Procedure and legal questions

[Chezhire]

More questions...

O.k. P.I. Casey doesn't have to tell LE about information gained while working as an agent for Baez.

But P.I. Casey didn't go poking around for Caylee while working for Baez.

If the P.I. unprofessionally blabbed to his new employers, the Anthony family, could the Anthony family then send P.I. Casey to find Caylee's body with the assurance that because the information ORIGINATED through attorney/client privilege, P.I. Casey didn't have to call LE?

IF P.I. Casey thought Caylee was where he was digging, lifting pavers,ripping open bags and poking his stick with a video camera running, wouldn't it be logical that he was going to call LE if he found Caylee. Unburying a body and covering it back up sounds like tampering with evidence.

IF P.I. Casey told Baez that he was going to go and find Caylee is it likely that Baez told P.I. Casey not to call LE if he knew the P.I. had indiscretely blabbed? What should an attorney say to his former P.I. under those circumstances? Would it be likely that the P.I. would mention to Baez that he was going to go out and LOOK under those circumstances?

Thanks again for all of the legal expert's valuable time and input!

Great scenario - and one that I and MiraclesHappen addressed in part, here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3545659#post3545659 and here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3546832#post3546832.

Information that DCasey possessed as a result of working for JBaez in defense of Casey is always privileged. The privilege that protects disclosure of any such information does not terminate with the contractual relationship -it is supposed to go with one to the grave, unless the client waives the privilege (or, in some states, when the client dies, though this concept is unresolved in the courts of a lot of states.)

As you describe, if DCasey screwed up and acted without any involvement or knowledge on the part of JBAez (, e.g, b/s Cindy, Geroge, Lee requested that he do so,) then that violation of the privilege means that the defense can file a motion to suppress any and all information/things that were discovered as a result of the violation of any such privilege.

Notably, the only way that CIndy, George, Lee, or anyone else, for that matter, could ask DCasey to "bring Caylee home" and persuade him to do so is if he's already violated the privilege by letting a 3rd party know that he even knows where she is/might be/etc.

Please keep in mind that if DCasey acted alone, and not in concert with JBaez in any way, it's not going to be JBaez's tail in the fire, so to speak, but IF JBaez so much as got on that telephone with DCasey at any time AFTER DCasey's and his contractual relationship ended to speak about DCasey's idea/plans to "go get Caylee," before DCasey acted on said plan, then JBaez is in deeeep doodoo.

This will mean that JBaez cannot claim that he had no knowledge or reason to believe that the PI he'd hired to help Casey's defense was planning or doing such a thing - and it goes directly to JBaez himself being involved in a potential breach of his work product privilege that is in place to protect his client.

Of course, DCasey and JBaez can always, at any time in the future, discuss amongst themselves the work that DCasey performed on behalf of Casey's defense while DCasey was working for JBaez because said work/information obtained from said work is protected by the attorney work product rule, but they CANNOT, after the contractual relationship ends, discuss FUTURE OR PRESENT plans of DCasey's that are in any way related to Casey's defense.

Why? Because if there's no contractual relationship between JBaez and DCasey, then the attorney work product privilege does NOT apply!!! In this scenario, as far as JBaez knows, DCasey is either inserting himself into the case again following the end of their contractual realationship (best case scenario for JBaez,) or is working for a 3rd party (Casey's parents.) Either way, it bodes no-so-well for JBaez.

At a minimum, JBaez, upon learning that DCasey was planning to "go get Caylee," had a duty to his client to report the improper private investigation by DCasey to the State Board of Private Investigators...and quite possibly to file for a restraining order against DCasey on the grounds that said PI was attempting to jeopardize Casey's defense, but without divulging specific details, followed up with a tel. call to the SA to say that an in cmhambers conference with Judge S needed to be held on this motion asap... etc.

 

[Chezhire]

Lee called LE and told them that Baez had a meeting/coaching the family before Casey was bonded out. It seems Baez speaks to Cindy quite a bit, they even had dinner at the Ritz together. Baez is Casey's attorney is this appropriate behavior for JB? And I still wonder how the communication between the Anthony's and Casey is being transpired. If Baez is being the messenger is that allowed as well? Is this ethical behavior?

My next question is about the relationship between DC and Baez. Their contract ended in Oct. So, if Baez was instructing him on what to do if he found the body after that would that be ethical behavior? Or would that be hindering the investigation and breech of Attorney client privilege?

Attorneys do have to be very careful in defining the lines of WHO their client is and is not, but it's natural for the defense attorney to talk to a defendant's family. You just have to know how to do it w/o jeopardizing your client's case. JBaez doesn't seem to know how to do this.

