Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[songline]

Alert! fftopic:

Mr. Hornsby, I will say this, when my daughters case is at a point that it can be sealed, I'm going to make sure she contacts you!
On Topic...

So did I understand you correctly? Because of our participation here on WS, we could be struck from the jury?

<and here I was hoping they would move the case to Polk County, Dang>

BINGO...
So that is why he offers free advise that is one sided:waitasec:
Did not offer free advise to the state.... JMHO

 

[lisalei321]

BINGO...
So that is why he offers free advise that is one sided:waitasec:
Did not offer free advise to the state.... JMHO

Songline...I don't even have words for this :banghead:

 

[magnolia]

It's true that people certainly can and do commit premeditated murders without having a well thought out disposal plan or any disposal plan whatsover.

However, in this case the fact is that someone did attempt to dispose of Caylee's body. Moreover, I think we can agree that their disposal method demonstrates a lack of forethought.

Pay attention to the theory the prosecution will eventually offer to the jury -- I suspect it will take place in their final closing argument (rebuttal) to the jury. If the SA comes to claim that Casey had been planning to murder Caylee over the course of days, weeks or months (not a spur of the moment murder), then it is entirely reasonable to believe that Casey had the time to devise a far better disposal plan than simply placing Caylee's body inside bags and laying it on the top of the ground near the house days after the alleged premeditated murder.

As things now stand, the way Caylee's body was allegedly disposed of by Casey and the apparant timing of that disposal -- she drove around with the dead body in her trunk for days -- does not suggest that this disposal was part of a thought out and considered murder plot. Rather, the manner and the timing of the disposal work against the notion that such was the case.

Wudge, we are talking about an immature, irresponsible, 22 yr. old. Casey may have devised a plan to dispose of the body. However, she was not prepared for the actual reality of having a dead body on her hands. Much like a child would do, she wanted to be free of her burden, but the inconvenient, morbid disposal, could be put off another day. Just as she put off reporting her daughter missing for 31 days, she put off disposing of the body until such time she had no other choice. The rest is, IMO, quite simple to figure out. This very "girlie girl" cringed at the thought of having to handle what was now a decomposing, rotting, body.
IMO~

 

[babycat]

BINGO...
So that is why he offers free advise that is one sided:waitasec:
Did not offer free advise to the state.... JMHO

Huh? Baez solicited advice from other defense attorneys, including Mr. Hornsby. The state did not contact Mr. Hornsby for advice, unless you know something I don't.

 

[songline]

lol
He is a DEFENSE Attorney

While I am quoting you I am also addressing Mr.Hornsby

Yes I do know....but he did say that if he feels someone is guilty he does not take the case but if he was summoned to take one when he had to take them, he did the best he could for the client. fair enough.

HE was not summoned to this case. He does find her guilty. WHY is he standing on her side?
I am the the suspicious kind. I don't get that there is nothing in it for him to take this much of his time for one whom he said is guilty. and I imagine it may be CA offering him a job a few posts above this one.
I WOULD GET IT IF HE FELT SHE IS INNOCENT. and I would rever that position. Fight for the innocent Sure...Spend endless hours for the guilty and not be paid = hinky meter, especially since he did say he would not want a case knowing someone is guilty.
I do think that if you do not have a direct link to the deed you should NOT go for a DP. He clarified a lot for me....

Most attorneys I know work insane hours, they have no time, he is putting in endless hours into a case that he is one sided on :waitasec: Sorry Hinky meeter up.
Not questioning him as a great attorney at all... I believe he is...I do like his answers.
I do not believe blogging is a hobby not for a busy lawyer. If he refuses to take a guilty client why did he entertain JB?

 

[Kentjbkent]

lol
He is a DEFENSE Attorney

I thought there was previous discussion about this....that he is not a DEFENSE attorney, but refers to himself as a TRIAL attorney? :waitasec:

 

[MD MOMMY]

In the legal community, more people were focused on Baez's actions - because at the end of the day, he is the one who did not consult his client on the appropriate way to act.

I tell all my clients, the trial starts the minute you wake up. Because you never know if someone you run into on the way to the courthouse just might be going to jury duty that day.

True, but at the end of the day..you can only lead a horse to water. He "may" have been telling her what to/not to do. If you haven't noticed KC tends to do what KC wants to do despite the consequences. JMO of course.

 

[rhornsby]

Alert! fftopic:

Mr. Hornsby, I will say this, when my daughters case is at a point that it can be sealed, I'm going to make sure she contacts you!

On Topic...

So did I understand you correctly? Because of our participation here on WS, we could be struck from the jury?

<and here I was hoping they would move the case to Polk County, Dang>

Yes. I would think actively participating in any online discussion involving Casey Anthony (whether you are Pro or Anti) would cause you to be removed for cause.

And god help Casey Anthony if her jury pool comes from Polk County (I should know, I just had Thanksgiving in Davenport).

 

[whats the punch line]

Yes I do know....but he did say that if he feels someone is guilty he does not take the case but if he was summoned to take one when he had to take them, he did the best he could for the client. fair enough.

