthony. But--could this error in the time-served tally be remedied now if someone having the authority were to pursue it? IIRC, a similar error occurred in Tommy Croslin's case and his time-served was amended once the error was found, so that he did not get to use the time served for one offense as credit time toward another offense.

 

[rotterdam]

Thank you so much AZlawyer for answering our often nonsensical lay questions.
You have no idea , how much I have learned, and I suspect others too, on this thread.
I always wondered about Judges, sometimes they elect to have sentences run concurrent while in other cases they run consecutive.(Like O.J)
I assumed that HHJP elected to run the lying charges concurrent with the check fraud charges.
Is there any rhyme or reason/logic to running sentences concurrent or consecutive or is it just at the whim of the presiding judge. Also, should that have been oraly/written specified in HHJP's ruling in regard to the previous check fraud ruling by HHSS when sentencing KC on the lying charges which he did not IIRC. He did say that the lying charges to be run consecutive but nothing about the previous check fraud charges.
Should HHSS have specified that no additional sentences could run concurrent with his ruling?
The way I perceived it, is that KC ,except for court cost/fine, got zilch for her felony check fraud convictions.

 

[AZlawyer]

Could there be any recourse for fixing that error now? It was, apparently, an error made by county personnel who tallied up the days Casey had spent in jail. I suppose it is too sticky a situation to consider, even if it could be corrected legally, because it would appear to be nothing more than some kind of vendetta toward Casey Anthony. But--could this error in the time-served tally be remedied now if someone having the authority were to pursue it? IIRC, a similar error occurred in Tommy Croslin's case and his time-served was amended once the error was found, so that he did not get to use the time served for one offense as credit time toward another offense.

Unlike the probation error, it's possible that the time-served error (IF it was indeed an error and not HHJP's intention) could be corrected.

Thank you so much AZlawyer for answering our often nonsensical lay questions.
You have no idea , how much I have learned, and I suspect others too, on this thread.
I always wondered about Judges, sometimes they elect to have sentences run concurrent while in other cases they run consecutive.(Like O.J)
I assumed that HHJP elected to run the lying charges concurrent with the check fraud charges.
Is there any rhyme or reason/logic to running sentences concurrent or consecutive or is it just at the whim of the presiding judge. Also, should that have been oraly/written specified in HHJP's ruling in regard to the previous check fraud ruling by HHSS when sentencing KC on the lying charges which he did not IIRC. He did say that the lying charges to be run consecutive but nothing about the previous check fraud charges.
Should HHSS have specified that no additional sentences could run concurrent with his ruling?
The way I perceived it, is that KC ,except for court cost/fine, got zilch for her felony check fraud convictions.

Normally, the concurrent/consecutive decision has to do with whether or not the separately charged crimes were really one criminal act or several independent criminal acts.

HHJP specified that Casey was to get credit for "X" number of days for "time served" toward the lying charges. The "X" number of days clearly included the time already served for the fraud charges, and he stated before issuing the order that he needed to figure out how to handle the time served on the fraud charges, so it's possible that he did have the fraud sentences run concurrently with the lying sentences on purpose.

IMO there was no real justification for having those sentences run concurrently, though.

 

[krt]

Can an attorney be in trouble for specifically say that a judge's order is "stupid" and that their client will NOT be showing up for probation as ORDERED by a judge? also If the person does NOT show up as ORDERED by a judge, what happens? Do they go to jail or get a slap on the wrist meaning given a 2nd chancd to show up?

 

[askfornina]

if casey didn't meet all the terms of probation, for example if she wasn't drug tested, or if she did not pay for the probation in full, what effect would that have on the probation issue?

edit: also, does it matter that CM was not casey's attorney during the check fraud case? does this effect the probation motion, since he (well actually lisabeth fryer) turned it in, not JB?

