Rhornsby Legal Q&A #3 Relevant to the Anthony Case

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aren't they doing jury selection sometime this week or something? Won't they have to do a jury trial if they pick a jury?

They would not pick a jury until after the new year (local tid bittle: there are no jury summons issued for the last two weeks of December).

And yes, IF they did a jury trial, they would need to pick a jury.

But my money is on them pleading to the bench at the last minute.
 
What's the advantage to waiting to the last minute?

Blaise
 
Mr. Hornsby,
I asked a while back about the evidence the FBI possibly still has, yet don't remember you answering..
If the FBI does have evidence (and I think they do) when would it be normal for that evidence to be released prior to trial? Am I right that they do not have to turn over everything like the state of Florida is required through discovery?
 
Mr. Hornsby,
I asked a while back about the evidence the FBI possibly still has, yet don't remember you answering..
If the FBI does have evidence (and I think they do) when would it be normal for that evidence to be released prior to trial? Am I right that they do not have to turn over everything like the state of Florida is required through discovery?

Because this is a State of Florida prosecution, the FBI is bound by Florida law IF the State Attorney wants to utilize the FBI in their case.

As such the FBI would be required to turn over any evidence they have prior to trial as required by Florida's discovery rules.
 
RH - Do you think the civil trial may have simply been a way to curtail JB and KC's (as well as her family's) exploitation of Caylee's images to subsidize her legal fees? I'd guess the attorneys in FL are not happy about seeing one of their own skating that ethical line. JB has already been asked by JS to account for that and Nejames very pointedly made reference in a motion regarding paying for photocopies of TES documents that the money the defense used to pay for them needed to be ethically obtained.

I always thought the reason JB countersued was so that Morgan would not have access to KC's financial information, which he would if Morgan won the suit (because it was certainly not in her best interest to give that depo). I realize that this is not exactly Son of Sam stuff, but it certainly skates the line. And I've never heard of a defendant using the victim to generate revenue.

So is it possible that this suit is less about ZFG and simply a vehicle for Morgan to give a shot across the bow to JB and his ethics in regards to how he is getting paid?
 
RH - Do you think the civil trial may have simply been a way to curtail JB and KC's (as well as her family's) exploitation of Caylee's images to subsidize her legal fees? I'd guess the attorneys in FL are not happy about seeing one of their own skating that ethical line. JB has already been asked by JS to account for that and Nejames very pointedly made reference in a motion regarding paying for photocopies of TES documents that the money the defense used to pay for them needed to be ethically obtained.

I always thought the reason JB countersued was so that Morgan would not have access to KC's financial information, which he would if Morgan won the suit (because it was certainly not in her best interest to give that depo). I realize that this is not exactly Son of Sam stuff, but it certainly skates the line. And I've never heard of a defendant using the victim to generate revenue.

So is it possible that this suit is less about ZFG and simply a vehicle for Morgan to give a shot across the bow to JB and his ethics in regards to how he is getting paid?
Listen, Morgan and Morgan is the number one television advertiser in Central Florida. What better way to get free publicity than to interject yourself into the biggest case in Central Florida.

Before this case, he was unknown out of legal circles or Central Florida; now he has had multiple national tv appearances.

As for the legitimacy of his client's claim. Legally, it is a leap to say that it is more likely than not that Casey Anthony was specifically referring to her. If anything, the ticketed Zenaida would fit the description more than Morgan's client. Why can't she sue as well.

Now, at the end of the day - before any attorney takes on any case, the first thing he asks is what is it worth. Morgan would only get 1/3 of any settlement. And last I check you cannot get blood from a stone. So Morgan's 1/3 of nothing is nothing. But what does he care, he is a multi-millionaire who has received immeasurable media exposure.

Meanwhile, poor little old Zenaida Gonzalez - the woman who is petrified of the media. Well she appears on the media with old John all the time. But more importantly, what damages has she suffered?

I am assuming her yearly salary before this case was 45K or less. And we know that one of Casey's friends received something like 20K from a tabloid for their story. Zenaida could probably get 3x that. and now her un-tabloid story is probably worth 20x that.

No matter how you cut it, she has suffered no damages. If anything, she hit the lottery by being involved with this case. Moreover, if she would have not sued, she would have been just a footnote in this story within a few months. Any continuing emotional trauma she suffers is her own doing.

So IMO this whole civil suit is a mockery. Hate Casey or not, I think everyone would agree that a death penalty case is more important than a civil suit.
 
Mr. Hornsby, do you have any way of learning if indeed the state did depose Dominic very recently ( since the recent hearing)?

Since Baez is stalling / loathe to produce his witness list and reciprocal discovery so far, would he be permitted to submit a witness list with just Dominic on it to solve his immediate problem, or would that be considered in Mrs. Drane-Burdick's words, "A farce!"?

She is under no obligation to wait for Baez to get it together as it were, right? She could return to her post and have a State's investigative subpoena issued straight away the same day as the hearing, right?
 
Listen, Morgan and Morgan is the number one television advertiser in Central Florida. What better way to get free publicity than to interject yourself into the biggest case in Central Florida.

Before this case, he was unknown out of legal circles or Central Florida; now he has had multiple national tv appearances.

As for the legitimacy of his client's claim. Legally, it is a leap to say that it is more likely than not that Casey Anthony was specifically referring to her. If anything, the ticketed Zenaida would fit the description more than Morgan's client. Why can't she sue as well.

Now, at the end of the day - before any attorney takes on any case, the first thing he asks is what is it worth. Morgan would only get 1/3 of any settlement. And last I check you cannot get blood from a stone. So Morgan's 1/3 of nothing is nothing. But what does he care, he is a multi-millionaire who has received immeasurable media exposure.