 

[Macushla]

I have not been able to find this question listed or discussed anywhere, and I am hoping our wonderful 'legal minds' or anyone else who knows can answer this for me:

Almost everything that the Anthony's know about the Nanny, who she was, when exactly she 'took Caylee, etc. all came from Casey, correct? will ANY part of what they have said they know be admissable in court? As far as I can see, none of the Anthonys will have very much to say in court because all their info came from Casey and as such is hearsay and therefore not admissable. Would appreciate other thoughts on this!

 

[shgrbkr]

Asking again: Can CAGA cite marital privilege while under oath at the criminal trial? Under what circumstances does marital privilege apply?

 

[BondJamesBond]

Bump for legal questions...

 

[Themis]

Asking again: Can CAGA cite marital privilege while under oath at the criminal trial? Under what circumstances does marital privilege apply?

The 2008 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCEChapter 90
EVIDENCE CODEView Entire Chapter[SIZE=-1]
90.504 Husband-wife privilege.--
(1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife.
(2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.
(3) There is no privilege under this section:
(a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse.
(b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either. (c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made. History.--s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 10, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379. [/SIZE]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/SEC504.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0090->Section%20504#0090.504

 

[debs]

Asking again: Can CAGA cite marital privilege while under oath at the criminal trial? Under what circumstances does marital privilege apply?

They can site marital privilege if any question is asked of either one about conversations held between JUST the two of them with no one else in the room (which negates privilege). The judge MAY overrule privilege if there is no inherent implication of wrongdoing by either party insofar as it relates to the crime their daughter is charged with committing.

ETA: Or look at Themis' post.....legal jargon

 

[Themis]

I have not been able to find this question listed or discussed anywhere, and I am hoping our wonderful 'legal minds' or anyone else who knows can answer this for me:

Almost everything that the Anthony's know about the Nanny, who she was, when exactly she 'took Caylee, etc. all came from Casey, correct? will ANY part of what they have said they know be admissable in court? As far as I can see, none of the Anthonys will have very much to say in court because all their info came from Casey and as such is hearsay and therefore not admissable. Would appreciate other thoughts on this!

You are thinking that since the information came from KC to CA, GA and LA, that CA, GA and LA cannot testify about what KC said because it would be hearsay. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. See exception number 18 below.

The 2008 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCEChapter 90
EVIDENCE CODEView Entire Chapter[SIZE=-1]
90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.--The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.--A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.
(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.--A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
(3) THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.--
(a) A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:
1. Prove the declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.
2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.
(b) However, this subsection does not make admissible:
1. An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed, unless such statement relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant's will.
2. A statement made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.
(4) STATEMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT.--Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inceptions or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
(5) RECORDED RECOLLECTION.--A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge, but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness's memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. A party may read into evidence a memorandum or record when it is admitted, but no such memorandum or record is admissible as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
(6) RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY.--
(a) A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or as shown by a certification or declaration that complies with paragraph (c) and s. 90.902(11), unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this paragraph includes a business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
(b) Evidence in the form of an opinion or diagnosis is inadmissible under paragraph (a) unless such opinion or diagnosis would be admissible under ss. 90.701-90.705 if the person whose opinion is recorded were to testify to the opinion directly.
(c) A party intending to offer evidence under paragraph (a) by means of a certification or declaration shall serve reasonable written notice of that intention upon every other party and shall make the evidence available for inspection sufficiently in advance of its offer in evidence to provide to any other party a fair opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. If the evidence is maintained in a foreign country, the party intending to offer the evidence must provide written notice of that intention at the arraignment or as soon after the arraignment as is practicable or, in a civil case, 60 days before the trial. A motion opposing the admissibility of such evidence must be made by the opposing party and determined by the court before trial. A party's failure to file such a motion before trial constitutes a waiver of objection to the evidence, but the court for good cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.
(7) ABSENCE OF ENTRY IN RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY.--Evidence that a matter is not included in the memoranda, reports, records, or data compilations, in any form, of a regularly conducted activity to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the matter, if the matter was of a kind of which a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation was regularly made and preserved, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness.
(8) PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS.--Records, reports, statements reduced to writing, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth the activities of the office or agency, or matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to matters which there was a duty to report, excluding in criminal cases matters observed by a police officer or other law enforcement personnel, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show their lack of trustworthiness. The criminal case exclusion shall not apply to an affidavit otherwise admissible under s. 316.1934 or s. 327.354.
(9) RECORDS OF VITAL STATISTICS.--Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if a report was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to make admissible any other marriage of any party to any cause of action except for the purpose of impeachment as set forth in s. 90.610.
(10) ABSENCE OF PUBLIC RECORD OR ENTRY.--Evidence, in the form of a certification in accord with s. 90.902, or in the form of testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose a record, report, statement, or data compilation or entry, when offered to prove the absence of the record, report, statement, or data compilation or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record, report, statement, or data compilation would regularly have been made and preserved by a public office and agency.
(11) RECORDS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.--Statements of births, marriages, divorces, deaths, parentage, ancestry, relationship by blood or marriage, or other similar facts of personal or family history contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.
(12) MARRIAGE, BAPTISMAL, AND SIMILAR CERTIFICATES.--Statements of facts contained in a certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony or administered a sacrament, when such statement was certified by a member of the clergy, public official, or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified, and when such certificate purports to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter.
(13) FAMILY RECORDS.--Statements of fact concerning personal or family history in family Bibles, charts, engravings in rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.
(14) RECORDS OF DOCUMENTS AFFECTING AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.--The record of a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, as proof of the contents of the original recorded or filed document and its execution and delivery by each person by whom it purports to have been executed, if the record is a record of a public office and an applicable statute authorized the recording or filing of the document in the office.
(15) STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS AFFECTING AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.--A statement contained in a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, if the matter stated was relevant to the purpose of the document, unless dealings with the property since the document was made have been inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.
(16) STATEMENTS IN ANCIENT DOCUMENTS.--Statements in a document in existence 20 years or more, the authenticity of which is established.
(17) MARKET REPORTS, COMMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS.--Market quotations, tabulations, lists, directories, or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by persons in particular occupations if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information and method of preparation were such as to justify their admission.
(18) ADMISSIONS.--A statement that is offered against a party and is:
(a) The party's own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;
(b) A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;
(c) A statement by a person specifically authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;
(d) A statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment thereof, made during the existence of the relationship; or
(e) A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member's participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.
(19) REPUTATION CONCERNING PERSONAL OR FAMILY HISTORY.--Evidence of reputation:
(a) Among members of a person's family by blood, adoption, or marriage;
(b) Among a person's associates; or
(c) In the community,

