Procedure and legal questions

[Shear22]

This is what I am betting on. The state cannot force KC to take the stand. But certain defense tactics would force her to do so. It is doubtful if any defense involving ZG or "the nanny did it", would be allowed to be presented unless KC takes the stand. There is no eveidence of the existance of ZG other then testimony from KC. She is the root source of anything on the subject. So all the defense would have to work with is KC's direct testimony, and heresay evidence of others who heard KC tell them about ZG. While the burden of proof resides with the state, the defense is not allowed to present pure fabrication to the jury. There must be some chain of evidence or direct testimony. You cannot simply try and defend a murderer by claiming alien abduction or an act of bigfoot. You need at least one person to swear under oath that they actually saw Bigfoot.

The sad thing is, although I completely agree with you, I think Baez might actually simply try. None of the wiser legal minds on his team seem to be helping him draft coherent motions, so I still get the idea that he's intent on running the show and will eventually run it into the ground.

 

[essies]

Does the defense have the choice to try their case in front of a judge or in front of a jury in Fl?:waitasec:
And if so, which would be the better route for the defense?

 

[DotsEyes]

Does the defense have the choice to try their case in front of a judge or in front of a jury in Fl?:waitasec:
And if so, which would be the better route for the defense?

Yes. The right to trial by jury or judge falls to the defendant. The state cannot choose to try someone without a jury as it is a Constititional right afforded to defendants. The state is not a defendant. Think "Star Chamber" as Brini suggested and it will make sense.

 

[DotsEyes]

Oh, if the state's case is legally weak it is best to have a judge trial. A strong case requires a jury in order to try to sway one person to hold out on the conviction.

 

[Brini]

Thanks, MissJames. I had totally forgotten about that. Clearly KC has not told JB one specific person or he would not be asking for records from all the people that CA identified as potential suspects. No wonder people say they just do not want to get involved. How very sad!!!!

Doesn't pay to be a law-abiding citizen, I guess.

 

[Brini]

Thanks, MissJames. I had totally forgotten about that. Clearly KC has not told JB one specific person or he would not be asking for records from all the people that CA identified as potential suspects. No wonder people say they just do not want to get involved. How very sad!!!!

Well, they were all (the As) SO pushing for JG to take the fall. But, he was SO cleared. And, the Bushy Haired Man is vacationing in California.

 

[countzero]

Thanks, MissJames. I had totally forgotten about that. Clearly KC has not told JB one specific person or he would not be asking for records from all the people that CA identified as potential suspects. No wonder people say they just do not want to get involved. How very sad!!!!

Or else JB knows which one he really wants but he is mucking up the system by pulling everyone records associated with this case. It does keep him busy . Shoot, he could ask for mine because it wouldn't do anymore good than the ones he is asking for.

 

[lisalei321]

Well, they were all (the As) SO pushing for JG to take the fall. But, he was SO cleared. And, the Bushy Haired Man is vacationing in California.

fftopic:

Visiting Diana Downs

fftopic:

<sorry>

 

[Themis]

Legal ones, can the A compound still be monitored by wiretap or whatever other legal means with a warrant to obtain more evidence from there/A clan?

If there is probable cause to support a wire tap warrant and if LE has applied for and received a warrant, then they could continue to wiretap. It is doubtful though because usually those things have severe restrictions on what conversations can be intercepted as far as content. For example, if the monitor listens to a conversation and determines it is not between two target persons, the monitor must hang up. If the monitor determines the topic is not a topic that is the target of the wiretap warrant, the monitor must hang up. These things are also restricted as to the time of the collection; they don't go on indefinitely.

 

[Themis]

This is what I am betting on. The state cannot force KC to take the stand. But certain defense tactics would force her to do so. It is doubtful if any defense involving ZG or "the nanny did it", would be allowed to be presented unless KC takes the stand. There is no eveidence of the existance of ZG other then testimony from KC. She is the root source of anything on the subject. So all the defense would have to work with is KC's direct testimony, and heresay evidence of others who heard KC tell them about ZG. While the burden of proof resides with the state, the defense is not allowed to present pure fabrication to the jury. There must be some chain of evidence or direct testimony. You canno simply try and defend a murderer by claiming alien abduction or an act of bigfoot. You need at least one person to swear under oath that they actually saw Bigfoot.