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Thank you so much AZlawyer for answering our often nonsensical lay questions.
You have no idea , how much I have learned, and I suspect others too, on this thread.
I always wondered about Judges, sometimes they elect to have sentences run concurrent while in other cases they run consecutive.(Like O.J)
I assumed that HHJP elected to run the lying charges concurrent with the check fraud charges.
Is there any rhyme or reason/logic to running sentences concurrent or consecutive or is it just at the whim of the presiding judge. Also, should that have been oraly/written specified in HHJP's ruling in regard to the previous check fraud ruling by HHSS when sentencing KC on the lying charges which he did not IIRC. He did say that the lying charges to be run consecutive but nothing about the previous check fraud charges.
Should HHSS have specified that no additional sentences could run concurrent with his ruling?
The way I perceived it, is that KC ,except for court cost/fine, got zilch for her felony check fraud convictions.

Technically, the Judge couldn't run anything concurrent with the check fraud sentence.

When Casey admitted to the check charges, Judge Strickland entered guilty findings on the some of the charges. At that time, he also withheld adjudication on some of those check related offenses.
In doing that, by law he had to include a period of probation. He ordered that probation to begin if and when she was released.
No one knew at that time if , in fact, she would ever be free again.....that was an issue somewhat addressed at the check plea/sentencing. Would she ever get out so as to actually do the supervised probation, since it was ordered by the Judge to begin upon her release.


On the guilty findings, at the check plea, jail time was ordered but the sentence back then was for time already served. That's the 400 and something days. Therefore, the sentence did not start running on the date of the check sentencing.
That sentence was wrapped up on that date. The only thing left was for Casey to do the year of supervised probation---if she ever got out.


Down the road, when Casey was sentenced on the lying charges,
she was again sentenced to time served.
What happened is that when that time served was calculated, on the lying charges,
the same 400 and something days was included again in adding up how much credit to give her toward the lying convictions.


That original chunk of time, up to the date of the check case plea & sentencing, was included as time served for both the check sentence and for the lying sentence.
Basically, she got a buy one get one free kind of deal.....looks like a gift.

Playing with those sentences now would create big double jeopardy problems.

Meanwhile, she apparently did the probation to be served upon release; She did faux probation while "supervised" in jail. There's an achievement.

As a result of successfully completing faux-pro (my term), she had her probationary period terminated. She was still in jail.
This conflicted with Judge Strickland's intent at the time of original sentencing.


That's where we are now.

Will she serve the probation the way Judge Strickland ordered....it remains to be seen.

MH :wolf:
sharing an opinion:seeya:

 

[rotterdam]

tks so much MiraclesHappen. Wow , two for the price of one.

Still have a question on the check fraud sentence. When Judge Strickland sentenced her for time served, the 400+ days, can The DOC still dick around with that number afterwards and reduce it for good behavior etc or is it hands off..
Also it is normal for a DOC official to be in the court room during the sentencing phase.
Reason for question is the faux-pro was started practically immediately after the sentencing with the oral part of the sentencing(prob. after release) still fresh in everybody's mind.
Is something here very very odd or is this pretty normal in busy judicial matters and snafus are common.

 

[beccalecca1]

I posted this on another thread, but wanted to ask here since this is the appropriate place


When Casey was sentenced for the check charges, I thought she was sentenced with time served (meaning no more added jail time) and 1 year probation upon release. Since this trial was separate from her murder charges, wouldn't her "upon release" have started that day since she was released from sentencing of the check charges?

How can a judge sentence someone to probation upon release of other charges without knowing if someone would be found guilty or not of those charges? Is that standard practice in law?

 

[MiraclesHappen]

tks so much MiraclesHappen. Wow , two for the price of one.
Still have a question on the check fraud sentence. When Judge Strickland sentenced her for time served, the 400+ days, can The DOC still dick around with that number afterwards and reduce it for good behavior etc or is it hands off..
Also it is normal for a DOC official to be in the court room during the sentencing phase.
Reason for question is the faux-pro was started practically immediately after the sentencing with the oral part of the sentencing(prob. after release) still fresh in everybody's mind.
Is something here very very odd or is this pretty normal in busy judicial matters and snafus are common.

