Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[RR0004]

Well...considering that I haven't heard the State speak...only the defense...I guess I'll have to wait and see what they present at trial. I don't know how one can prove an unknown theory "wrong" or evidence "insufficient" when we don't have a clue as to what will be presented.
Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but there is a heck of a lot of evidence now that I just can't ignore and say the State will have a tough time proving its case. I'll be mighty surprised if they don't.

 

[RR0004]

I guess I don't think of this as a pro-prosecution forum but rather a pro-justice forum. Sometimes that justice comes in the form of solid prosecution and sometimes in the form of a good defense.
I don't find rhornby's comments as any kind of defense of KC's innocence or guilt but rather just a defense perspective on the case. So I still don't understand the exercise and testing the waters references.
It is all about discussion to me and if the goal was to persuade us of something I am not sure what that would be exactly. I find it mostly just informative.

I agree...but IIRC RH did infer that the majority of people who were defending BS were doing so because he was pro-prosecution. Well, that's what I took from it. Remember, he came on when we were all discussing AL's tapes and their disclosure by BS. He stated that BS was misleading his audience by misrepresenting the law and was basically pandering to those who supported the prosecution just for approval sake. So, I suppose it would be realistic to assume that he may have viewed those who spoke in support of BS as being pro-prosecution (and perhaps blind to the defenses' case). JMHO
Am I making sense?

ETA: so perhaps, not a pro-prosecution forum, but rather a seemingly pro-prosecution thread?

 

[babycat]

Well...considering that I haven't heard the State speak...only the defense...I guess I'll have to wait and see what they present at trial. I don't know how one can prove an unknown theory "wrong" or evidence "insufficient" when we don't have a clue as to what will be presented at trial.
Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but there is a heck of a lot of evidence now that I just can't ignore and say the State will have a tough time proving its case. I'll be mighty surprised if they don't.

bbm

My point exactly. The strength of the State's case depends a great deal on what will and will not be admitted at trial. Some of us can't just ignore that, either, and say that they will not have a tough time proving their case. I think there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that Casey is guilty. But what parts of this evidence will be admitted, and what portion will be explained away by a credible expert/witness remains to be seen.

Sure, we can't "unknow" all of the things we know now that may not be admitted at trial- we've been following the case from day 1. But some jurors at trial, well, maybe they haven't followed it as closely. Maybe they're tired, and sleeping in a hotel. Maybe they give just as much credence to the defense argument as they do the prosecutors. Maybe they are impressed by a high profile witness. Maybe they are not privy to all of the bonehead things Baez did before trial, or all of the innerworkings of the family dynamics. Maybe they haven't bounced their thoughts off of hundreds of people as we have here, which helped shape our opinions. Maybe they have others on the jury who will sway their opinion. Maybe they are stressed and tired and missing their kids, and are unwilling to punish a young woman when they aren't 100%, without a doubt, convinced of her guilt- or the extent of her role in the crime.

This is the main reason I am not convinced that she will be convicted so readily. I just don't see any harm in exploring both sides of the case, which will possibly be presented at trial I hope this explains why some of us are still not convinced of steadfastness of the state's case. We had over a year to examine just the evidence that has been released, ask questions, research, speculate. The jury won't have that long.

 

[TakeNote]

i think of this forum as pro-CAYLEE

it will be very interesting when we get to trial.....

do you think the trial will be next year still?

 

[rhornsby]

First of all, I would like to thank Richard Hornsby for taking his time to answer some of our questions. And special thanks to Tricia for letting this thread stand.

However, after reading this very enlightening thread, I have to wonder if we have just been subjected (and enjoyed) a mini version of the defense's opening arguments. It didn't take long for an expert attorney to completely turn the opinion of the possible outcomes in the minds of some.

Now while I realize that this is not a fair test, as it has been one sided, and those who truly feel that the State has a good case against Casey have given up on this thread long ago. I still feel it was an interesting exercise. (Also, in this exercise, we have only dealt with the discovery that has been released to date and have basically ignored most of it.)

Look how fast some of us gave up on some very incriminating, yet highly circumstantial evidence, when an expert attorney gave his opinion that either it wouldn't be allowed in as evidence, or that it didn't carry the necessary weight.

Again, the evidence is not all in and this was not a fair measure of a trial, but I think it was interesting exercise nonetheless.

Maybe it is late and I have had too much leftover turkey, but it makes me wonder, wouldn't it be interesting if we could get an expert attorney from both sides and stage a mock trial based on just the evidence (or discovery) known to date?

Let me at 'em; let me at 'em!