HE was not summoned to this case. He does find her guilty. WHY is he standing on her side?
I am the the suspicious kind. I don't get that there is nothing in it for him to take this much of his time for one whom he said is guilty. I WOULD GET IT IF HE FELT SHE IS INNOCENT. and I would rever that position. Fight for the innocent Sure...Spend endless hours for the guilty and not be paid = hinky meter, especially since he did say he would not want a case knowing someone is guilty.
I think that if you do not have a direct link to the deed you should go for a DP. He clarified a lot for me....

Most attorneys I know work insane hours, they have no time. He thinks she is guilty, is not getting paid, and is putting in endless hours into a case that he is one sided on :waitasec: Sorry Hinky meeter up.
Not questioning him as a great attorney at all... I do not believe blogging is a hobby not for a busy lawyer.
If he refuses to take a guilty client why did he entertain JB?

I don't feel he is standing on her side.

My take, is that he is attempting to clarify the legal issues which have been muddied else where. And calling things as he sees them (you could hardly expect otherwise.)

I think he is pro good lawyering, good knowledge of the florida criminal justice system and very much against sensationalism, and half truths. (IMO)

Just like you'd want your plumber to tell you what would happen if you don't fix the backed up septic tank properly. He's letting us know not only the up side, but the down side as well.

 

[Snaz]

I thought there was previous discussion about this....that he is not a DEFENSE attorney, but refers to himself as a TRIAL attorney? :waitasec:

His own website says he is a "Criminal Defense Attorney". Specifying that an attorney is a "trial" attorney rather than a "defense" attorney is merely semantics. IMO

http://www.richardhornsby.com/

 

[rhornsby]

WHY did you offer free advise to JB and not the state? :waitasec:
I read that you do not think that KC is innocent.

Well, have I ever said I have not offered unsolicited advice to the State; have I? :innocent:

 

[whats the punch line]

His own website says he is a "Criminal Defense Attorney". Specifying that an attorney is a "trial" attorney rather than a "defense" attorney is merely semantics. IMO

http://www.richardhornsby.com/

I could be mistaken, but I believe there is a particular course of study ( such as presenting information to the jury, power of persuation, examining/cross examining a witness.)

I disagree that it is semantics.

Some trial attorneys do not handle criminal cases. Just as some trial attorneys do not handle med mal cases.

There are specialties, just like doctors.

 

[rhornsby]

While I am quoting you I am also addressing Mr.Hornsby

Yes I do know....but he did say that if he feels someone is guilty he does not take the case but if he was summoned to take one when he had to take them, he did the best he could for the client. fair enough.

HE was not summoned to this case. He does find her guilty. WHY is he standing on her side?
I am the the suspicious kind. I don't get that there is nothing in it for him to take this much of his time for one whom he said is guilty. and I imagine it may be CA offering him a job a few posts above this one.
I WOULD GET IT IF HE FELT SHE IS INNOCENT. and I would rever that position. Fight for the innocent Sure...Spend endless hours for the guilty and not be paid = hinky meter, especially since he did say he would not want a case knowing someone is guilty.
I do think that if you do not have a direct link to the deed you should NOT go for a DP. He clarified a lot for me....

Most attorneys I know work insane hours, they have no time, he is putting in endless hours into a case that he is one sided on :waitasec: Sorry Hinky meeter up.
Not questioning him as a great attorney at all... I believe he is...I do like his answers.
I do not believe blogging is a hobby not for a busy lawyer. If he refuses to take a guilty client why did he entertain JB?

I'll tell you what, I'll post what I want to say - and you can read or not read it. Just like I will choose to read or not read your comments.

Who cares if I am some secret agent sent by the evil empire to sway public opinion on WebSleuths?

I am not a prosecutor, never have been, never claimed to be. I have always claimed to be criminal defense lawyer, and I am by definition and certification a criminal trial lawyer.

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."

 

[Snaz]

I could be mistaken, but I believe there is a particular course of study ( such as presenting information to the jury, power of persuation, examining/cross examining a witness.)

I disagree that it is semantics.

Some trial attorneys do not handle criminal cases. Just as some trial attorneys do not handle med mal cases.

There are specialties, just like doctors.

My point is that on his website, it states "Orlando Criminal Defense Lawyer" right up at the very top. Down at the bottom, it also states "Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer". So........ what it boils down to, he IS a defense attorney.

 

[songline]

Reading through the thread I believe your question has been asked and answered.

Actually my suspicion is not answered, but I do not think it will be. so I am done.
I think he is a good lawyer, I did get a lot from his answers all accept motive for all his time.
So if you are asking me to be done with it I hear you. :blowkiss:

 

[songline]

I'll tell you what, I'll post what I want to say - and you can read or not read it. Just like I will choose to read or not read your comments.

Who cares if I am some secret agent sent by the evil empire to sway public opinion on WebSleuths?

I am not a prosecutor, never have been, never claimed to be. I have always claimed to be criminal defense lawyer, and I am by definition and certification a criminal trial lawyer.