Actually, the state could subpoena KC if they wanted to. In theory, they could. However, they won't because of two reasons. First, KC would just plead the 5th amendment and not answer any questions. Second, KC lies and the prosecution would not want to proffer any of her testimony as fact and then find themselves in the position of trying to rebut their own witness. So, the state will not put KC on the stand; but they have the right to do so.

Defense can put on a "nanny did it" defense without evidence. It will probably draw an objection; "I object, your honor, he is arguing facts not in evidence." That points out to a jury that there are no facts to support the argument or theory.

The thing that makes it unwise in the extreme for a defendant to try to put on a defense wholly unsupported by a shred of factual evidence other than the testimony of a known liar is the burden of proof. The state has the burden of production and persuasion on each element of each crime that they are prosecuting. However, the standard for the jury's decision is .... NOT beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no such standard. The standard is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That word "reasonable" has a legal meaning. It is not every "pie in the sky" or wholly fabricated theory defense wants to provide. Because any doubt must be reasonable -- it must be supported by factual evidence that is admitted into evidence. The testimony of a lying defendant is evidence. However, the jury gets to decide what "weight" to give it. If it isn't worth any weight at all, then it won't tip the scales as being "reasonable" evidence and therefore, there is no "reasonable" doubt -- the theory is simply "pie in the sky."

There is likely to be a lot of testimony about Zanny, but that doesn't make it reliable evidence. One of the things that irritates me so much is when people come to a he/she said he/she said case and simply throw up their hands and say it cannot be resolved. It surely can be resolved. There has to be an explanation as to why the testimony is opposite. Were they at opposite places when seeing the incident? Is one simply lying? That's what juries do. They look for credibility constantly and weigh the evidence. Another thing is it doesn't matter how loudly or how often something is repeated. The truth may be in that small, quiet nugget of testimony or laboratory test while the lies are usually done in neon lights. So, expect that a lot of testimony will resolve around the sighting of Bigfoot, I mean Zanny the Nanny, but that doesn't make it true. Further, leather gloves can shrink so what might have fit months earlier may not fit later.

 

[KenoshaKid]

If there is probable cause to support a wire tap warrant and if LE has applied for and received a warrant, then they could continue to wiretap. It is doubtful though because usually those things have severe restrictions on what conversations can be intercepted as far as content. For example, if the monitor listens to a conversation and determines it is not between two target persons, the monitor must hang up. If the monitor determines the topic is not a topic that is the target of the wiretap warrant, the monitor must hang up. These things are also restricted as to the time of the collection; they don't go on indefinitely.

My bold: are you citing state or federal law?

 

[Searchfortruth]

I have a question, after looking at the different interviews (mainly talking about Tony's) there seem to be some key things left out. My question is, does LE leave out certain info from the interview so that it's not turned over in discovery to the other side ?

Heres an example of what I am talking about, in Tony's interview...the conversation starts in the middle of page 5...link below.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Lazaro Tony.090808.pdf


Detectives ask Tony if Casey, on the 27th, mentioned an animal or squirrels on her car and Tony says, "I remember her, I remember when, when I brought it up to her on the 16th...I did remember tell, she's like, she's with me, that she told me that."

Then Tony confirms this was the 16th of July, LE moves on to a different topic. It seems to me they were trying to stay away from that conversation he had with Casey on the 16th.

 

[Wudge]

Does the defense have the choice to try their case in front of a judge or in front of a jury in Fl?:waitasec:
And if so, which would be the better route for the defense?

Judges soon acquire a reputation for being neutral or pro-prosecution. The latter is usually the case -- relatively few judges come from the defense bar. Neutral means that they are considered to be fair, which is the best a defense attorney can realistically hope to have try their case.

That said, when a case is high-profile, pressure mounts for a conviction. LE often rolls over under pressure as do prosecutors, and few trial judges are immune to pressure.