I posted this on another thread, but wanted to ask here since this is the appropriate place

When Casey was sentenced for the check charges, I thought she was sentenced with time served (meaning no more added jail time) and 1 year probation upon release. Since this trial was separate from her murder charges, wouldn't her "upon release" have started that day since she was released from sentencing of the check charges?
How can a judge sentence someone to probation upon release of other charges without knowing if someone would be found guilty or not of those charges? Is that standard practice in law?

It wouldn't matter if the DOC played with the 400 something or not. Since it was a "time-served" sentence, it was in reality ---
finished, wrapped up, on the date of the sentence. The time did not start running on the date of sentencing. It concluded on that date, when the plea was entered.
Usually, when you have prisoners in the courtroom, either serving a sentence or held on bail, somebody from DOC is there for transport and general babysitting.

The "upon her release" did not start on the date of the check case plea and sentencing. You are correct that the case was over on that date, with the exception of the probation.
But the "release" means release from custody......release into the real world.
Once the check case was finished up, she was not released.

She returned to jail, still held on bail with her murder charges pending.
Had she been serving a sentence at that time, she would not have been credited with the next big chunk of time that was applied to the lying convictions.
Instead, since she continued with the "on bail" status, time continued to accrue, to be credited toward any future time served calculations.
Whether or not the probation would ever kick in was really left up in the air.
Since the Judge had no way of knowing if she would be incarcerated for the rest of her life, he was sentencing her to begin probation at some future date....or never....

That issue, whether or not the sentence would fail as being too indefinite, was addressed during the sentencing by Judge Strickland himself.
I believe it was one of the prosecutors who brought it up in the first place. The issue ultimately fell by the wayside.
However, it seemed fairly clear, and understood by all present, that this probationary period was to begin only upon Casey's release from jail....if and when that might happen.
Apparently, that part of the sentence was misconstrued in the record.
My experience is that with all that is happening in a criminal courtroom, the recording of events is more accurate than one might expect.

The judge is talking to the clerk, lawyers are talking to the clerk, the phone at the desk is ringing, and so on... it's not an easy job.
Keep in mind, even though a sentence might be fresh in the minds of personnel in the room at the time a sentence is handed down, those people present do not follow the defendant through the system.
It is just the paper work that is generated that will follow a prisoner.
If that paperwork did not make it clear that probation was to begin "only upon release" probation personnel may have thought that in implementing the faux-pro, they were doing exactly what was ordered.


MH :wolf::seeya:
sharing an opinion

 

[AZlawyer]

Can an attorney be in trouble for specifically say that a judge's order is "stupid" and that their client will NOT be showing up for probation as ORDERED by a judge? also If the person does NOT show up as ORDERED by a judge, what happens? Do they go to jail or get a slap on the wrist meaning given a 2nd chancd to show up?

I don't know how the Florida Bar would react. The Az Bar would probably, in a very public case like this one, send a letter reminding the attorney of his obligation to show "due respect" to judicial officers.

What happens if Casey does not comply depends on whether or not the order is valid. Which IMO it is not.

if casey didn't meet all the terms of probation, for example if she wasn't drug tested, or if she did not pay for the probation in full, what effect would that have on the probation issue?

edit: also, does it matter that CM was not casey's attorney during the check fraud case? does this effect the probation motion, since he (well actually lisabeth fryer) turned it in, not JB?

She did comply with the terms, and her probation was officially terminated.

It does not matter that CM was not her attorney back when she was sentenced for the check fraud case. He has appeared as her attorney in that case now.

 

[rotterdam]

Unless the DT is really really stupid/ignorant, which I do not believe, they must have been aware of the DOC/Probation dept snafu almost immediately when the faux-pro started. They do have contact with the prisoner/defendant frequently and are unlike the other folks in the system where job specifics do not follow the defendant thru the system, rather only the paper work does , as correctly pointed out by our lawyers.

