Kronk Reveals 1990's Expunged Arrest

[cajun]

I think it would be pointless for JB to even bring it up.

I don't think it will be the defense that brings it up. I think the SA will bring it up when they have Mr. Kronk on the stand, maybe one of the first questions they ask him.. That will take all of the wind out of the defense's sail..you know the best offense is a good defense

 

[Indianagirl]

Can this arrest even be brought up in court? Considering it was expunged..

 

[CBTampa]

IMO, if the Defence even want to raise it, they would make an application to the court to do so before trying to introduce it. The court will not re-open an almost 20 year old kidnapping charge that was dropped. It would effectively require all the Ws in the kidnapping case to be called in Casey's case, and the Judge will not let that happen. The defence look like they are grasping at straws by attacking him....first Jesse, Amy, Ricardo, TonE, now RK. Seems like they will try to make anyone a suspect.

At the end of the day, there is so much evidence against her that there is no way this will matter. Just the fact alone that she claims Caylee called her the day before her arrest, and the fact that the police can prove that she didn't receive the call, combined with lying about the "nanny's addresses", partying at fusion, saying Hawkins child was also babysat by her etc etc. I think people are losing sight of the real issues in this case if they are focusing on RK.

Not to mention the botany forsenic evidence that they are investigating and determining how long Caylee was in the woods. If she called her and was reading her book...how is that possible? The only person that would have known that book was with her is ...guess who?

 

[chefmom]

If the defense even attempts to go there I ASSUME it will be ruled inadmissable by the Judge beforehand and the jury will never even hear a word about it. My assumption.

I would hope this to be the case, but if any of the jurors have followed the case even slightly, they will have already heard all of this. The pros could then simply put the ex-gf on the stand and have her explain that she was not kidnapped and it was simply a misunderstanding if it is allowed in. But, all in all, I believe it is a moot issue.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Only way this ever becomes an issue is if we find out he had a sex change and that his original name was ZFG....since I think that's pretty darn unlikely, I'm gonna predict it will be a non-factor.

 

[Wudge]

Hi Levi, are you saying you think the defense will just ignore this? IMO, that is the only way it has bearing on the case.

The defense will talk with his girlfriend, then decide.

 

[CarrieBean]

Much of this legal jargon confuses me but, if it was expunged doesn't that mean it was completely erased from his record and there is no way anyone would have access to that information (other than maybe old news articles)?

I'm not quite understanding why Mr. Kronk even came out with it, unless he was concerned that someone may come forward with it to make him look bad.

ETA: and if it was expunged, can the defense even bring it up in court?

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I believe the defense can bring it up because Mr. Kronk has brought it up...it's public knowledge now, and I think they would have found it anyway, because I'm sure the defense would have been able to subpoena his personnel file...as he worked for the gov, it's much easier to get access to that kind of stuff w/ sunshine laws, FOIA, etc.

 

[Lynni]

I wouldn't put it past the defense to try to use it--let's face it, there's not much they have going for them at this point. But I would expect the judge to rule that no mention can be made in Court about it. And any even mildly-perceptive person will be able to see through a defense play about this in the media.

Exactly!!

 

[CarrieBean]

I believe the defense can bring it up because Mr. Kronk has brought it up...it's public knowledge now, and I think they would have found it anyway, because I'm sure the defense would have been able to subpoena his personnel file...as he worked for the gov, it's much easier to get access to that kind of stuff w/ sunshine laws, FOIA, etc.

I wondered about that...because he brought it up himself, but if he had not I can't see how the defense could get that information.

I should have read the article before I posted :doh: I see now where RK's lawyer is hoping to get him some compensation. Is he doing this to keep himself in the spotlight$?$.

 

[Theonly1]

The defense will not ignore it, they will milk it for all it is worth. But people with a BRAIN will come to the conclusion it has no bearing on the case.

Levi, the defense will not be ALLOWED to milk that teat. There will be a little hearing on it beforehand and in my opinion the Judge will say, "Counsel, that is not admissable" and "You will not be able to mention it...". I don't think the jury will ever know about it nor should they.

 

[JBean]

The defense will talk with his girlfriend, then decide.

Oh Lord don't you know it.

 

[Laece]

I disagree and look at it completely opposite.

