Procedure and legal questions

[5stars]

Rick P. blogged that his Mother and Cindy argued over Casey on Father's Day about the Grandpa's account.11-26-08 doc dump.Would that be considered or hearsay without Shirley P. stating it?

 

[Tuba]

But from what we have seen, Cindy took her parents' part in this. She may have felt her mother insulted KC and her, by indirection.

 

[Brini]

Maybe he hadn't figured out how to write the motion?

:Banane35::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Brini]

Another 'out there' defense theory came to mind last night when I was going over a bunch of transcripts.
We've seen murder trials where the defense is ' violent video games made me do it", and its a variation of this.....

One common theme in most interviews is that KC was addicted to FB and MS, that she lived (and lied) by it.
We all know that alot of folks twist the truth online, but for KC it was the perfect fantasy world.

Could the defense claim that her online fantasy life carried over into real life?

That she was so stuck in webland, where truth and lies, fantasy and reality are intertwined, that she could no longer distinguish between what was real, and what was not?
(ie: that Caylees death was not real to her, and thats why she didnt alert anybody)

Has a defense like this ever been used in a murder trial? If so, is it an actual defense, or does it go to mitigating circumstances?

Just want to clarify, that I don't think the internet made her do it, but just looking at possible defenses that they may attempt. (cause I doubt that any reasonable defense will be used).

KC could "try" any psych defense she wants, but if won't fly:

1) She has been found not to be legally insane.
2) She has no history of psych treatment.
3) She has not been placed on any psych meds, by the jail psychiatrists.
4) She has never had a break from reality. She is oriented times four, at all times (person, place, time, situation).

And:

5) She was not "addicted" to violent video games. She just did a lot of texting and social networking. Neither would have been a source of suggestions of child murder.

With respect, honey, sociopath and psychotic are two very different clinical conditions. xoxoxox;-0

 

[Brini]

Here's a "way out there" question. Let me begin with the disclaimer that I in no way think this is the truth about KC, but I was wondering about it as a defense.

Multiple personality Disorder is quite rare, but it does exist. If the defense found an expert who concluded that ZFG was one of KC's "alternate personalities" and that ZFG did, in fact, kill Caylee, would KC be responsible? There is some question about the traffic ticket ZG and also a MySpace account which was set up that might support a defense claim of MPD.
Would this even go to trial or would KC be mentally unfit to stand trial? Would a person be held responsible for a crime commited by an alternate personality?
Again, I am not saying I believe this. Just wondering about the legalities of such a situation.

Wouldn't happen. KC has no history of fugue, going back to early childhood.

Plus, she is always oriented times four.

Or, as a lawyer friend of mine says, "You can't suddenly go crazy when you get caught for committing a crime."

 

[Brini]

LOL - Just thinking. If KC were able to convince an expert she had this disorder KC would still be found guilty because by KC's own admission the nanny really loved Caylee, bought her clothes, shoes, toys, carseat, took Caylee to the beach, etc.

Again, no fugue since early childhood. It couldn't have been missed.

Also, no disorientation as to person, place, time, or situation.

But, if she DID want to plead psych, she'd have to be getting her elementary school, and forward records, plus her medical and psych records (she has no psych records) together to show a psych history.

I was once a nurse during the 80s when MPD (now called DID) was a fad diagnosis.

I recieved at least four dozen "MPD cases." None were real. All were borderlines who were convinced they had MPD by their shrinks. That's why many shrinks opine that DID is iatrogenic.

Now, let's get back OT. Psych is another thread.

 

[butwhatif?]

KC could "try" any psych defense she wants, but if won't fly:

1) She has been found not to be legally insane.
2) She has no history of psych treatment.
3) She has not been placed on any psych meds, by the jail psychiatrists.
4) She has never had a break from reality. She is oriented times four, at all times (person, place, time, situation).

And:

5) She was not "addicted" to violent video games. She just did a lot of texting and social networking. Neither would have been a source of suggestions of child murder.

With respect, honey, sociopath and psychotic are two very different clinical conditions. xoxoxox;-0

I was just saying a 'the internet made me do it ' was a variation on the 'violent vid games made me do it' defense we have seen used in other trials.

She wasnt addicted to the violent games, but she was addicted to the net, particularly the social networking sites, which she used to
'upgrade' her real life...
I know I heard something recently about a guy suing someone for cheating with his online partner....LOL.....a sim....not even a real person, but these folks take their sim games seriously and it overlaps into real life.

She's certainly not insane, but she aint healthy either....and fantasy was a huge part of her life with all the made up careers, study, fake nanny etc. So in essence FB and MS helped fuel her fantasy life.
Even though she had never been diagnosed with a personality disorder, or anything else (that we know of), we do know that at some point she was so messed up she considered admitting herself to a psych ward, and that she considered seeing a psychologist(per ca). And then theres Kios (weird) statements about KC's mental state. She thought Kc had bipolar and said she would have major memory lapses.
But I dont think they'll even try an insanity defense cause they're sticking with the 'nanny did it'.
Anyway, its no biggie, it was just a thought that crossed my mind when I kept hearing the same thing over and over from the witnesses- that she lived by fb and ms. So I wondered if a def psychiatrist could be put on the stand to try to explain away her inaction after 16th june....ie she was in fantasy land, and nothing was real to her anymore.