Meanwhile, poor little old Zenaida Gonzalez - the woman who is petrified of the media. Well she appears on the media with old John all the time. But more importantly, what damages has she suffered?

I am assuming her yearly salary before this case was 45K or less. And we know that one of Casey's friends received something like 20K from a tabloid for their story. Zenaida could probably get 3x that. and now her un-tabloid story is probably worth 20x that.

No matter how you cut it, she has suffered no damages. If anything, she hit the lottery by being involved with this case. Moreover, if she would have not sued, she would have been just a footnote in this story within a few months. Any continuing emotional trauma she suffers is her own doing.

So IMO this whole civil suit is a mockery. Hate Casey or not, I think everyone would agree that a death penalty case is more important than a civil suit.

As far as I can recall, she was only in the media once or twice, and very briefly, at the beginning of the case. She may have also been shown at Cindy and George's depo but she had to be there.

As to what true damages she has suffered - do you have any idea how this could have escalated if Morgan had not become involved, given her some protection, put the Anthonys on notice? Just a few weeks ago Kronk was splashed all over the headlines as Caylee's possible killer and his ex-wives accusations were there for all to see.

I believe if Morgan hadn't stepped in there would've been an all out frontal attack on Zenaida, complete with depos of everyone she ever came in contact with. Digging up dirt non-stop. You can't prove a negative but just observing the tactics and history of this crew I think we can speculate honestly that Zenaida could have been crushed.

Before Morgan came on board Cindy was throwing out ZFG's name to anyone who would listen. And now they're eerily quiet. I think even if Zenaida doesn't get a dime she's already won.
 
The police came to THIS Zenaida's house. She was interrogated. They came to no other Zenaida's house. Supposedly her children were taunted at school when her name was flung into the media circle.

Didn't she have a right to go on television and say she did not kidnap Caylee Anthony and she is NOT a nanny.

I think she showed a lot of class. She defended herself, she lawyered up, and the rest is to be seen.
 
I haven't had time to read 12 pages of this thread so if this has been asked...sorry.

I think I read that you said even if the jury decides on the DP for KC that Judge SS could take it away. Now I think having that kind of "oversight" in most cases is a good thing. But in this particular case.....the jury is the public and they are not just determining her punishment as a society, but for the victim, Caylee. So wouldn't you agree that it would be unwise for JSS to change or lessen any punishment the jury decides on for KC?

:cow:
 
Well, in reverse order. I think the civil case is ridiculous so there is no reason to settle, plus it is clear the civil case is not "really" being pursued for altruistic reasons. But I digress.

I agree with you, there is no reason to go to trial. But their only other option is to plead to the bench, which they probably do not want to do until the last second.

Well, my first thoughts originally on the civil case (as CecyBeans brought up) was that it was an avenue to pursue exactly HOW Baez was getting funded. And possibly tie up funds that Casey was using for her defense.

Do you agree that is is possible through the civil suit to determine for sure where, and how much, Baez's funding is coming from?

And if it is, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Your distaste for Morgan is obvious, but if he can get to the bottom of the finances, I'm OK with the civil suit.
 
I haven't had time to read 12 pages of this thread so if this has been asked...sorry.

I think I read that you said even if the jury decides on the DP for KC that Judge SS could take it away. Now I think having that kind of "oversight" in most cases is a good thing. But in this particular case.....the jury is the public and they are not just determining her punishment as a society, but for the victim, Caylee. So wouldn't you agree that it would be unwise for JSS to change or lessen any punishment the jury decides on for KC?

:cow:
Well, sure, I guess it is always unwise for a judge to second guess a jury's recommendation.

But remember, the jury does not have to be unanimous. What if the jury is 7-5 for death? Is that representative of all the public, or just some of the public.

And remember, that 7-5 recommendation is from people who were already willing to impose the death penalty. So the 7-5 recommendation is only representative of the portion of Florida's population that agrees with the death penalty. It is unrepresentative of people who are opposed to the death penalty.

So unless Judge Strickland rejected a unanimous (12-0) jury recommendation of death, I would never say sparing a person's life would be unwise. And even then, I might not morally disagree with such a decision (legally, maybe).
 
Mr. Hornsby, I've seen this question asked, but do not remember if you answered. What is your feelings on the air testing of the trunk. I know JB, & LKB have referred to it as "junk science", but wonder if you think it will be allowed in at trial.

TIA
 
Mr. Hornsby, I've seen this question asked, but do not remember if you answered. What is your feelings on the air testing of the trunk. I know JB, & LKB have referred to it as "junk science", but wonder if you think it will be allowed in at trial.

TIA

Well, I kind of agree it is hocus pocus. But I also think it is unnecessary, George Anthony's testimony as to what he believed the smell to be is way more damaging than any magical air sniffer device.
 
I have a 2 part question.

First, have you seen George's grand jury testimony? I know someone was asking to have it released, and I never heard whether it was or not. Since he was one of very few who testified at the GJ, it feels to me like it might be damaging. Can his GJ testimony be introduced at the criminal trial?

Second, can Casey's police statements be introduced and will they be considered hearsay if she doesn't testify? She obviously has made some very conflicting statements as the case has gone on, and it would be a shame to lose them all.

Third (OK, I lied about the 2 part!) ~ What other 'rabbits' do you anticipate the defense team to pull out of their hats to either delay the trial or get the charges dropped/reduced? They've been getting pretty soundly spanked in court so far to date, and I would think they might figure out it's time to just prepare for trial, but I just don't think we've heard the last of the filings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
174
Total visitors
248

Forum statistics

Threads
609,398
Messages
18,253,643
Members
234,649
Latest member
sharag
Back
Top