 

[mydailyopinions]

Mr. Hornsby, maybe you can answer a question that has bothered me from the start of this case.
Baez has maintained all along that Casey is innocent and that her child was kidnapped by Zenaida.
My mind continues to tell me that if this is true at all, that Baez would have gone through with Casey and had someone do a composite sketch of this person and would have released it to the media. Even before Caylee was found in December, I can remember not one time Casey, nor anyone who cares about the charges against her going out into the public and pleading for this kidnapper to bring this child home.
The defense has claimed that the detectives from the start were building a case against her, however the defense themselves did nothing to try and find Caylee.
Is this normal? Would it have taken too much time out of their day to do a composite of Zenaida, or for Baez to go on camera with his client to give a plea for Caylee? Or, would you agree that you can't do a composite of a person who doesn't exist, and can't make a plea for a child when you know they are dead?

 

[rhornsby]

I agree...but IIRC RH did infer that the majority of people who were defending BS were doing so because he was pro-prosecution. Well, that's what I took from it. Remember, he came on when we were all discussing AL's tapes and their disclosure by BS. He stated that BS was misleading his audience by misrepresenting the law and was basically pandering to those who supported the prosecution just for approval sake. So, I suppose it would be realistic to assume that he may have viewed those who spoke in support of BS as being pro-prosecution (and perhaps blind to the defenses' case). JMHO
Am I making sense?

ETA: so perhaps, not a pro-prosecution forum, but rather a seemingly pro-prosecution thread?

My beef with BS was that he was lying about the law to get people all worked up. The more sensational or anti-Casey the headline the better the ratings for WFTV.

If you read my original rant in its entirety you will see two other examples where BS lied about the law.

One was where he criticizes Baez for seeking court permission to subpoena records. When WESH came to me about that thinking it was some huge blunder on the defense's side or that it signified Cindy and George did not want to cooperate anymore I said NO THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY OR BAD LAWYERING going on.

Rather, I told them that Baez was required by law to seek permission to subpoena anybody's records from a phone company, even if that person consents in advance.

What story do you think got the most attention that week? The one where BS misstated the law to assist Belich; or my "boring" story that said Baez was doing what he was required by law to do.

And the reason I came on here is simple, to set the record straight. I saw people posting complete misinformation - but the minute I challenged it, it fairly quickly became clear the missinformation was false. (I mean geez, people were posting my civil-traffic record all over the place like it meant something, I had to come on and tell them where to find the real juicy criminal stuff

I have nothing to hide and I am not pro-defense. I just happen to know the law. In my life as Joe Citizen, I am probably pro-prosecution; but as a defense lawyer (I have never been a prosecutor and my father was a criminal defense attorney before me) I am probably prosecution-skeptical.

Anyway, probably more than anything, I am a fan of good lawyering and a critic of bad lawyering - nothing more.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby, maybe you can answer a question that has bothered me from the start of this case.
Baez has maintained all along that Casey is innocent and that her child was kidnapped by Zenaida.
My mind continues to tell me that if this is true at all, that Baez would have gone through with Casey and had someone do a composite sketch of this person and would have released it to the media. Even before Caylee was found in December, I can remember not one time Casey, nor anyone who cares about the charges against her going out into the public and pleading for this kidnapper to bring this child home.
The defense has claimed that the detectives from the start were building a case against her, however the defense themselves did nothing to try and find Caylee.
Is this normal? Would it have taken too much time out of their day to do a composite of Zenaida, or for Baez to go on camera with his client to give a plea for Caylee? Or, would you agree that you can't do a composite of a person who doesn't exist, and can't make a plea for a child when you know they are dead?

I think your last sentence would be an excellent argument to the jury, that is what I think.

Like cold water being splashed on your face.

 

[rhornsby]

So, it seems that it would certainly be aggravated child abuse if a child had duct tape placed over their mouth pre-mortem since the intent was at bare minimum to torture said child. Most people would know that putting duct tape on a 2 year old's mouth would have a high probability for respiratory distress since anyone that has ever taken CPR knows that respiratory distress is the leading cause of death in children.

I haven't seen anything that says Casey ever took CPR, but otherwise I agree. If the state can show it was there pre-mortem you have evidence of Agg Child Abuse.

 

[TakeNote]

can defense change their story during the trial?....put KC on the stand and have her give the *true story* about what happend, say an accident, fear of what her mother will do.....she panics ...starts drinking, drugin and before she knows it...she is caught up in these lies....*ugly coping*....

can the defense do something like that?.....if they can...then what could happen?

thanks

and im just asking what if.....ok....i know about the duct tape...and i think that is going to be a hard one for the defense to get by.....but im asking what if they get by the duct tape.....