 

[Brini]

I was just saying a 'the internet made me do it ' was a variation on the 'violent vid games made me do it' defense we have seen used in other trials.

She wasnt addicted to the violent games, but she was addicted to the net, particularly the social networking sites, which she used to
'upgrade' her real life...
I know I heard something recently about a guy suing someone for cheating with his online partner....LOL.....a sim....not even a real person, but these folks take their sim games seriously and it overlaps into real life.

She's certainly not insane, but she aint healthy either....and fantasy was a huge part of her life with all the made up careers, study, fake nanny etc. So in essence FB and MS helped fuel her fantasy life.
Even though she had never been diagnosed with a personality disorder, or anything else (that we know of), we do know that at some point she was so messed up she considered admitting herself to a psych ward, and that she considered seeing a psychologist(per ca). And then theres Kios (weird) statements about KC's mental state. She thought Kc had bipolar and said she would have major memory lapses.
But I dont think they'll even try an insanity defense cause they're sticking with the 'nanny did it'.
Anyway, its no biggie, it was just a thought that crossed my mind when I kept hearing the same thing over and over from the witnesses- that she lived by fb and ms. So I wondered if a def psychiatrist could be put on the stand to try to explain away her inaction after 16th june....ie she was in fantasy land, and nothing was real to her anymore.

Be an awfully big reach, honey. I don't think her counsel will go there.

She never was confused about who and where she was, and what she was doing. That's important.

I think old JB will try two things: 1) Throwing someone else under the bus, and,
2) Picking at bits of the evidence.

I think he'll fail at both.

 

[Muzikman]

OK, today's revelation (see daily news thread) that the Prosecution is requesting the transcript of a sidebar for "purposes of trial" seems highly unusual.

To our esteemed legal eagles here - anyone have this happen to them before, or hear of it happening?

This seems like it could be worth it's own thread if so.

 

[kageykaren]

I was just saying a 'the internet made me do it ' was a variation on the 'violent vid games made me do it' defense we have seen used in other trials.

She wasnt addicted to the violent games, but she was addicted to the net, particularly the social networking sites, which she used to
'upgrade' her real life...
I know I heard something recently about a guy suing someone for cheating with his online partner....LOL.....a sim....not even a real person, but these folks take their sim games seriously and it overlaps into real life.

She's certainly not insane, but she aint healthy either....and fantasy was a huge part of her life with all the made up careers, study, fake nanny etc. So in essence FB and MS helped fuel her fantasy life.
Even though she had never been diagnosed with a personality disorder, or anything else (that we know of), we do know that at some point she was so messed up she considered admitting herself to a psych ward, and that she considered seeing a psychologist(per ca). And then theres Kios (weird) statements about KC's mental state. She thought Kc had bipolar and said she would have major memory lapses.
But I dont think they'll even try an insanity defense cause they're sticking with the 'nanny did it'.
Anyway, its no biggie, it was just a thought that crossed my mind when I kept hearing the same thing over and over from the witnesses- that she lived by fb and ms. So I wondered if a def psychiatrist could be put on the stand to try to explain away her inaction after 16th june....ie she was in fantasy land, and nothing was real to her anymore.

I'm not being confrontational but I'm all about the brains in this case. Your statement stating Kio reported that she thought KC was Bipolar. The rest of your sentence states Kio knew about KC having blackouts and I don't remember reading this in the transcript. W/S's would have been all over this as members did discussing KC possible Seizure. If you or anyone has a link to this statement in transcripts maybe you could bring it over to the psych thread. This is an avenue that would be interesting & very important to slueth as to her mental status effecting her sociopathy into crime. If authorities in the medical world aretaking a look at MJ's numbed brained, I bet authorities are gonna pic this brain apart. Mahalo, meet you on the psych thread!

 

[3doglady]

I thought that when LE went out to interview the female bountyhunter she got a lawyer and said she couldn't talk.That led me to believe they had a confidentiality agreement,or Jose' was claiming privilige.I would think that talking to LE about a crime would trump a confidentiality contract.
Maybe Jose' wrote up a contract technically hiring them so anything they heard or saw would be privilidged.I just can't see LP going along with that.
And KC broke the spirit of any agreement by not helping to find Caylee.
Surely the judge will throw this one out.

IIRC LP said that Tracy would not talk to LE until she received immunity. Led me to believe that she heard something incriminating and did not report it to LE. She did agree to talk with LE at a later date. Was her statement to LE just released to the defense? Is that the reason for JB's flurry of motions to stop the release of LP, Rob and Tracy's interview? That would explain why JB did not file the motion against LP's interview before now.

