Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[rhornsby]

ok, can someone point me to a crime that does not involve dishonesty?

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

"Florida looks at the seriousness of the crime to determine whether it is worthy of attacking a person’s credibility and they only ask four questions about the crime:

Was the crime punishable by death?
Was the crime punishable by more than 1 year imprisonment?
Was the crime one that involved dishonesty?
Was the crime one that involved a false statement? "

Aren't all crimes/criminals by default dishonest?

I learned a few things from that blog, most esp. the reason for the term convicted felon but this crime vs. dishonesty thing has me scratching my head.

p.s. [the above italicized info was snipped from the above link & bbm]

I would say no, every year the legislature creates more and more crimes - many for essentially negligent conduct.

 

[LadyL]

Please review http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/11/30/the-clueless-wonder-strikes-again/ for all of your answers.

got it ... thank you

 

[RR0004]

RH- I have no idea why any media outlet would ask legal questions of JB. It just makes them look as d$mb IMO.

 

[autumnlover]

The problem is how and when can you believe a liar is telling the truth? Can the defense state she lied without corroboration from Miss Casey? Can they state she lied without offering an alternative theory or explanation as to who then IS responsible for having the child for 31 days? When I think back to the beginning of the case and what the State charged her with (lying to LE) how easy it would have been then to tell the "truth". Didn't happen...don't think a jury will buy it now.

She'll use the SODDI defense and says she was protecting him, IMO. My guess is, it will be JG.

 

[Olive Oyl]

Mr. Hornsby,
I understand why Casey is not participating in any video visitations with her family, but why do you think she does not acknowledge her parents during the hearings? I would have thought the defense would encourage this to garner a more sympathetic image of Casey! TIA!

 

[JBean]

Mr. Hornsby,
I understand why Casey is not participating in any video visitations with her family, but why do you think she does not acknowledge her parents during the hearings? I would have thought the defense would encourage this to garner a more sympathetic image of Casey! TIA!

Oh I am glad you asked this. At any of the criminal proceedings I have been to here in CA it is not acceptable for defendants and spectators to acknowledge or signal each other in court. Bailiff will remove you pronto.
But don't know procedure in FL and have been wondering about this.

 

[rhornsby]

Oh I am glad you asked this. At any of the criminal proceedings I have been to here in CA it is not acceptable for defendants and spectators to acknowledge or signal each other in court. Bailiff will remove you pronto.
But don't know procedure in FL and have been wondering about this.

Rules are the same here in Florida.

 

[QB.]

What about D. Casey , the PI. Do you think he will be successful in having whatever he knows about this case declared as privileged information or declared as work product and sealed?

In your opinion, based on what we know of the PI agreements and the overlap and gaps, are they work product?

bumping my question.
Thanks

 

[BeanE]

Rules are the same here in Florida.

Even before/after the hearing?

It would just look so much better if she just said "Hi, mom. Hi, dad."

 

[BeanE]

rhornsby,

In your blog entry regarding the motions, you state:

he became aware he was being videotaped because he was reprimanded when they saw him physically touching Casey Anthony.

Was this news to other attorneys as well? Are there no signs or literature given to attorneys/clients at the jail to inform them that they are being videotaped? This is not commonly known among area attorneys?

Thank you again for all the information and insight you are providing us here.

BeanE

 

[Jolynna]

For the most part, no.

Thank you for your response.

I just read your "Grinch" article. You, sir, can write! You were witty, thoughtful, to the point and informative. Well done and very much appreciated.

 

[rhornsby]

rhornsby,

In your blog entry regarding the motions, you state:

he became aware he was being videotaped because he was reprimanded when they saw him physically touching Casey Anthony.

Was this news to other attorneys as well? Are there no signs or literature given to attorneys/clients at the jail to inform them that they are being videotaped? This is not commonly known among area attorneys?

Thank you again for all the information and insight you are providing us here.

BeanE

No, if you notice, I state I too have been reprimanded for touching clients - while I understand their security concerns, it is sometimes necessary in order to properly explain something or a situation.

 

[mydailyopinions]

No, if you notice, I state I too have been reprimanded for touching clients - while I understand their security concerns, it is sometimes necessary in order to properly explain something or a situation.

I have thought about your statement.
Makes me wonder..
Was Casey showing Baez how the Nanny:waitasec: grabbed her at Blanchard park, and that was the reason for the reprimand?:waitasec:
Other than that scenario, or Casey showing Baez how she killed her daughter..I see no other reason for him to touch her.. Do you?

 

[suki]

If this question as been asked previously, someone please point me in the direction of it.

Q: What the real reason that Casey's parents have not visited her?

Nothing short of a court order would stop me from seeing my child, whether they were guilty or not. It's a love driven decision with me.

 

[tracy87]

This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?

 

[impatientredhead]

If this question as been asked previously, someone please point me in the direction of it.

Q: What the real reason that Casey's parents have not visited her?

Nothing short of a court order would stop me from seeing my child, whether they were guilty or not. It's a love driven decision with me.

If the inmate does not want to see you there is no way to force your way in to see them. Casey is in control of that decision and has the convenient crutch of being able to say she is following her attorney's instructions. JB cannot stop her from taking the visits, he can only advise he not to. Cindy cannot force her to see her.

Casey is not visiting with her family because

a. she doesn't want to

and

b. because there is no benefit to her personally to do so

moo

 

[twomanywords]

Wasn't Baez reprimanded for hugging KC, not just touching? And wasn't it a couple of times? I remember there were some heated debates on this.

Are attys. allowed to hug their clients?
If KC and Baez were having a physical relationship all those hours she spent in his office each day, would she be able to claim ineffective council, and could Baez use the Viagra defense?

 

[njustice]

Well here is where jury selection will be important, unless there is a petite woman or a hobby person on the jury - nobody would have any personal experience to provide during deliberations to quash those questions.

- 12 Angry Men

Are you saying lack of fingerprints on the duct tape indicates she had help? I know she isn't the brightest crayon in the box, but maybe it just proves she realized it wouldn't be smart to leave behind fingerprints? Further, the sticky side of the tape was completely degraded in a swamp over several months. Is it that implausible fingerprint evidence could have been lost due to the elements and being submerged and disintegrating in a swamp?

 

[Themis]

All outside statements of counsel can not be admitted as evidence.

Generally, statements of counsel are not evidence; they are arguments. However, if the counsel is a percipient witness or makes public a direct quote from his client that is indeed an admission against interest by his client, then those statements are evidence and can be admitted as evidence. Such a circumstance might also create a conflict of interest to keep representing the client. One caveat here; when the attorney becomes a percipient witness -- observes things with his five senses of sight, smell, touch, taste or hearing because he was examining the case during the course of his case preparation, then such observations per perceptive impressions are privileged and confidential under the attorney work product. However, if the attorney saw the crime before forming an attorney client relationship, then the defendant cannot keep the attorney from being a witness by hiring them as an attorney.

 

[Darla]

Even before/after the hearing?

It would just look so much better if she just said "Hi, mom. Hi, dad."

And it's been very obvious at the end of a hearing Cindy is straining her neck just to get KC to acknowledge her (with or without a smile).

I've been wondering what's really go on there, other than KC loathes her mother. Of course that's just my opinion.