 

[rhornsby]

Bottom-line: If this case is so lacking a needed 'smoking gun' then the Defense would not be working as hard to throw RK under the bus,, work so hard to shape up the basis for appeal after conviction or, file 25 motions to preclude the DP.

IMHO conviction is a foregone conclusion by the Defense, they are working on the sentencing and future appeals.

Like others I'd like to know what was presented at the Grand Jury that supported the indictment of Murder 1. We have not seen everything yet, nor how the SA weaves it together.

The Indictment lists who testifies, so go check there. I believe only three jurors testified to the Grand Jury, Dr. G, Detective Padilla, and George Anthony.

But remember, the Grand Jury is allowed to hear hearsay and other evidence that might not be admissible at trial.

As for your first sentence, you would be incorrect. This being a DP case, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel if Baez did not file the motions he has.

 

[mydailyopinions]

I think your last sentence would be an excellent argument to the jury, that is what I think.

Like cold water being splashed on your face.

Put yourself in Baez's shoes Mr. Hornsby before the body was found. If your client was telling you that Zenaida took her child and she is innocent, would providing a composite sketch of the kidnapper be something you would have done in her defense? Or, is it in the minds of defense attorneys that finding what happened to this child the state's job and LE's job? Would this strictly for you be about defending your client, and just allowing others to deal with a missing child?
I guess I have a hard time understanding the lack of moral obligations to a missing child that has come from the defense the entire time, and am trying to sort out in my mind if it is normal to see this lack of reaction from the defense side?

 

[TakeNote]

The Indictment lists who testifies, so go check there. I believe only three jurors testified to the Grand Jury, Dr. G, Detective Padilla, and George Anthony.

But remember, the Grand Jury is allowed to hear hearsay and other evidence that might not be admissible at trial.

As for your first sentence, you would be incorrect. This being a DP case, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel if Baez did not file the motions he has.

i dont think it would have been dr. G....caylee's body wasnt found yet...unless dr. G would be for the car or something....hmm..:waitasec:

 

[rhornsby]

ITA.

Mr. Hornsby, I have enjoyed having you here answering our questions. You seem like an intelligent attorney. I don't, however, agree with your treatment of Shaeffer. But aside from that, I have found your posts to be quite informative.

May I ask, respectfully, in your years as a defense attorney, how many murder cases have you defended, and what percentage of those did you get an aquittal? Also, are you death penalty qualified? Thank you.

1. Zero murder cases, 1 manslaughter case, 2 attempted murder cases.
2. N/A, lost manslaughter, won both attempted murder cases.
3. I believe I would be qualified to sit second chair.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Bottom-line: If this case is so lacking a needed 'smoking gun' then the Defense would not be working as hard to throw RK under the bus,, work so hard to shape up the basis for appeal after conviction or, file 25 motions to preclude the DP.

IMHO conviction is a foregone conclusion by the Defense, they are working on the sentencing and future appeals.

Like others I'd like to know what was presented at the Grand Jury that supported the indictment of Murder 1. We have not seen everything yet, nor how the SA weaves it together.

After hearing the lecture of AL, I would have to agree. Seems they are all expecting a conviction and are now focusing on the sentencing and future appeals.
What happened to "the world will understand once this goes to court?"

 

[rhornsby]

After hearing the lecture of AL, I would have to agree. Seems they are all expecting a conviction and are now focusing on the sentencing and future appeals.
What happened to "the world will understand once this goes to court?"

The real trial for most death penalty cases doesn't start until the sentencing phase. Because then you are fighting to save a life, one that some people will be arguing is not worth saving.

 

[rhornsby]

I have found Roy Kronk's next lawsuit: See Gamer Sues World of Warcraft Maker for Ruining his Life

p.s. I'm kidding... kind of.

 

[believe09]

Good morning, Mr. Hornsby-O/T I have come to the conclusion that you do not sleep...

 

[mydailyopinions]

Mr. Hornsby, I hope I am not way out of line asking this question, but will because I am so curious about it..
If Baez looses this case (which I still believe he will), what will it do to his reputation in Florida? If anything?

 

[mydailyopinions]

I have found Roy Kronk's next lawsuit: See Gamer Sues World of Warcraft Maker for Ruining his Life

p.s. I'm kidding... kind of.

OMG, this is insane!
This sounds like a case for Mr. Morgan!
LOL, sorry, but this is just hilarious:crazy:!