 

[Kathy1964]

For those with legal knowledge--After reading the "privacy agreement" between "The Firm" and Padilla, Tony, Tracy and Rob, do you think this agreement would prevent them from testifying?
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20089919/detail.html

 

[chefmom]

For those with legal knowledge--After reading the "privacy agreement" between "The Firm" and Padilla, Tony, Tracy and Rob, do you think this agreement would prevent them from testifying?
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20089919/detail.html

I would like to know this as well. As I read this one line from the Agreement, I would think not.

"This Agreement does not create a relationship in so far as that the Parties of the Second Part are in no way hired by or represent the Firm or the Defendant."

If the Parties of the Second Part, Padilla, Tony, Tracy, and Rob, were not hired by or were representing JB or KC, how can they now claim privilege?

 

[milliac]

For those with legal knowledge--After reading the "privacy agreement" between "The Firm" and Padilla, Tony, Tracy and Rob, do you think this agreement would prevent them from testifying?
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20089919/detail.html

I am not a legal expert, but said before that I see no consideration given by the FIRM other than the contact with the defendent. (does anyone think that is of value?)

My only concern is the statement that anything not covered in the agreement will be determined by defendent's right to not self-incriminate.

So the question to answer is if this is a binding contract to begin with? If not, the rest is worth no more than the paper it is written on.

 

[AZlawyer]

I am not a legal expert, but said before that I see no consideration given by the FIRM other than the contact with the defendent. (does anyone think that is of value?)

My only concern is the statement that anything not covered in the agreement will be determined by defendent's right to not self-discriminate.

So the question to answer is if this is a binding contract to begin with? If not, the rest is worth no more than the paper it is written on.

I don't see any obvious consideration, although it's usually possible to come up with some theory of consideration if you think about it long enough.

In any event, I don't think the agreement would prevent Padilla et al. from testifying. It is pretty clear they were not agents of Baez, and even if they were, KC was not talking to them as part of the process of seeking legal advice.

It was Baez's job to tell KC to keep her mouth shut. Apparently he failed to do that.

 

[milliac]

It was Baez's job to tell KC to keep her mouth shut. Apparently he failed to do that.

I agree. I'd sounds like he told her quit yapping. She probably couldn't stop herself. It makes me think of my 13 yr old that talks non stop with barely a breath in between changing subjects. I have to admit there are times I turn glassy eyed and zone out. I hope they were able to be attentive enough to catch all she was saying. It sound like she is also quite the talker.

 

[Themis]

Any "contract" with the bail bondsman would not prevent the bail bondsman or his agents from testifying in court. No clause in a contract can violate public policy. It is public policy that when witnesses are subpoenaed under a valid subpoena to a deposition or court that the witness must show up and testify. It is also a crime to interfere with the testimony of a witness. The only thing that can prevent a witness from testifying is the lawful, valid objection based on a legal privilege, like attorney-client relationship and that objection must be made by somebody who has legal standing to object. Contract clauses may not violate public policy or they are void or voidable meaning they do not have force and legal effect. The reason the female bounty hunter could get by with the contract clause excuse when talking to LE is because LE doesn't have subpoena power.

 

[Jolynna]

I agree. I'd sounds like he told her quit yapping. She probably couldn't stop herself. It makes me think of my 13 yr old that talks non stop with barely a breath in between changing subjects. I have to admit there are times I turn glassy eyed and zone out. I hope they were able to be attentive enough to catch all she was saying. It sound like she is also quite the talker.

Yep.

Quote from Amy H's July 16 LE interview:

"I previously loved the girl, but good Lord she talks."
http://flawebhosting.net/docdump110608/huzienga july16.pdf

KC might be one of those people who can't quiet even with a hand over the mouth. Baez may well have told KC not to say anything to anyone. Maybe she didn't follow his instructions?

 

[AZlawyer]

Any "contract" with the bail bondsman would not prevent the bail bondsman or his agents from testifying in court. No clause in a contract can violate public policy. It is public policy that when witnesses are subpoenaed under a valid subpoena to a deposition or court that the witness must show up and testify. It is also a crime to interfere with the testimony of a witness. The only thing that can prevent a witness from testifying is the lawful, valid objection based on a legal privilege, like attorney-client relationship and that objection must be made by somebody who has legal standing to object. Contract clauses may not violate public policy or they are void or voidable meaning they do not have force and legal effect. The reason the female bounty hunter could get by with the contract clause excuse when talking to LE is because LE doesn't have subpoena power.

Excellent points. Besides, this contract doesn't even PURPORT to prevent them from talking about what KC said to them. It just says they can't question her or record her.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20089919/detail.html

 

[Themis]

Excellent points. Besides, this contract doesn't even PURPORT to prevent them from talking about what KC said to them. It just says they can't question her or record her.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20089919/detail.html

You are absolutely correct. :clap::clap::clap: