Procedure and legal questions

[butwhatif?]

Can KC change her stance mid way through trial if it looks like the zannny defense isnt going over well with the jury, and switch to an insanity defense?
TIA

 

[MissJames]

Can KC change her stance mid way through trial if it looks like the zannny defense isnt going over well with the jury, and switch to an insanity defense?
TIA

Right now there are no grounds for an insanity defense. There is no record of KC having mental issues before the murder,nor has there been since.She has had evaluations since she was in jail and no peep that she is insane.If she was she would be deemed unable to participate in her defense.It would stop until she was properly medicated.
In addition ,I believe it would only be relevent if she did not know right from wrong.Her actions to cover up the disappearance and murder suggest she did know what she did was wrong.
I don't think it would be an effective defense ,especially if the first part is SODDI.The jury would see right through that.
JMO

 

[butwhatif?]

Right now there are no grounds for an insanity defense. There is no record of KC having mental issues before the murder,nor has there been since.She has had evaluations since she was in jail and no peep that she is insane.If she was she would be deemed unable to participate in her defense.It would stop until she was properly medicated.
In addition ,I believe it would only be relevent if she did not know right from wrong.Her actions to cover up the disappearance and murder suggest she did know what she did was wrong.
I don't think it would be an effective defense ,especially if the first part is SODDI.The jury would see right through that.
JMO

LOl...theres no grounds for an invisi-nanny defense either. :crazy:
ETA, i probably should have used the word filicide instead of insanity, since it looked like they may have been considering that route earlier.
Nothing they put out there is likely to be accepted by a jury, but i just wanted to know if they could legally change their defense mid-trial.

 

[Brini]

LOl...theres no grounds for an invisi-nanny defense either. :crazy:
ETA, i probably should have used the word filicide instead of insanity, since it looked like they may have been considering that route earlier.
Nothing they put out there is likely to be accepted by a jury, but i just wanted to know if they could legally change their defense mid-trial.

Insanity is a very had sell, in criminal courts.

It was a hard sell for AY's attorney, and she was loonier than a 'toon.

KC would have to present a medical an/or school history. She doesn't have it. She was also recently evaled by two psychiatrists. Neither put her on any meds. Both found her competent.

I don't think it will even be considered.

 

[lin]

Can KC change her stance mid way through trial if it looks like the zannny defense isnt going over well with the jury, and switch to an insanity defense?
TIA

This may be oversimplifying but she'd have to show that she didn't know it was wrong to murder her child. All of her actions indicate she did know it was wrong, otherwise she'd have not felt the need to avoid detection and prosecution.

She may be totally batty but may not be legally insane. Her illnesses, imvuo, (in my very unprofessional opinion), are more likely personality disorders than a true dissociative illness. She knew what she was doing when she did it, imo, and she knew it was wrong. Not caring that it was wrong doesn't equate an insanity defense, imo.

 

[lin]

LOl...theres no grounds for an invisi-nanny defense either. :crazy:
ETA, i probably should have used the word filicide instead of insanity, since it looked like they may have been considering that route earlier.
Nothing they put out there is likely to be accepted by a jury, but i just wanted to know if they could legally change their defense mid-trial.

They probably could but they'd lose all credibility with the jury and it would be beyond hail mary desperate, imo. They'd also have to have disclosed the evidence supporting this to the prosecution, unless it's somehow 'newly discovered' or whatever and wasn't available during the discovery process.

 

[impatientredhead]

It seems that they've all been clear that they've been communicating using this venue. Since it is "shady"........is there nothing that can be done about it? In essence - if the rules are that easy to get around then there really are no rules........right? TIA for any insights.

The system is reliant on the integrity of the professionals participating in the process. There is really only so much they can do if JB chooses a very liberal interpretation of what communications he is relaying.

To show he is doing anything wrong they would have to show that the communications were not in any way related to the case and his legal counsel with his client. They can't do that unless they gain access to those documents. If they do that you play right into Casey's rights being violated and start a ball rolling you don't want in motion.

Even if they are right it would be a huge battle with the risks not being worth the pay off. Prove JB is shady at the risk of Casey getting evidence withheld from her trial? Everyone knows JB is shady.

If you take the Anthony's out of the equation since they evoke such a strong emotional reaction, say I send JB a letter that I want Casey to see. JB can then take that letter in with him, unread by anyone else, "discuss the letter and it's content and its relevancy to the case if any", and then take the letter back out. I have effectively communicated with Casey and bypassed all other eyes. She cannot send me a letter and have JB deliver it, but her legal counsel could call me to follow up on the letter I sent. If he did take a letter and deliver it to me, it could be used in court at a later date because I am a third party would not be protected.