Since there is client loyalty but they are also officers of the court, should they have pointed out to the DOC the error of that part of the sentence or is that stretching ethics too much? Speculation, they , the DT, could even have advised the DOC to handle it that way with back up of the written order.

More specific what would you have done in a similar situation if it was your client.?

I was not clear on the 400 plus check fraud already served sentence . What I really was meaning to say if that time served (400plus)could have been subject to good behavior and applied to the lying conviction as an inflated number for credit.

And finally is that magical calculation that arrived at the total time served plus a couple of days, available to the public if requested.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

About That release Date::waitasec:

Corrections released a memo back in July. It was with regard to the calculations and how the release date :worms:came about.


http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28523075/detail.html

MH :wolf:
Hope this sheds some light on something.

 

[rotterdam]

Since Judge Strickland was withholding adjudication on 7 charges, would he have been notified/contacted by DOC of successful completion of KC probation. If not , does that withholding bit stays open until statute of limitations is reached. Or until a new charge is submitted against the felon , whichever is first.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Since Judge Strickland was withholding adjudication on 7 charges, would he have been notified/contacted by DOC of successful completion of KC probation. If not , does that withholding bit stays open until statute of limitations is reached. Or until a new charge is submitted against the felon , whichever is first.

No, probation does not have a tracking system which links back to the sentencing authority. DOC also does not become penpals with sentencing Judges.

About the withholding:

First of all, the defendant has admitted to the facts as presented by the prosecution.

The Judge in essence is saying that based upon the facts of the case, submitted to the Court by the prosecution, there is enough there to make a guilty finding.
In lieu of entering that guilty finding, the Court will withhold such finding.

By doing that, the Court must place the defendant on probation in Florida.

What usually happens is that once the defendant successfully completes the terms attached to the withholding, be it supervised probation or some other condition imposed by the Court, drug rehab as an example,
that is the end of the case.

If the defendant screws up and commits a new offense during the time period
the case is still "open," or does any number of idiotic things which could have been avoided, :boohoo: that's when the VOP proceedings would kick in.
Say the defendant fails a drug test, again it's going to be a VOP.

When the probationary period is completed and all other requirements the Court imposed have been fulfilled, the defendant is discharged; the case is closed; the case is over. It's not a dismissal but it mimics one.
Different states call it different things. The effect is the same.

Although the defendant said, "Yes I am pleading guilty because I did it,"
the Judge has said, "I am accepting that plea but I won't enter the guilty finding.

For a defendant who has no other cases, (as opposed to one who has a bunch of forged checks at Target) this is a big deal.

The defendant whose adjudication has been withheld, and who has finished up the requirements will exit the justice system intact.:skip:

There is no conviction of record. Job applications, background checks, etc, would reflect a lack of criminal record.
For somebody like Casey, with all the felony convictions which came out of the same proceeding involving the checks, there isn't the same beneficial outcome. It's not like she looks more honest because she has a few less forgery & uttering convictions :deadhorse:

MH
opinion :wolf::seeya:

 

[Searchfortruth]

I have read that offenders, in Florida, must serve half of their probation before they are eligible for administrative probation. Does anyone know if this is the standard, or are exceptions made sometimes ? TIA.

OK, I asked the same question over on Richard Hornsby's blog and received this answer...

Thank you. As for your questions about Administrative Probation, you are correct. But if I was a betting man, I say he splits the baby and places her on Administrative Probation to save face.

But between you and me, the Judge knows that would technically be illegal as FS 948.012(3) requires her to do half of her “regular” probation before she can be placed on “Administrative Probation.”

FS 948.012(3) – “The court may also impose split probation whereby, upon satisfactory completion of half the term of probation, the Department of Corrections may place the offender on administrative probation for the remainder of the term of supervision.”

