Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[OneLostGrl]

We will give you opcorn:, :cake4u:, :rubberducky:, :balloons:, and a :beagle:

 

[The World According]

Do you find it common for the state to get a judge's authorization to tap the cell phones and trace the pings, numbers called, etc of family members? Would they have had to offer some reasonable explanation that they suspect obstruction of justice or evidence tapering going on by mom, pop and brother? Once they learned of the "bat phones" would they have been allowed to tap those as well? TIA!

 

[doogiesgirl]

RH,

I am wondering about CA & GA's attitude at times toward the State's Attorneys during questioning. I've posted a little video of GA on the stand. He seems like such a hostile witness at times and I felt hostility during his depo also (state's depo), and CA too got defensive, IMO during the state depo. So my question is....if you were KC's defense atty would you tell them to tone it down? Although GA/CA could make it a very tough row to hoe for the prosecution's attorneys, it seems like a slippery slope to me. I could see the prosecutor pushing them to a point where the anger works for the prosecutor, getting answers from the A's that they only reveal because they are reacting in anger, not thinking. So I guess I want to know your take on that from both points of view--(put yourself in prosecutor's role and defense atty's role). Would you be able to use that anger to get answers you want or will it prevent some information from being revealed? Are there tactics that attorneys are taught to produce answers from the most unwilling witnesses? Thanks, DG

http://www.wftv.com/video/20492634/index.html
GA on stand being questioned

 

[sleutherontheside]

I wonder if this recent decision in another high profile FL. case (regarding private juror questioning ) will have any impact on the KC case. Thoughts?







AL juror questionaire
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=13097241

Additionally, if voir dire is not "private" can a potential juror refuse to answer certain questions based upon the lack of privacy?

 

[LFlorida]

RH, I'd appreciate a professional's thoughts re: John Morgan's use of media interest for Lee's depo.

I thought it was particularly brilliant manuevering, but I'm just a wannabe [Still haven't decided what I wannabe, though.]

thx

p.s. If he has previously addressed this, somebody pls pm me w/a link so I can remove this post. tia

 

[Blaise]

Do Jesse G. or Amy H. or any of the others who the Anthony's have attempted to throw under the bus have a civil case against the Anthonys? Would you take such a case?

Blaise

 

[Kentjbkent]

Who is this assistant to Baez that leaked information to the media about Jesse? Do you know if this is another lawyer, Mr. Walsem? If other lawyers that work for Jose, or Jose's daughter, or intern or employee sold the photos/videos to media while working for Baez, is that a reason that the Judge filed a complaint because Baez is splitting hairs claiming HE has no media deal? Do you know exactly what the judge's complaint to the bar entailed and will that ever be made public?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfkFzMkFqdA

I did not find any attorneys with that last name listed on the FL Bar website...in fact, could only find one person with that last name (through Intellius) residing in the state of Florida.

The full name sounds (to me) to be of ethnic (Puerto Rico, Cuba, ?) and appears (to me) to be a female, who resides in Miami Florida....

if that helps......

 

[ohiogirl]

I am still offended by Mr. Hornsby saying what the case lacked is a smart detective. I am interested to learn what you think they could have done differently to effect a smarter result. I am not a lawyer or LE, but I do know they couldn't take that car without a search warrant or the items from her or Tony's without one and they don't walk around with those ready to go in their pockets. A judge has to sign them, right? I am assuming you mean that George and Cindy were offering it up and therefore the search warrant wouldn't have been required. Is that where you find the fault, the time that the folks had to clean up the car? My understanding was that according to George "Cindy sent me back to work", after they got the car home. Cindy did whatever she wanted, washed the pants, took the shoes out, cleaned the doll, put the bounce sheet in, likely removed the baby seat and sprayed only God knows what all to freshen up that smell in the car, well before the police were ever called. They followed up very very quickly every lie Casey told and proved them to be lies pretty much within a few hours of first contact with her. I think they did all they could, and enormous amount of time and effort was put in to this case, and many many man hours wasted on these false leads of a live Caylee. We have Cindy giving the FBI agent the wrong hairbrush for Caylee when LE needs her DNA, they were up against a lot of lies and lies by omission, and even so, they found enough evidence to charge her, get the indictment and I believe they prepared the very best possible. I do not know any of them personally, but I am offended that you said what you did about them. We live in America and you may say what you like, but I just think it was unnecessary. What would be constructive to our discussion is if you help us understand what you think they did or didn't do. What is your definition of a smart detective? I read your example of what ANOTHER detective did that was not right iyo, and that Yuri was in the same training or office with him, but I have worked with a lot of people who I sure wouldn't want to be judged guilty by association with, believe me! Do you have some cases you have had where these detectives were on the case and you found something suspect in their work? I respect your work and opinion, and please know I am asking with all respect. We all thank you for posting here, very , very much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSG0RHKhzk

Thanks, I hadn't seen that video before.

