Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[RR0004]

No, I believe it is Baez's addition. Completely unnecessary IMO.

Maybe he's planning on selling the original draft on ebay?!

 

[BondJamesBond]

Trying last time for grins...

1)In your opinion did George's GJ testimony involve anything more than establishing Caylee in Casey's care 6/16?

2) Opinion/insight on SA's decision to have JT on their witness list? Forcing function? Or intention to call?

We've discussed the land mines presented by the (1) delayed timing of his statement, and (b) color commentary nature of his statement, as pro/con to his credibility.

IMHO, he seems very high-risk/high-reward. Risk=easy mark for cross. Reward=placing Caylee in Casey's care away from G&C's and in closer timing to Casey's appearance @ Tony's 6/16 => taking many (not all) plausible accidents off the table.

Would enjoy your take.

 

[Brattigirle]

1. I think a summer 2010 trial date is realistic.
2. I think plea negotiations are probably ongoing and likely to pick up the closer to D day. With that said, the State's idea of a plea "deal" may not be Ms. Anthony's.

What would the State stand to gain by offering a "deal"?

 

[impatientredhead]

What would the State stand to gain by offering a "deal"?

If the deal is admit guilt and we won't execute you the money saved is more than substansial. The first trial, an automatic appeal if she is sentenced to die, and then the battle all the way to the execution chamber, huge amount of tax payer money.

 

[rhornsby]

Trying last time for grins...

1)In your opinion did George's GJ testimony involve anything more than establishing Caylee in Casey's care 6/16?

2) Opinion/insight on SA's decision to have JT on their witness list? Forcing function? Or intention to call?

We've discussed the land mines presented by the (1) delayed timing of his statement, and (b) color commentary nature of his statement, as pro/con to his credibility.

IMHO, he seems very high-risk/high-reward. Risk=easy mark for cross. Reward=placing Caylee in Casey's care away from G&C's and in closer timing to Casey's appearance @ Tony's 6/16 => taking many (not all) plausible accidents off the table.

Would enjoy your take.

1. I always thought George's testimony was necessary to establish smell was of a dead person, rather than timeline.
2. The State is required to disclose any person who could potentially be a witness. I would not read to much into their listing of him.

 

[rhornsby]

What would the State stand to gain by offering a "deal"?

A guaranteed conviction.

 

[RR0004]

Well, ya got me beat cuz I'm not convinced it was Casey who murdered Caylee.

OLG...I never got the impression you felt that way the first year of the case...what seems to have changed your mind?

 

[BondJamesBond]

What would the State stand to gain by offering a "deal"?

New/different faces in the next election cycle

 

[rhornsby]

Aren't juries supposed to rely on the evidence presented to reach their conclusions? Obviously it would not be known unless one of them talked, but if the prosecution argues that Casey carried the body and the defense offers no evidence that she could not, a juror rejecting the prosecution's evidence and argument based solely on their personal experience and thereby influencing the verdict would be violating their oath, correct? Or am I wrong about this?

Well, your hypothetical is somewhat flawed. Because before State could argue Casey carried body, they would have to present some evidence showing she did - or evidence from which a reasonable inference can be made.

As for the defense, they can argue any reasonable inference that the evidence allows - they do not have to present testimony directly on point.

Basically, either party can argue that the jury can make common sense judgments as to what can be inferred from the evidence presented (by either side).

As for rejecting any evidence, that is a jurors right to do so if they decide it is not credible. Below is an excerpt from Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.9.

3.9 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE - It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.

 

[Macara]

First, I would just say you both could be correct. When it comes to what constitutes enough premeditation, the case law basically leaves it to the trier of fact (jury) if their is some evidence suggesting premeditation. So it sounds like the two of you are having a classic juror debate - not one the case law will settle one way or the other.

As for the evidence you have mentioned, I think it is very strong circumstantial evidence that suggests guilt of something (interesting fact: DNA is actually circumstantial evidence by definition).

Finally, please don't get me started on the manner in which the body was disposed. I just cannot imagine that it was done alone - I PERSONALLY think someone else had to have assisted. But that is just my PERSONAL intuition.

Hello and welcome to WS.. I must say I have enjoyed reading all the posts and your responses. So I must say thank you to you for taking the time to do this for us.