Certainly not the intent of the rules, but as I said in the beginning of this post the intergrity of the players will determine how much the rules are bent by interpretation.

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

Parents To Testify For Prosecutors During Trial

That information and link provided to me by WS from "today's current news" thread.

I have a question. This is big, ya? Does this mean what I think it means, that George and Cindy must testify "against" Casey? How does that work?

Don't both sides ask questions of each witness, and what would make it that George and Cindy "were testifying FOR prosecutors"? How can prosecutors know that asking G&C questions will help their case? Or is that it...they know that just by asking them questions it will be good for their case?

I bet there are threads that talk about this so I will look but if anyone has a link handy: thanks.

...jmo...

 

[JBean]

Hello WS

Parents To Testify For Prosecutors During Trial

That information and link provided to me by WS from "today's current news" thread.

I have a question. This is big, ya? Does this mean what I think it means, that George and Cindy must testify "against" Casey? How does that work?

Don't both sides ask questions of each witness, and what would make it that George and Cindy "were testifying FOR prosecutors"? How can prosecutors know that asking G&C questions will help their case? Or is that it...they know that just by asking them questions it will be good for their case?

I bet there are threads that talk about this so I will look but if anyone has a link handy: thanks.

...jmo...

if you do a title only search in this forum with the keyword

witness

several threads on this topic will pop up. Then you can choose which one best fits your needs.

Instructions:
Start at the index of threads for the Caylee forum.
Top right in the blue header that runs along the top of the index for this forum ( not the sub forum):


search this forum
go advanced
titles only
witness (as the key term)

 

[Themis]

Hello WS

Parents To Testify For Prosecutors During Trial

That information and link provided to me by WS from "today's current news" thread.

I have a question. This is big, ya? Does this mean what I think it means, that George and Cindy must testify "against" Casey? How does that work?

Don't both sides ask questions of each witness, and what would make it that George and Cindy "were testifying FOR prosecutors"? How can prosecutors know that asking G&C questions will help their case? Or is that it...they know that just by asking them questions it will be good for their case?

I bet there are threads that talk about this so I will look but if anyone has a link handy: thanks.

...jmo...

The language that reporters (or the public) often use saying a witness is "for" the prosecution or the defense is actually misleading and inaccurate. A witness, unless they are an expert witness, can only testify as to what they saw with their eyes, heard with their ears, ... smelled, tasted or touched. They are called "percipient" witnesses in that they testify about what they observed with their five senses. They can testify as to their own thoughts, feelings and emotions. They can testify as to what they did or said. Someone who qualifies as an "expert witness" can also testify about their educational and experience background (to qualify them as an expert), their testing or expert observations, the conclusions they draw from facts and testify on what lawyers call "ultimate facts" and conclusions. Other witnesses cannot testify as to ultimate facts and conclusions because that is reserved for the jury. A juror can choose to disbelieve an expert. The difference is an expert gets to testify on those subjects where another lay witness (non-expert) may draw an objection if they try to testify on an ultimate fact or conclusion.

Now, this is misleading language to say a witness testifies "for" the prosecution or defense because the things a witness observes with their five senses and generally their other testimony should be neutral as to which side of the case they favor. They either did not did not see a red light. The fact is the light was red or it was not; completely neutral.

The error comes in because the witness is called to testify or subpoenaed by either the prosecution or the defense (or both). It is not uncommon for both sides to subpoena and/or call the same witness in the same case!

In this case, CA, GA and LA, even though they have made it abundantly clear to the public that they are supporting KC as a family regardless of what they think she did or didn't do, are being subpoenaed/called as witnesses by the prosecution because they have some neutral observations and testimony that they know that is helpful for the prosecution to prove a fact that is part of the elements of the charges in this case.

A witness is not voting on the verdict. A witness just needs to answer the questions based on what they observed. Therefore, no matter how biased the witness, they can still be called by either side. If they are contentious about it, they may be declared a hostile witness and the side calling they may be able to dispense with the non-leading questions and be permitted to ask leading questions (questions that are phrased so they suggest the answer in the form of the question.) An example of a non-leading question is: "What color was the light?" An example of a leading question is: "The light was red was it not? Answer 'yes' or 'no'." The second one has the fact they are trying to prove in the question; therefore they are "leading" the witness to that answer. Cross examination always allows leading questions. Direct exam does not unless the witness has been declared hostile.