Also, here are the statistics for supervision types to show how infrequently Administrative Probation is given (1.1% of all probationers.)

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/0910/stats/csa_month.html

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/08/the-great-probation-debate/comment-page-3/#comments

 

[rotterdam]

Since the DT elected to appeal the lying conviction, could that backfire in their face big time?
Resulting in a different calculation of the sentence vs time served. Also in view that JP said (if I heard that correctly ) that probation can not be served concurrently with a sentence?

 

[MiraclesHappen]

I have read that offenders, in Florida, must serve half of their probation before they are eligible for administrative probation. Does anyone know if this is the standard, or are exceptions made sometimes ? TIA.

OK, I asked the same question over on Richard Hornsby's blog and received this answer...

Thank you. As for your questions about Administrative Probation, you are correct. But if I was a betting man, I say he splits the baby and places her on Administrative Probation to save face.

But between you and me, the Judge knows that would technically be illegal as FS 948.012(3) requires her to do half of her “regular” probation before she can be placed on “Administrative Probation.”

FS 948.012(3) – “The court may also impose split probation whereby, upon satisfactory completion of half the term of probation, the Department of Corrections may place the offender on administrative probation for the remainder of the term of supervision.”

Also, here are the statistics for supervision types to show how infrequently Administrative Probation is given (1.1% of all probationers.)

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/0910/stats/csa_month.html

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/08/the-great-probation-debate/comment-page-3/#comments

Let me just add to 948.012(3). with this :


948.013 Administrative probation.—
(1) The Department of Corrections may establish procedures for transferring an offender to administrative probation. The department may collect an initial processing fee of up to $50 for each probationer transferred to administrative probation. The offender is exempt from further payment for the cost of supervision as required in s....

Per FL statute above, The offender may be transferred to administrative probation.
So the question is: Transferred from where? Where is the offender coming from? :worldmap:

The answer is that the offender is being transferred to administrative probation from, I'd suspect.... :websleuther: that they are arriving from supervised probation. That's where the transfer originates.
Under the statute, "Administrative Probation" is not a starting point.
You have to get there from somewhere, from some starting point.

That starting point, the stepping stone :skip: to the land of unsupervision, is located in the land of supervision.

To look at a probation order for supervised probation and somehow skip through the supervised portion :ignore:so as to land in the land of the unsupervised just seems beyond compromise.:waitasec:
And what about all the offenders who have gone through the system and complied with every little requirement. :maddening: Where is the fairness. What is the incentive to follow the law. :waiting:

Oh, as for unsupervised i.e. "Administrative Probation" what is the point???

It tells us, most importantly, are you ready>>>>You cannot break the law. :shocked2:
Now there is a HUGE imposition on the offender.

Don't you already have the duty to obey the law.

We are all on administrative probation in reality. It's just that we get it for free, :cheer: whereas the probationer pays a fee. (to be told they shouldn't break the law.)

OK, I need to stop ...:innocent:
But in this case,... back to the question, if the imposition of administrative probation is used as the starting point, and not as a goal of the probationer, it seems that if it happens as often as this one time, then that one time is waaaaaay too often.
Too much of a farce...........

Since the DT elected to appeal the lying conviction, could that backfire in their face big time?
Resulting in a different calculation of the sentence vs time served. Also in view that JP said (if I heard that correctly ) that probation can not be served concurrently with a sentence?

Probation is a sentence. It is part of a sentence.
MH with an opinion,
needing :coffee:
:wolf: :seeya:

 

[natsound]

There was no probation on the lying charges because Casey got the maximum sentence (1 year) for each count.

I don't think there would be any problem with the probation time running concurrently with the jail time on the other counts. What I think does NOT make sense is the fact that her "time served" on the check fraud charges was counted toward the "time served" for the lying charges.

Bold by me.. KC got the maximum sentence for the lying charges.. but didn't serve the maximum sentence!