I think he is setting a great example for those that might not want to get involved which, by the way, is not a new behavior.

i agree with this as well.

however, i can see why this would create suspicion in people's minds. this case has been one big question with very few concrete answers so far, so that causes people to grab what info they get and run with it.

some people, myself included for the most part, belong to the 'where there's smoke, there's fire' school. just like people think casey is guilty prior to conviction, and would continue to believe so even if she were exonerated, there are those that think there is at least some truth to a possible criminal past of a key player in this whole saga.

to be honest, i think it's easy to become suspicious of anyone involved in any way in this case, especially when behaviour is called into question, seeing as we're thrown for a loop every time some new info comes out.

all the hurt, anger, frustration, curiosity, and, oddly enough, hope...these all cause people to grasp onto what they can to find answers.

do i think the mr is a serial kidnapper who took caylee and is the cause of this mess? no. do i think this will have bearing on the case, whether it should or should not, and that there are many unanswered questions regarding this aspect (the mr finding caylee) of the case? absolutely.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I do hope the judge allows it...If he doesn't allow the defense to pursue this as a crime theory, is it possible some appeals court could later construe that as reversible error?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I do hope the judge allows it...If he doesn't allow the defense to pursue this as a crime theory, is it possible some appeals court could later construe that as reversible error?

Not a chance...lol. Maybe if he'd been convicted of kidnapping and killing children. I don't think it matters if it is introduced anyhow....i think it will backfire and like others say, make the jury dislike the defence even more, and perhaps push them closer to the DP if it's back on the table.

 

[Theonly1]

I would hope this to be the case, but if any of the jurors have followed the case even slightly, they will have already heard all of this. The pros could then simply put the ex-gf on the stand and have her explain that she was not kidnapped and it was simply a misunderstanding if it is allowed in. But, all in all, I believe it is a moot issue.

What prospective jurors have heard and read about this case beforehand will be THOROUGHLY vetted by the Judge and attorneys in the voir dire process. In a case like this, voir dire will take a long time (in this case, I would guess a week).

Each side will also get a certain number of "strikes" to knock off prospective jurors for either cause or peremption. Cause strikes are unlimited (ex: Granny says Casey is evil and needs holy water thrown on her right now. Judge will strike for cause). Peremptory strikes are a limited number given to each side for which they can use for the prospective jurors who cause them the most worry (can't be struck for prejudical reasons though like color of skin). Those kind of strikes you can use at your whimsy (ex: don't like the way that prospective juror looked at your client) and you use your strike and don't say why you use them.

[Florida Statute 913.08 Number of peremptory challenges.

(1) The state and the defendant shall each be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges: (a) Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life...]


Between the written questions and the oral questions the Judge and attorneys will be able to ferret out all you know about the case (if you are telling the truth of course). Even if you've heard about the case you can be kept on if they feel you can be impartial.

Anyway, I'm getting ahead of the game here. Just wanted you to know that potential jurors will be heavily questioned about what they've read, seen and know about this case beforehand.

 

[Indianagirl]

I do hope the judge allows it...If he doesn't allow the defense to pursue this as a crime theory, is it possible some appeals court could later construe that as reversible error?

My thoughts exactly!!!!???!!!

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I do hope the judge allows it...If he doesn't allow the defense to pursue this as a crime theory, is it possible some appeals court could later construe that as reversible error?

The problem the defence has, is that there is not even one tidbit of evidence to pursue this as a crime theory. RK didn't tell LE he dropped Caylee off at a stairwell or that he was tackled in a park and Caylee taken, or that Caylee called him from a silent number on July 15th, or that she told two people from her work at universal that Caylee was missing, or that she said Hawkins kid was also babysat by her etc etc. Do they really think the jury will overlook this stuff?

 

[anastacia129]

Not a chance...lol. Maybe if he'd been convicted of kidnapping and killing children. I don't think it matters if it is introduced anyhow....i think it will backfire and like others say, make the jury dislike the defence even more, and perhaps push them closer to the DP if it's back on the table.

Or, if there were any evidence to support their "theory". I challenge any opinion this can even be brought up in court.

 

[anastacia129]

Can we please not forget this man WAS NOT EVEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME? Sorry, but that is an important fact to remember when suggesting this could be basis for an appeal!