Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[impatientredhead]

This might be a silly question but honestly, don't those that get LWOP have the same rights to appeals, etc as those on death row? So how could it cost more to put them to death?

The process is different in death penalty cases.
The first trial is inherently more expensive because it has different standards for qualified attorney's etc. Some sources claim a death penalty trial will run 4-6x the expense as a murder trial without the death penalty attached.

The first appeal is automatic and then it is a fight all the way to the execution chamber, generally including arguements about competency, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.... The state is frequently paying both sides of that legal bill. Depending on the source of the information they say 2/3 to 3/4 of those sentenced to death will end up with their sentence being changed to LWOP at some point of the appeal process.

And then there is the cost of keeping a prisoner sequestered on death row. Think about the staffing and overhead costs with keeping that few prisoners isolated for their entire stay.

 

[rhornsby]

rhornsby, if you stop by.....do you think that the defense will really try to use Joy Wray as a witness for them? She is terribly unstable and I don't believe that she would make a very good witness at all. I think she would be torn apart on the stand.

No, I do not. I think they have other witnesses they can call for that purpose.

 

[Soju]

Something's been bothering me lately. With some of the focus being shifted to the penalty phase and mitigating factors, I'm just not sure what to make of Casey's family life and background.

I think most here would agree that Cindy isn't the ideal mother, and that growing up in that household would've sucked, but I just have a hard time seeing her upbringing and family life as being a mitigating factor at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

There are tons of people who have had worse home lives than Casey Anthony. She grew up in a nice, clean house, never seemed to go without, was allowed to live there for years after failing to graduate high school, had all her needs met, everything she could've wanted, and seemed to have had every opportunity to get out and better herself.

Of course growing up in a nice house is no guarantee or proof of a charmed life, but so far I've seen no real evidence or anything that would make me think she'd been psychologically or physically abused to the extent that it would mitigate anything. Actually, I've seen no real evidence or anything that would make me think she's nothing more than a spoiled, petulant brat. I just don't see being spoiled and growing up without boundaries as mitigating.

When I think of having a bad home life and upbringing being mentioned as a mitigating factor, I picture squallid homes, parents strung out on drugs, drunken beatings, rampant physical and sexual and psychological abuse, or gang-ridden neighborhoods, etc.

Heck, my own childhood seems to have been a lot worse than Casey's. I just can't see a jury feeling sorry for her based on her upbringing.

She had "issues", but seriously, do you think her defense will honestly try to present her home life as contributing to her problems? Do you think it would work?How would you address her home life, both during trial and as a potential mitigating factor?

 

[JBean]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4510253#post4510253"]The Death Penalty Vs Life in Prison and KC - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[JBean]

Reminder that this is a Q&A thread.
some discussion of the Q&A is of course expected and welcome! but it becomes difficult to isolate the Q&A ;so consider this just a request to try and keep discussion to a mimimum unless it relates directly to a question or answer.

As always where this post lands on the thread does not necessarily have any bearing on other posts in the immediate vicinity.

thanks

 

[mydailyopinions]

Mr. Hornsby..
What should we expect to start seeing in the coming weeks? Will we be seeing more motions? If so, what motions do you expect to be filed?


Also, I hope you are ready to see the Gators take the SEC Championship on Saturday! :woohoo:

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

That is why I expect the defense to somehow admit that Casey's entire story was a lie from the very beginning - in opening statements perhaps.

Because to do so really takes the wind out of the State's case so to speak.

You may be correct in this scenario, but she has lied about sooo much how on earth could the defense bring this all up first and have some kind of reasonable explanation for the jury. The jury will be expecting an explanation, I know I would. With that being said I do not think it will take the wind out of the State's sails...I think the State will go over every lie in great detail and very precisely. They will piece together through cell phone messages, cell phone texts, computer contacts a very controlled story line for the jury to follow. I don't think it will matter who brings up the lies first, it will be getting the jurors a reason to believe or disbelieve.

 

[Jolynna]

I personally believe she would be a danger to society. She would steal to get what she wanted, and Lord forbid, just like with Caylee, if anything or anyone gets in her way, or cramps her style she would kill them too, like her mother and father, just next time, she will make sure that it is longer than 31 days that it goes un reported to authorities...

I wouldn't take any bets on the safety of a well-insured husband once KC tired of him.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby..
What should we expect to start seeing in the coming weeks? Will we be seeing more motions? If so, what motions do you expect to be filed?

Also, I hope you are ready to see the Gators take the SEC Championship on Saturday! :woohoo:

December is usually a very slow month and thinks will not pick up until mid-January. And I would suspect that once everyone has recharged the batteries, we will have several multi-day hearings to address all of the motions filed by the defense.

 

[whats the punch line]

All but the false statement charges are related to Caylee's death. The four counts of false statements to a police officer are first degree misdemeanors, punishable by no more than one year in jail. She would get time served credited against those charges. There is also a $1000 fine per occurence. If the only thing the state gets to stick is a handful of misdemeanor charges it will be a major loss for the state.

This is why I think the 4 counts are important, she was trying to hide the murder.

I think they will build ro the murder count...

This is why I think they bear discussion

 

[whats the punch line]

The resent motions are standard in a capital case. They are not news worthy.

 

[RR0004]

Other than revenge, I do not think society gains anything by putting someone like Casey Anthony to death.

And while I believe that if Casey Anthony killed her daughter, she deserves to spend the rest of her life behind bars; I also do not believe that if she were to ever be released, she would prey on other children like a John Couey.

i have blogged about my personal opinion on my website (Denying the Certainty of Death) and will leave that as my answer to any further questions.