 

[gitana1]

I apologize in advance to those who my blunt language is about to offend, so turn away if you are squeamish.

Forensically, her car was fairly clean. There seems to be a complete lack of fingerprint evidence that should still be available (home test: go tear off a piece of duct tape and
see how often and firmly your fingers touch the tape side).

And lets talk superhuman strength, imagine a dead limp body. It cannot be easy to maneuver and even harder to get inside a small bag. And based on the evidence, when she finally disposed of the body it was already decaying, which means there would have been bodily fluid. Someone was bright enough to either think in advance, or get the original laundry bag into black plastic bags - that takes two people.

Okay, I got started and i am finished because i just know someone helped her - someone with law enforcement experience is my guess.

Hey Mr. R., you must not do a lot of cleaning or gardening! I am a somewhat small person but I can get a bag filled with forty pounds or so of stuff into another bag or two. You lift one end, put the bag over that part and then lift the other end and keep pulling and moving it until the bag is all the way around it. It's kind of like sealing heavy mattresses in the allergy zippered vinyl which I have done on several occasions (I'm 5'4", 115). I've also lifted and moved mattresses and large bags of mulch, cement, fertilizer, furniture, etc, alone.
Also, Caylee was only two years old. She was not a full-sized adult so I do not know that superhuman strength would be needed to maneuver her body around, even after death.
Sorry if this has been touched on. I just read the post and replied without reading on!

 

[gitana1]

One other thing. There are plenty of cases in which people of average intelligence leave little to no forensic evidence implicating them, such as finger prints, DNA, or even blood or other evidence from the victim, at crime scenes, or other areas involved in a murder. I'm thinking Scott Peterson. His house was VERY clean, as was his boat and place of work, and I think he likely killed Laci in his home. That's just one of many in which convictions are won.
I am sure casey or her family scoured that car at one point, just as Scott scoured his home with bleach as the evidence indicated.
Also, the lack of fingerprints does not indicate, to me, that casey had help with disposing of Caylee. As hard as it would be for her to keep her finger prints off the tape, it would be equally hard for another party to do so. No? I imagine she used some kind of gloves or taped her fingers, I don't know. But the pictures I saw of the duct tape showed very dirty, degraded tape. I don't know forensics well but how the heck could you get fingerprints off that?

 

[gitana1]

Here's a question if you are still reading and posting:
Do you think the police interview of casey can come in or would any objections be sustained? We discussed this at lenght a whie ago but I wasn't satisfied with the discussion. I don't do crim law so I have no clue how it works with interrogations/interviews, but basically, the concern was that she was not read her rights. As the interview progressed, they asked her outright if she harmed her child. At that point, is she considered a suspect who needs to be Mirandized? If so, does any of the portion of the interview after that come in?

 

[rhornsby]

Here's a question if you are still reading and posting:
Do you think the police interview of casey can come in or would any objections be sustained? We discussed this at lenght a whie ago but I wasn't satisfied with the discussion. I don't do crim law so I have no clue how it works with interrogations/interviews, but basically, the concern was that she was not read her rights. As the interview progressed, they asked her outright if she harmed her child. At that point, is she considered a suspect who needs to be Mirandized? If so, does any of the portion of the interview after that come in?

Got married this weekend, so was a little busy...

But to answer your question, I would think the entire interview would be admissible; as it is either a statement against interest, prior inconsistent statement, or flat out lie.

If anything, parts of it might get redacted (edited) if it is irrelevant. Generally, when the interviewer says things that other people told him (hearsay) or if the interviewer says inflammatory things (irrelevant, prejudicial value outweighs probative value, etc.).

But, in sum, I think the majority of all her statements would come in, as they are basically all being offered to show she is a liar (in layman's terms).

 

[rhornsby]

I wonder if this recent decision in another high profile FL. case (regarding private juror questioning ) will have any impact on the KC case. Thoughts?


View attachment 6537

View attachment 6538


AL juror questionaire
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=13097241

Additionally, if voir dire is not "private" can a potential juror refuse to answer certain questions based upon the lack of privacy?