concerning a person's birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.
(20) REPUTATION CONCERNING BOUNDARIES OR GENERAL HISTORY.--Evidence of reputation:
(a) In a community, arising before the controversy about the boundaries of, or customs affecting lands in, the community.
(b) About events of general history which are important to the community, state, or nation where located.
(21) REPUTATION AS TO CHARACTER.--Evidence of reputation of a person's character among associates or in the community.
(22) FORMER TESTIMONY.--Former testimony given by the declarant which testimony was given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, or a person with a similar interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination; provided, however, the court finds that the testimony is not inadmissible pursuant to s. 90.402 or s. 90.403.
(23) HEARSAY EXCEPTION; STATEMENT OF CHILD VICTIM.--
(a) Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the statement is reported indicates a lack of trustworthiness, an out-of-court statement made by a child victim with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 11 or less describing any act of child abuse or neglect, any act of sexual abuse against a child, the offense of child abuse, the offense of aggravated child abuse, or any offense involving an unlawful sexual act, contact, intrusion, or penetration performed in the presence of, with, by, or on the declarant child, not otherwise admissible, is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding if:
1. The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making its determination, the court may consider the mental and physical age and maturity of the child, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the child to the offender, the reliability of the assertion, the reliability of the child victim, and any other factor deemed appropriate; and
2. The child either:
a. Testifies; or
b. Is unavailable as a witness, provided that there is other corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense. Unavailability shall include a finding by the court that the child's participation in the trial or proceeding would result in a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804(1).
(b) In a criminal action, the defendant shall be notified no later than 10 days before trial that a statement which qualifies as a hearsay exception pursuant to this subsection will be offered as evidence at trial. The notice shall include a written statement of the content of the child's statement, the time at which the statement was made, the circumstances surrounding the statement which indicate its reliability, and such other particulars as necessary to provide full disclosure of the statement.
(c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection.
(24) HEARSAY EXCEPTION; STATEMENT OF ELDERLY PERSON OR DISABLED ADULT.--
(a) Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the statement is reported indicates a lack of trustworthiness, an out-of-court statement made by an elderly person or disabled adult, as defined in s. 825.101, describing any act of abuse or neglect, any act of exploitation, the offense of battery or aggravated battery or assault or aggravated assault or sexual battery, or any other violent act on the declarant elderly person or disabled adult, not otherwise admissible, is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding if:
1. The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making its determination, the court may consider the mental and physical age and maturity of the elderly person or disabled adult, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the victim to the offender, the reliability of the assertion, the reliability of the elderly person or disabled adult, and any other factor deemed appropriate; and
2. The elderly person or disabled adult either:
a. Testifies; or
b. Is unavailable as a witness, provided that there is corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense. Unavailability shall include a finding by the court that the elderly person's or disabled adult's participation in the trial or proceeding would result in a substantial likelihood of severe emotional, mental, or physical harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804(1).
(b) In a criminal action, the defendant shall be notified no later than 10 days before the trial that a statement which qualifies as a hearsay exception pursuant to this subsection will be offered as evidence at trial. The notice shall include a written statement of the content of the elderly person's or disabled adult's statement, the time at which the statement was made, the circumstances surrounding the statement which indicate its reliability, and such other particulars as necessary to provide full disclosure of the statement. (c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection. History.--s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 1, ch. 77-174; ss. 20, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379; s. 4, ch. 85-53; s. 11, ch. 87-224; s. 2, ch. 90-139; s. 3, ch. 90-174; s. 12, ch. 91-255; s. 498, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 95-158; s. 2, ch. 96-330; s. 1, ch. 98-2; s. 2, ch. 2003-259.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES...TM&Title=->2008->Ch0090->Section 803#0090.803[/SIZE]

