Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[kew17]

Mr. Hornsby,

A month or so back, Baez did an interview with his buddy Geraldo. In that interview he was asked about if they would accept a plea deal at this point. Baez responded with, "Well, that would be up to KC, whether to accept or not." I'm interested in your opinion on his response. I found it to be just a tad on the admission of guilt side personally. I think the overwhelming majority also agreed that the proper response would have somehow incorporated something to the tune of, why? she's innocent or something of that nature.

Your thoughts and opinions on the matter please?

 

[mydailyopinions]

Question, Mr. Hornsby..
Casey told LE that she took Caylee to the Nanny at Sawgrass, then later recanted to her Mom or Rob that Caylee was snatched at Blanchard Park, and that the threat of harm would come if she called authorities...whatever..
How can the defense make this seem real? How can they even put forth the defense of fear for the family when she called LE with the protesters outside of the home threatening her parents? To me, this showed real fear. Will that call be allowed into trial?
Something is telling me that the defense will have no choice but to do away with the whole Nanny theory. I don't know how they could present this fake Nanny to the jury and make her appear real..

 

[logicalgirl]

First post after a long time reader! Have been fascinated by this discussion - very meaty and much to learn. I can see Mr.Hornsby has an excellent knowledge of the Florida justice system, and is a criminal trial attorney, but I question whether this is a marketing plan. If he is a Trial Attorney, who needs to know how to present information to the jury, and must have powerful presentation skills, what better way to practice and sharpen those skills than to come to WS to have a civil discussion with very informed and intelligent people. I think the experience would be of tremendous value. Trading something for us for something for him in a professional manner. It looks to me like he is already somewhat adjusting the "manner of his responses" to be more polished. In sales, practice makes perfect. And what else is defense but a form of a sales pitch? Where else could he get an education in legal presentation skills informally like this with a live discussion group?

 

[BeanE]

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.

It's a dessert topping *AND* a floor wax!

[ame="http://www.hulu.com/watch/61320/saturday-night-live-shimmer-floor-wax"]Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Shimmer Floor Wax@@AMEPARAM@@http://www.hulu.com/embed/PmMF9mJkZpU_yAAch_4SAA@@AMEPARAM@@PmMF9mJkZpU_yAAch_4SAA[/ame]

 

[cyberborg]

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.

Respectfully disagree.

KC does not plan, she acts and reacts.

KC killed Caylee out of spite/temper, because she hated CA more than she loved Caylee. She was working up to getting rid of her but did not have a definitive plan. She just did it.

KC reacted to the decomp by bagging and adding extra bagging.

KC reacted to disposal (probably GA and the gas can scare) by getting rid of the smell.

KC reacted to the car still smelling by trying to clean with paper towels, disguise with trash and then ... ultimately dumping it at Amscot

KC lives life 10 minutes at a time and she hadn't even thought through the ZFG story --- she just cobbled it together as needed --- as she always does. After all, it worked before!! KC is haphazard.

 

[Luzer]

Mr. Hornsby,

A month or so back, Baez did an interview with his buddy Geraldo. In that interview he was asked about if they would accept a plea deal at this point. Baez responded with, "Well, that would be up to KC, whether to accept or not." I'm interested in your opinion on his response. I found it to be just a tad on the admission of guilt side personally. I think the overwhelming majority also agreed that the proper response would have somehow incorporated something to the tune of, why? she's innocent or something of that nature.

Your thoughts and opinions on the matter please?

It is always up to the defendant whether to accept a plea, not the attorney. The attorney could present the plea offer in such a light that the defendant would not want to consider the deal.

 

[BeanE]

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

~ ~ ~ Legal Q&A for Richard Hornsby ~ ~ ~

Rhornsby,

Two of Casey's defense team members recently stated on national TV (48 Hours) that a stranger killed Caylee. We've also got the whole Kronk (SODDI) thing goin' on.

Given that, 1) can the defense additionally say at trial that Caylee's death was/may have been accidental?, and 2) can the jury consider that Caylee's death was/may have been accidental (whether or not the defense brings it up)?

TIA

BeanE

ETA for reference on 48 Hours:

"A stranger. It was a stranger involved," attorney Todd Macaluso says.

"Somebody else is the killer of this child," Kenney Baden adds.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...omebody-else-is-the-killer-of-this-child.html

 

[rhornsby]

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

~ ~ ~ Legal Q&A for Richard Hornsby ~ ~ ~

Rhornsby,

Two of Casey's defense team members recently stated on national TV (48 Hours) that a stranger killed Caylee. We've also got the whole Kronk (SODDI) thing goin' on.

Given that, 1) can the defense additionally say at trial that Caylee's death was/may have been accidental?, and 2) can the jury consider that Caylee's death was/may have been accidental (whether or not the defense brings it up)?

TIA

BeanE

ETA for reference on 48 Hours:

"A stranger. It was a stranger involved," attorney Todd Macaluso says.

"Somebody else is the killer of this child," Kenney Baden adds.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...omebody-else-is-the-killer-of-this-child.html

1. What an attorney says out of court (or even in court) is not evidence. So unless Casey herself says that someone else killed her daughter, nothing the attorneys say can be used against her as evidence or argument by the prosecutor (at least what the defense attorneys said outside of the courtroom).
2. If the defense can convince them based on the evidence presented at trial, then yes the jury can consider any possible arguments that can be inferred from that evidence.