First, I do not think what the judge in Tallahassee ruled will affect how Judge Strickland would rule, because it is not binding. (Personally I do not agree with it, but have not researched what the law says is permissible).

But here is some more general information and history on jury questionnaires - it is the norm in federal court that attorney's voir dire questions are submitted via questionnaires and occasionally a judge will allow some follow up questions.

So while it seems like Casey's attorneys are asking for special treatment, what they are actually asking for is a return to the "old way" of picking a jury.

The reason that state courts moved to oral voir dire at the state court level is because state court trials are more frequent and it is to time consuming to write jury questionnaires for each possible trial - considering you never know what case will actually go to trial, instead of being dropped on the eve of trial or plead out.

So, as you might imagine, the state court system moved towards oral voir dire for efficiency purposes.

 

[magiemay]

congratulations on your marriage, was afraid you had left us... Do you think Dominick Casey will be deposed and can you even begin to imagine what it is he is so afraid of revealing, what with his searching in November in the same area,

 

[jandkmom]

Got married this weekend, so was a little busy...

But to answer your question, I would think the entire interview would be admissible; as it is either a statement against interest, prior inconsistent statement, or flat out lie.

If anything, parts of it might get redacted (edited) if it is irrelevant. Generally, when the interviewer says things that other people told him (hearsay) or if the interviewer says inflammatory things (irrelevant, prejudicial value outweighs probative value, etc.).

But, in sum, I think the majority of all her statements would come in, as they are basically all being offered to show she is a liar (in layman's terms).

Did you reallly? OT, but congratulations!!!

 

[3doglady]

Got married this weekend, so was a little busy...

Congratulations!

 

[spqr]

Here's a question if you are still reading and posting:
Do you think the police interview of casey can come in or would any objections be sustained? We discussed this at lenght a whie ago but I wasn't satisfied with the discussion. I don't do crim law so I have no clue how it works with interrogations/interviews, but basically, the concern was that she was not read her rights. As the interview progressed, they asked her outright if she harmed her child. At that point, is she considered a suspect who needs to be Mirandized? If so, does any of the portion of the interview after that come in?

BBM:

You need two(2) things under Miranda.

First you must be "in custody" (i.e. NOT free to leave) She was free to leave.

Second you be interrogated. She was being interrogated in the course of an investigation.

If only one of the above applies, Miranda does not come into play.

From the ABA:
"Police generally read these rights to individuals about to be questioned in custody"

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/criminal/miranda_rights.html

 

[cyberborg]

Got married this weekend, so was a little busy...

[snip]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

:dance::dance::dance::dance:

 

[rhornsby]

1) All evidence to be used in trial must be released (state and defense) but what is deadline for All evidence to be released
2)Witnesses are not allowed to be in the courtroom until they have testified. If this case is broadcast these witnesses can merely watch the trial on live TV. Do you think it is possible that the case will not be broadcast ? Can the court issue an order attempting to keep witnesses from watching ?
3) How does the court keep jurors from making money by selling their stories after the trial
4) I think that the overwhelming little pieces of evidence will show that KC is guilty. From the evidence released to date, do you see one single piece of evidence that the defense would most like to keep out of the trial ?
5) Trial Date - Any predictions ?

1. Well, technically before the jury is picked. Sorry, but there is no black and white answer to that, because evidence is supposed to be disclosed throughout the discovery process. And once the discovery process is concluded, you then move into trial mode.
   
2. There is a "rule of sequestration" and all witnesses are instructed pursuant to this rule that they are not allowed to discuss the case with other witnesses or people. In this case, Judge Strickland will probably instruct them not to watch media reports of the trial - how that will be enforced is a good question. The court could exclude video cameras if he wanted, that is in his discretion. But I suspect he will let them in, because Judge Strickland is a big freedom of the press guy.
3. He can not, a juror is free to speak with anyone he or she wants after the trial is over. This includes selling their personal story regarding their involvement in the case.
4. Casey's statements, the smell of death testimony. Will not be excluded though.
   
5. Summer 2010.

 

[rhornsby]

BBM:

You need two(2) things under Miranda.

First you must be "in custody" (i.e. NOT free to leave) She was free to leave.

Second you be interrogated. She was being interrogated in the course of an investigation.

If only one of the above applies, Miranda does not come into play.

From the ABA:
"Police generally read these rights to individuals about to be questioned in custody"

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/criminal/miranda_rights.html

This is essentially correct. She was not in "custody."