What I have bolded I agree with you. The car that she left at Amscot has raised a big question for me. Who drove her from Amscot to her parents home and who drove her back? She did not walk, that is for sure.

 

[cecybeans]

Yeah, I should have constructed that better - my laptop needed to go on the charger, but I was downstairs and the charger's upstairs.

To try again - if neither side said a word about Casey carrying the body, would it be proper for a juror to use their opinion that Casey could not have carried the body as a basis for arriving at their verdict?

I'm sure it happens, and if nobody from the jury talks about it nobody would ever know.

OMG I hope LA doesn't get any bright ideas like "If she can't lift, you must acquit".

 

[rhornsby]

Yeah, I should have constructed that better - my laptop needed to go on the charger, but I was downstairs and the charger's upstairs.

To try again - if neither side said a word about Casey carrying the body, would it be proper for a juror to use their opinion that Casey could not have carried the body as a basis for arriving at their verdict?

I'm sure it happens, and if nobody from the jury talks about it nobody would ever know.

No, a juror can disregard the arguments of either party and come to their own conclusion. The only thing a juror cannot do is their own investigation - meaning whatever conclusions they reach must be based on whatever evidence was presented and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence (meaning a juror can draw on personal experience and common sense in reaching a conclusion).

 

[rhornsby]

OMG I hope LA doesn't get any bright ideas like "If she can't lift, you must acquit".

"Kronk is Bunk"

 

[impatientredhead]

OMG I hope LA doesn't get any bright ideas like "If she can't lift, you must acquit".

As long as the state doesn't bring in a laundry bag with 35lbs in it and ask her to lift it. I will have to drive down there and slap someone myself if we see that stunt repeated.

 

[cecybeans]

Linda KB: Forensics is Junk Science!

Linda DB: So is Ugly Coping!

(some bartender needs to name a drink that)

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

OMG I hope LA doesn't get any bright ideas like "If she can't lift, you must acquit".

There are pictures of KC carrying Caylee. I doubt seriously that someone placed Caylee on Kc's hip or in her arms because KC was just too feeble a 22 year old to pick up her own child. I don't know how much Caylee weighed but 50 pounds, is just that, 50 pounds. I do believe the SA would blow this outta the water.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Linda KB: Forensics is Junk Science!

Linda DB: So is Ugly Coping!

(some bartender needs to name a drink that)

I need me some Ugly Coping on the Rocks please.:crazy:

 

[Reagan]

rhornsby,

I'm replying to one of your posts from the previous thread but...

And for the record, I would welcome a former prosecutor on here (FYI they would most likely be a criminal defense lawyer now). At least then, someone else could verify my "legal opinion."

I've seen and heard of so many former prosecutors and I've always wondered what makes them do such a drastic switchover.

For example (and probably not the best ) on Nancy Grace, I would say 90% of the defense attys are introduced as so and so, former prosecutor, now defense attorney. And she will ask them a question and so on.

I think I have a pretty good idea why pros go to the other side, but I would like to hear your thoughts as to why many make a drastic switch to being a defense atty. Without violating TOS of course.

Also, I haven't really followed your thread, so I know practically nothing about you. I did see you on wesh once I believe (but could be wrong), and you stated something to the effect of being embarassed for the so-called dream team defense because they didn't appear to be well versed in FL law. I couldn't agree more.
Anyway, my point is that I was wondering if you were a former prosecutor at any time?

 

[Reagan]

Hello and welcome to WS.. I must say I have enjoyed reading all the posts and your responses. So I must say thank you to you for taking the time to do this for us.

What I have bolded I agree with you. The car that she left at Amscot has raised a big question for me. Who drove her from Amscot to her parents home and who drove her back? She did not walk, that is for sure.

I was under the impression that it was Tony L. By the time he got there, she was already outside of her car, with groceries not purchased from a store, but taken from home. Is that not the day they drove back to KC's to break into the shed for the gas can?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Reagan]

OMG I hope LA doesn't get any bright ideas like "If she can't lift, you must acquit".

I doubt that will ever work again. Johny Cochran would be the first and more than likely the last that would ever be able to pull that off.