So, the short answer is this is not big. It is a misleading headline and a misunderstanding of the role of a witness in litigation by the reporter. They are not testifying "against" KC. The prosecutors know what questions they will ask and because they have interviewed the witnesses and prepared for trial, they know what the answers will be at trial prior to asking the questions.

 

[Jolynna]

Casey Anthony's defense is also asking that her check forgery case be delayed until after her murder trial and that the subpoena for her ex-boyfriend, Tony Lazarro, be quashed.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/20339410/detail.html

What legal arguments could Casey use to quash AL's subpoena? All of yesterday's motions were released to the media except this one.

 

[lin]

Casey Anthony's defense is also asking that her check forgery case be delayed until after her murder trial and that the subpoena for her ex-boyfriend, Tony Lazarro, be quashed.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/20339410/detail.html

What legal arguments could Casey use to quash AL's subpoena? All of yesterday's motions were released to the media except this one.

I'm sure that's a misprint; misunderstanding. The defense may have set a hearing to compel compliance and/or to quash AL's objection to the subpoena but they don't have to have a hearing to quash it. They can simply not serve it.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I'm sure that's a misprint; misunderstanding. The defense may have set a hearing to compel compliance and/or to quash AL's objection to the subpoena but they don't have to have a hearing to quash it. They can simply not serve it.

Can someone object to a subpoena? How and why? Please redirect me if this has been covered. Thanks.

 

[lin]

Can someone object to a subpoena? How and why? Please redirect me if this has been covered. Thanks.

The subject of a subpoena may object by filing an objection to the subpoena, generally within 10 days. TL missed that deadline, possibly expected either all or none to be approved and has, iirc, has asked the court to accept his late objection. They why's? or grounds for objection are numerous, for example: privleged information, (attorney/client, doctor/patient etc.); or the subpoena is overbroad, invasive, doesn't specify with sufficient particularity the information/documents sought; overburdensome; and on and on. Pretty much one can object if one just plain doesn't want to turn over the info/docs. It's up to the judge to decide if the objection is legally sufficient to deny a subpoena.

One can ask for any info/docs they can imagine; doesn't mean they'll get it/them. One can object to any request for info/docs; doesn't mean they won't have to turn it over.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

lin, may I ask who subpoenaed TL, the Defense? Hasn't he already coorperated with LE and will be needed at the trial? Ummm.:waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

Casey Anthony's defense is also asking that her check forgery case be delayed until after her murder trial and that the subpoena for her ex-boyfriend, Tony Lazarro, be quashed.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/20339410/detail.html

What legal arguments could Casey use to quash AL's subpoena? All of yesterday's motions were released to the media except this one.

This looks like an error by the reporter. Tony is the one trying to quash the subpoena, not Casey. Also, these motions were not filed yesterday but a few weeks back, IIRC.

 

[Themis]

lin, may I ask who subpoenaed TL, the Defense? Hasn't he already coorperated with LE and will be needed at the trial? Ummm.:waitasec:

I'm not Lin, but from my perspective, even if a witness is cooperative, I would issue a subpoena. With a subpoena they get a small amount of money for travel and ensures that their employer knows this is not an optional appointment. It also proves the witness was commanded to appear. It could be malpractice if the witness was essential, didn't show up (and the trial had to move on) and was not subpoenaed. I wouldn't care if the other side already issued a subpoena, I would also issue one. Just sayin'.

 

[Tuffy]

lin, may I ask who subpoenaed TL, the Defense? Hasn't he already coorperated with LE and will be needed at the trial? Ummm.:waitasec:

I think the subpoena he is fighting is the the subpoena JB filed to obtain his phone records. I think JB wanted his records dating back to a year before Caylee's murder.

 

[LambChop]

This looks like an error by the reporter. Tony is the one trying to quash the subpoena, not Casey. Also, these motions were not filed yesterday but a few weeks back, IIRC.

Could it be because it is the defense's subpoena that the quash is being requested by TL's attorney but is showing up because it will be heard with the other motions defense filed? Does that make any sense? I know what I mean just not sure how to phrase it. TL is trying to quash JB's subpoena for his phone records. There, I said it. Still not sure it makes sense...Lin, help

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I think the subpoena he is fighting is the the subpoena JB filed to obtain his phone records. I think JB wanted his records dating back to a year before Caylee's murder.

Thanks. I assumed it was regarding the trial. When/how far out do those subpoenas get issued?

TL probably has some stuff in his phone records he doesn't want his dad to know about - sortof like how everyone got upset about JG's personal stuff being put on display.