But before we even get started, lets not dwell on my personal opinions about the death penalty in this case or in general, because it is a debate with no satisfactory answer to anyone.

Gotcha...but not really talking about the DP. You can't rehabilitate a sociopath IMO. I think she represents the dregs of our society...those that kill innocent defenseless children. If she's found guilty, I have no problem with her spending the rest of her life locked away.

 

[autumnlover]

The State Attorney could condition a plea agreement on a proffer - meaning if she does not explain what happened they will not agree to the plea deal.

Even if she does explain, I wouldn't believe one word out of her mouth, ever, for any reason. If the State thinks she'll "explain" she'll absolutely believe until her dying day that she got one over on everyone. I wouldn't believe what she had for dinner last night.

 

[RR0004]

Something's been bothering me lately. With some of the focus being shifted to the penalty phase and mitigating factors, I'm just not sure what to make of Casey's family life and background.

I think most here would agree that Cindy isn't the ideal mother, and that growing up in that household would've sucked, but I just have a hard time seeing her upbringing and family life as being a mitigating factor at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

There are tons of people who have had worse home lives than Casey Anthony. She grew up in a nice, clean house, never seemed to go without, was allowed to live there for years after failing to graduate high school, had all her needs met, everything she could've wanted, and seemed to have had every opportunity to get out and better herself.

Of course growing up in a nice house is no guarantee or proof of a charmed life, but so far I've seen no real evidence or anything that would make me think she'd been psychologically or physically abused to the extent that it would mitigate anything. Actually, I've seen no real evidence or anything that would make me think she's nothing more than a spoiled, petulant brat. I just don't see being spoiled and growing up without boundaries as mitigating.

When I think of having a bad home life and upbringing being mentioned as a mitigating factor, I picture squallid homes, parents strung out on drugs, drunken beatings, rampant physical and sexual and psychological abuse, or gang-ridden neighborhoods, etc.

Heck, my own childhood seems to have been a lot worse than Casey's. I just can't see a jury feeling sorry for her based on her upbringing.

She had "issues", but seriously, do you think her defense will honestly try to present her home life as contributing to her problems? Do you think it would work?How would you address her home life, both during trial and as a potential mitigating factor?

Well...considering that she probably was the cause of most of the problems (yes, I know she had a difficult mother)...I don't see how it can be used as a mitigating factor.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Reminder that this is a Q&A thread.
some discussion of the Q&A is of course expected and welcome! but it becomes difficult to isolate the Q&A ;so consider this just a request to try and keep discussion to a mimimum unless it relates directly to a question or answer.

As always where this post lands on the thread does not necessarily have any bearing on other posts in the immediate vicinity.

thanks.

Thanks for the reminder.. I needed it! :blowkiss:

 

[LinasK]

As well, if you (as a Defense Atty) have evidence that can prove your clients innocence (as Casey's Defense Atty has stated), would you continue to allow your client to sit in jail for nearly 2 years awaiting trial? Can they not turn in said evidence now and clear her name? [IF (and that's a big IF) they have said evidence.] That way they can jump on the media wagon and starting shouting that they are looking for the real killer and stop pointing fingers at any Tom, Dick and Harry.

Okay, clearly not an attorney here, but personally know more than one well. If the defense had exhonorating evidence, they would turn in it immediately and Casey would be released and her case dropped, but LE would keep the file open. It's happened before, e.g. if the killer's DNA was found on Caylee, and it absolutely couldn't be Casey's DNA.

 

[LetJusticePrevail]

Richard, if you have a few secs at some point, I'd appreciate your insight on the following:

1. In 7/09, WKMG filed a motion requesting the infirmary video be released. The court record doesn't show it was heard and we've not heard a peep about it since. Why, and wouldn't the record have to reflect the outcome?

2. Does naming Kronk answer to the state's motion asking the court to compel the defense to substantiate Macaluso's claim that :behind:'s innocent?

3. Was it perfectly reasonable for me to wonder if I'd been dropping acid while reading :doughboy:'s motion to travel to places of interest w/:behind: in private?

4. Do you think anyone on the defense team has asked the $64K question, 'Did you murder your daughter?'

 

[QB.]

RHornsby has a new post to his blog
Casey Anthony: Insufficient Funds (Part Uno)

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/12/02/casey-anthony-insufficient-funds/

 

[QB.]

Mr. Hornsby,
In your most recent post at your blog you write that you will cover the ways the defense may try to delay the check fraud case until after the murder trial in a second article. There is a date set for trial in Jan. and a pre-trial hearing coming up soon. Can defense have this delayed even with the trial date set? How would they be successful at doing that if it is possible?
Thanks.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby,
In your most recent post at your blog you write that you will cover the ways the defense may try to delay the check fraud case until after the murder trial in a second article. There is a date set for trial in Jan. and a pre-trial hearing coming up soon. Can defense have this delayed even with the trial date set? How would they be successful at doing that if it is possible?
Thanks.

Once I was in a Pretrial Conference (the same type of hearing coming up) and I watched 10 lawyers make an oral Motion to Continue for various reasons - reasons that I can only say seemed very legitimate to me.

The judge denied each attorney's motion because it seemed obvious they were stalling unnecessarily.

But then, the 11th lawyer approached and before he could he even say anything, the Judge said: "Don't even think about asking for a Motion to Continue" and without missing a beat the attorney says "judge, I would never dream of making a Motion to Continue - but I would make an oral Motion to Handle this Case Some Other Day." - Motion granted.

So the moral of the story, sometimes it's all in how an attorney asks the court.