 

[Themis]

They can site marital privilege if any question is asked of either one about conversations held between JUST the two of them with no one else in the room (which negates privilege). The judge MAY overrule privilege if there is no inherent implication of wrongdoing by either party insofar as it relates to the crime their daughter is charged with committing.

ETA: Or look at Themis' post.....legal jargon

Your second sentence is not as I understand the law of spousal privilege in Florida. If the statement was said between spouses while they are married and the privilege is not waived, then it is privileged and the court doesn't examine the content of it. There are exceptions but the one in the second sentence above is not one of them.

 

[Sdavidson11]

Since the DP is now in play should SA bring KC to trial for her check crimes against AH so that her side can not argue that she is a person with no criminal record and an upstanding citizen if she is found guilty of murder? Or are they allowed to do that?

 

[ThoughtElf]

I have a question about what JB is and is not allowed to get in regards to the LE working this case. Can he subpeona all their records, notes, etc? Or does he have to just take their written reports? Can he ask for and would he get them if he asked for their cell phone records from July 16 on? I am saying cell phone records because most people use Cell phones now as their business phones. I am not asking about personal cell phone records, but if they had 'official cell phones'. Can he request any notes they may have on official computers? I guess I am wondering what JB is legally entitled to as defense counsel. I know the detectives will testify, and was just wondering how much of their work product and assoicated notes, etc. he can ask for and have a reasonable chance of getting.

By the way, I am loving this thread! Brilliant minds asking brilliant questions and getting even more brilliant answers.

BUMP! This one keeps getting missed. I'm curious about it, too.

TYIA

 

[nssherlock]

Now that this is a DP case when will JB's replacement as lead counsel be named? TIA

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Roles and Duties of Juries on a DP case in FL. On NG they said only four jurors had to convict Casey if found guilty. How does that work? I thought it was always 12 and they all had to vote unanimous? Best I found was this.
"Snip"
Roles of Juries: As long as the death penalty is to continue in our state, juries should be given a greater role in deciding sentences, not a lesser one. Most states (29) require a unanimous jury verdict for a sentence of death. In Florida, a simple 7-5 majority can yield a death sentence and a jury's recommendation of life in prison can be overridden by a judge in certain circumstances. The Conference supports a jury recommendation of life without parole as binding on sentencing. We support legislation which requires a unanimous jury verdict to support a death sentence.
http://www.flacathconf.org/Publications/Positionpapers/Deathpenalty02.htm

But this says 7 not 4? So this must be old or I am not interpreting it right.

Anyone know?

 

[Ripley007]

Since the DP is now in play should SA bring KC to trial for her check crimes against AH so that her side can not argue that she is a person with no criminal record and an upstanding citizen if she is found guilty of murder? Or are they allowed to do that?

I've been wondering about this too. If KC is FIRST convicted of MULTIPLE financial crimes, then she will go to trail for murder as a perp with a record. PLEASE Florida, what are you waiting for?

 

[MADJGNLAW]

New Law Gives More Power To Seek Death Penalty Against Casey

April 14, 2009
It gives prosecutors more power to seek the death penalty against parents who kill their children.

http://www.wftv.com/news/19179038/detail.html

http://www.wftv.com/video/19179855/index.html

I would like to know when this new law went into effect. Does anyone know? Please and Thank You! :blowkiss:

 

[Themis]

I have a question about what JB is and is not allowed to get in regards to the LE working this case.