Change the venue, seat a neutral judge and I would opt for a bench trial in this case, because the jury pool has been massively poisoned on a national level.

 

[chefmom]

Judges soon acquire a reputation for being neutral or pro-prosecution. The latter is usually the case -- relatively few judges come from the defense bar. Neutral means that they are considered to be fair, which is the best a defense attorney can realistically hope to have try their case.

That said, when a case is high-profile, pressure mounts for a conviction. LE often rolls over under pressure as do prosecutors, and few trial judges are immune to pressure.

Change the venue, seat a neutral judge and I would opt for a bench trial in this case, because the jury pool has been massively poisoned on a national level.

Good info to know, Wudge! Thanks! So, if JB can successfully get a COV and be heard by a different judge, he may want to opt for a bench trial. If he did this, would it make the Nanny story more easily usable by the defense? I mean, would it be easier to use it for a judge in a bench trial than try to sell it to a jury in a jury trial? TIA!

 

[Themis]

My bold: are you citing state or federal law?

I just looked in the bag of information and skills I've collected over several decades (both federal and state) and posted what I understand. I didn't do any specific research on this one. If you have some more information, please feel free to throw it out there. :blowkiss: I'm always willing to learn.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

My question is, does LE leave out certain info from the interview so that it's not turned over in discovery to the other side ?

SNIP

Despite mutiple Supreme Court rulings, exculpatory or exonerating evidence is still frequently withheld from the defense (let's play: hide the football). When they are caught, prosecutors will usually claim that what was not turned over to the defense is not really exculpatory or exonerating evidence. I think its fair to say that it's not a prosecutor's call to determine what evidence is exculpatory or exonerating evidence.

Make prosecutors criminally liable for withholding evidence, and such happenings would be dramatically reduced.

 

[Themis]

IMHO, Judges and prosecutors are not going to bow to pressure or "throw themselves on their sword" for any particular case. It takes way too long to build up a portfolio of professional credentials and develop a career to get so far as to be prosecuting or judging. IMHO, the defense crowd, particularly defendants and convicts, think Judges and prosecutors are biased because prosecutors don't generally prosecute a case until it has been screened many times and they feel they can prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. So, the only cases that come to be are cases that a State's or District Attorney has already stacked up against limited budgets and office resources and decided it is likely to result in a conviction and is worthy of substantial expenditure of public resources. JMHO, of course ... based on substantial experience of drafting charges, prosecuting and defending. But, still, JMHO.

 

[Searchfortruth]

Despite mutiple Supreme Court rulings, exculpatory or exonerating evidence is still frequently withheld from the defense (let's play: hide the football). When they are caught, prosecutors will usually claim that what was not turned over to the defense is not really exculpatory or exonerating evidence. I think its fair to say that it's not a prosecutor's call to determine what evidence is exculpatory or exonerating evidence.

Make prosecutors criminally liable for withholding evidence, and such happenings would be dramatically reduced.

Thanks Wudge, I was trying to come up with a possible scenario that would explain missing information. I guess both sides try this maneuver on occasion ?

 

[Themis]

I would hope, and probably many of you here do too, that when a Judge takes the oath of office that the new Judge would leave their prosecution or defense loyalties behind and fulfill their obligations under their new position. I also, IMHO, think that if a defense attorney is spending a lot of time trying to determine a judge's leanings, or prepares a case based on the judge's perceived leanings, then that attorney is not spending enough time working on the merits of the case! JMHO, of course.

There will be some bad apples in every group or some poor judgment calls regarding exculpatory evidence. For the hundreds of thousands of cases that are prosecuted, just a handful come up with an issue of withholding what defense claims is exculpatory evidence. If statistics were available, which I am sorry, I don't know of any, I would be surprised if it was a number greater than one hundreth of one percent. So, while this line of thinking gets great amounts of discussion among the defense bar and among convicts because it has the potential to reverse a trial judgment and get an order for a new trial, it is usually a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Searchfortruth]

And, I must say that I have NO idea if there is more information to withhold, so everything I wrote regarding that was speculation on my part.