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 never questiond opinion...I happen to like what you say, your legal answers were great.
Only questioned motive...but It is OK if I get no resolve on this.
As for who cares etc (BBM).......I think everyone does care about that, swaying opinions is not cool.

 

[coco puff]

Mr. Hornsby, How would you address the duct tape? Obviously you would have to contend that it was applied post mortem. I can&#8217;t imagine telling a jury that the duct tape was applied after Caylee accidently drowned in the pool to stop bodily fluid leakage. No one is going to believe that instead of calling 911 on her oh-so-handy multitude of phones, that she instead decided to seek out the duct tape to protect her car from having fluid from her just deceased daughter. In fact, they may decided that if the lawyer thinks this action is plausible, they might think him somewhat of a monster as well.

 

[BondJamesBond]

...and now for something completely different. ython:

Q&A

 

[Kentjbkent]

While I am quoting you I am also addressing Mr.Hornsby

Yes I do know....but he did say that if he feels someone is guilty he does not take the case but if he was summoned to take one when he had to take them, he did the best he could for the client. fair enough.

HE was not summoned to this case. He does find her guilty. WHY is he standing on her side?
I am the the suspicious kind. I don't get that there is nothing in it for him to take this much of his time for one whom he said is guilty. and I imagine it may be CA offering him a job a few posts above this one.
I WOULD GET IT IF HE FELT SHE IS INNOCENT. and I would rever that position. Fight for the innocent Sure...Spend endless hours for the guilty and not be paid = hinky meter, especially since he did say he would not want a case knowing someone is guilty.
I do think that if you do not have a direct link to the deed you should NOT go for a DP. He clarified a lot for me....

Most attorneys I know work insane hours, they have no time, he is putting in endless hours into a case that he is one sided on :waitasec: Sorry Hinky meeter up.Not questioning him as a great attorney at all... I believe he is...I do like his answers.
I do not believe blogging is a hobby not for a busy lawyer. If he refuses to take a guilty client why did he entertain JB?

I don't think Mr. Hornsby's participation on this forum or any of the other forums he is visiting are necessarily for "sinister" reasons (although I will admit that in the beginning I :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec.

I personally believe that his participation here is just a part of a "marketing plan" he has come up with and I don't think there is anything wrong with that!

Attorneys in our small town are a dime a dozen, and I imagine the competition is quite fierce in a larger town, especially if you are still young to the business. In order to get an edge on your competitors, it takes creative "marketing skills" and I believe RH himself even commented on this thread that he considers himself to be more internet savvy than older, more experienced attorneys. Perhaps he is trying to utilize the internet to the best of his ability, kwim?

I don't think RH is necessarily taking a stand on DEFENDING KC in this case, but is instead, attempting to "market" his TRIAL SKILLS by sharing (general)information with us, answering LawGuru etc web questions, commentating for local TV, writing (almost) daily blog on recent high profile case (KC). NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT and it appears that some are learning from his postings. He even stated that he is here for strictly selfish purposes and again, NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

However.....(and you did know there was a however, right, RH? LOL)

I am not sure his approach in getting here was best in the long run. Publicly bashing your colleagues, publicly criticizing law enforcement (and specifying particular persons), using extremely derrogatory names in reference to colleagues as well as possible jurors, does not appear to be beneficial to any business. (I would assume one would want an opinionated pitbull in the COURTROOM, but a calm, in control professional in public? (think Nejame)

I have been very fortunate to own successful businesses here in town but I can guarantee you that I did not earn my reputation (or $$$$) by publicly bashing/trashing my competitors. I focused solely on what services I could personally offer above my competitors while avoiding appearing in a negative manner to potential new clients. (Believe me, I am fully aware that anytime I am in public, I am representative of my businesses)

So Mr Hornsby's reasons behind posting here are not really relevent (imo), nor does it appear he has the "insight scoop" of the defense, but can share his interpretations of law from the point of a trial lawyer and maybe we can learn something....

And maybe, he will learn something as well....

 

[mydailyopinions]

Just going to add my:twocents:

In the beginning I thought Mr. Horsnby may have a one sided opinion only because he is a defense attorney. However, the further along this goes, I do firmly believe that he is here to discuss the laws that apply in Florida. Mr. Hornsby (as a defense attorney) has said he feels Casey is guilty, but is not sure what she is guilty of, I understand that.
I went back through Mr. Hornsby's media clips, and see that his opinion of things are not exactly one sided. Basically I have gathered that his side is the facts of what the laws are..
I personally do not think Mr. Hornsby would come here to sway public opinion with all the videos of him talking about frivolous motions, and how chloroform could be the nail in Casey's coffin.
I could be very wrong, but in my opinion, Mr. Hornsby seems to be on the side of the law, and not pro defense nor pro prosecution.
If I am wrong about this, either way, my opinion has not been swayed by any attempts he may or may not be making.
I still feel Casey is guilty of first degree murder, and even if the jury comes back with not guilty, I am still going to feel the same way.