Can he subpeona all their records, notes, etc? Or does he have to just take their written reports?

JB doesn't have to use a subpoena for LE material. All he has to do is ask SA to provide that material. It can include records, notes etc. He doesn't have to limit it to written reports.

Can he ask for and would he get them if he asked for their cell phone records from July 16 on? I am saying cell phone records because most people use Cell phones now as their business phones. I am not asking about personal cell phone records, but if they had 'official cell phones'.

JB can get cell phone records for LE calls related to this case. Again, JB goes through SA to get this information.

Can he request any notes they may have on official computers?

Same as above. Yes. JB goes through SA to get this information, SA collects it from LE and then counsel for both sides have the material.

<snipped>

Responses in blue above.

 

[Themis]

I've been wondering about this too. If KC is FIRST convicted of MULTIPLE financial crimes, then she will go to trail for murder as a perp with a record. PLEASE Florida, what are you waiting for?

It is likely these financial crimes will be tried at the same time as the homicide crimes. This is "character" evidence. Maybe you were thinking of a three strikes law? Three strikes laws generally have mandatory minimum sentencing for subsequently committed crimes. The DP is never a mandatory minimum. Not much, if anything, to be gained by a separate trial.

 

[Macushla]

It is likely these financial crimes will be tried at the same time as the homicide crimes. This is "character" evidence. Maybe you were thinking of a three strikes law? Three strikes laws generally have mandatory minimum sentencing for subsequently committed crimes. The DP is never a mandatory minimum. Not much, if anything, to be gained by a separate trial.

Is it possible that the financial charges might be tried first now? It is going to take longer to get ready for DP trial, I assume, at least on the part of the defense team. Since they will eventually (at least I hope) have a trial for the financial charges, cant hey go ahead and try her on this charges first? I thought I had read something way, way back in September or October that they were putting the financial charges on hold until after the murder trial - but I can't remember where or when I saw this. For some reason I don't think they were planning to try her on ALL charges at one time.

Can the defense stop the financial charges from being tried first? How would they go about that - just keep asking for more time to get ready or is there a legal motion, etc. they can file to prevent the SA from going ahead with the financial charges?

It would be nice if they went ahead with the charges in the financial case, it would give us something to do while waiting for the murder trial anyone have any idea how hopeful I should be? Very hopeful or ain't gonna happen?

 

[Themis]

Is it possible that the financial charges might be tried first now? It is going to take longer to get ready for DP trial, I assume, at least on the part of the defense team. Since they will eventually (at least I hope) have a trial for the financial charges, cant hey go ahead and try her on this charges first? I thought I had read something way, way back in September or October that they were putting the financial charges on hold until after the murder trial - but I can't remember where or when I saw this. For some reason I don't think they were planning to try her on ALL charges at one time.

Can the defense stop the financial charges from being tried first? How would they go about that - just keep asking for more time to get ready or is there a legal motion, etc. they can file to prevent the SA from going ahead with the financial charges?

It would be nice if they went ahead with the charges in the financial case, it would give us something to do while waiting for the murder trial anyone have any idea how hopeful I should be? Very hopeful or ain't gonna happen?

Criminal procedure rules have a lot of time lines for accomplishing various things. These are to ensure speedy trial rights of the defendant. In this case, defense has waived speedy trial rights. In practicality, as long as these time lines are either met or waived, the court determines the scheduling after input from counsel for both sides. Motions can be made to consolidate or severe portions of the trial or even multiple defendants. The court rules on these motions. They will have a series of status conference hearings or case management conferences.

ETA: I can pretty much guarantee that having the economic crimes charges tried first to please web sleuthers wanting something to watch is not going to be one of the considerations.

 

[shgrbkr]

They can site marital privilege if any question is asked of either one about conversations held between JUST the two of them with no one else in the room (which negates privilege). The judge MAY overrule privilege if there is no inherent implication of wrongdoing by either party insofar as it relates to the crime their daughter is charged with committing.

ETA: Or look at Themis' post.....legal jargon

So.... since neither CA or GA is charged with a crime and do not appear to have been involved in this crime, then the judge can overrule it. Correct?
If this were to occur, then would the judge have to make a separate ruling on each question CAGA tries to cite marital privilege on or could he make one blanket ruling since the parents are not involved in the crime itself?

Can Morgan and Co. take the questions CAGA claimed marital privilege on to the civil suit judge and have them compelled to answer, or would this be different since it is civil, and CA may have been involve in perpetuating the implication of the real ZG as the evil inivisinanny?

Do any legal eagles out there think, based on the depo hearings, that this will be an issue in the criminal trial?