 

[magnolia]

So she was smart enough to pre plan but dumb enough to get grossed out at her deed?
:waitasec:

I don't think it takes an exceptionally bright person to pre plan a murder, nor do I consider someone dumb because they may not be capable of predicting how they will react to having a dead body on their hands. I think Casey wanted to push Caylee's death under the rug. She procrastinated about the disposal just as she procrastinated about reporting Caylee missing.

 

[2goldfish]

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

~ ~ ~ Legal Q&A for Richard Hornsby ~ ~ ~

Rhornsby,

Two of Casey's defense team members recently stated on national TV (48 Hours) that a stranger killed Caylee. We've also got the whole Kronk (SODDI) thing goin' on.

Given that, 1) can the defense additionally say at trial that Caylee's death was/may have been accidental?, and 2) can the jury consider that Caylee's death was/may have been accidental (whether or not the defense brings it up)?

TIA

BeanE

ETA for reference on 48 Hours:

"A stranger. It was a stranger involved," attorney Todd Macaluso says.

"Somebody else is the killer of this child," Kenney Baden adds.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...omebody-else-is-the-killer-of-this-child.html

and more specifically, why would they go the soddi route when her only chance is to convince them it was an accident with panic cover? (which as I see it, cannot be ruled out)? is it to keep her off the stand and being chewed up on cross-exam?

 

[rhornsby]

Question, Mr. Hornsby..
Casey told LE that she took Caylee to the Nanny at Sawgrass, then later recanted to her Mom or Rob that Caylee was snatched at Blanchard Park, and that the threat of harm would come if she called authorities...whatever..
How can the defense make this seem real? How can they even put forth the defense of fear for the family when she called LE with the protesters outside of the home threatening her parents? To me, this showed real fear. Will that call be allowed into trial?
Something is telling me that the defense will have no choice but to do away with the whole Nanny theory. I don't know how they could present this fake Nanny to the jury and make her appear real..

I agree and have discussed this in a previous post. I think they will have to completely abandon the Nanny theory to have any credible chance.

 

[whats the punch line]

I'd like to understand Mr. Macaluso's statement in court, that they can prove someone put the body in the swamp while KC was incarcerated.

first, doesn't he have to put up or shut up?

second, can they really look at the prosecution, and say, well, it's right there in the discovery you gave us. Aren't they obligated to at least allude to where in the discovery this epiphany came from?
Thanks

 

[kew17]

It is always up to the defendant whether to accept a plea, not the attorney. The attorney could present the plea offer in such a light that the defendant would not want to consider the deal.

Thank you Luzer, and I am aware of that. My question for Mr. Hornsby was more geared to his opinion on the way Baez answered the question.

See, always, Baez answers, KC is innocent or not guilty, SODDI, ____insert response here. This was the first I've heard him leave a door open for his (Baez's) doubt of that fact, in turn leaving doubt in the minds of the viewers of that sound byte. JMHO

 

[songline]

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....

Marketing is marketing. and I do appreciate that.
Hay it worked for Obama. I use the inter net too for marketing.
I have no issue with marketing.

I hope after the KC trial the "A"s will be charged for messing up the case completely,Tempering with evidence, Former LE "daddy did know best". LOL. JMHO

 

[whats the punch line]

Another question,

Do you think the defense is running in circles, without a direction?

I mean first the nanny took her from sawgrass, then from blanchard park, then Jesse loved Caylee too much and he had access to everything, then R. Grund needed a human sacrifice, then Amy & co. could have whisked her away to PR, and at this juncture, R Kronk could be a suspect based on his past bad acts.

Is all this just to plant reasonable doubt? Or because they don't have a butler who did it?

 

[songline]

Another question,

Do you think the defense is running in circles, without a direction?

I mean first the nanny took her from sawgrass, then from blanchard park, then Jesse loved Caylee too much and he had access to everything, then R. Grund needed a human sacrifice, then Amy & co. could have whisked her away to PR, and at this juncture, R Kronk could be a suspect based on his past bad acts.

Is all this just to plant reasonable doubt? Or because they don't have a butler who did it?

IMHO everything from the clean up to the defence is to create reasonable doubt, miss trial :furious:

 

[whats the punch line]

NO...You said you would not take a case knowing someone is guilty. entertaining JB's request and advising him? :waitasec:
Sorry if I appear slow...But you also seem to advise CA a couple of posts above as to where a bad jury may be coming from. :waitasec: To me it does not fit with "I would not take the case of one who is guilty".
I am not here to antagonize you at all. I just believe what fits. In my mind eye it does not fit.

Again I'm going to state a good trial attorney advises you of the weak points in the case, or where the hurdles lie.

They will tell you this witness can do damage, or this statement may be hard to get by, or this document needs to be read by an expert, and I need to talk to a few of them.

Did it mean he didn't think we had a case? no
Did it mean we wouldn't get a judgement, or settlement? no
Did he think the defendants were innocent of wrongdoing? no

It merely meant it was information which could in the end affect the outcome.

as always, MHO

 

[whats the punch line]

IMHO everything from the clean up to the defence is to create reasonable doubt, miss trial :furious:

I guess my point is:

Did Miss Scarlett do it in the garage with duct tape?

It's like playing the game of clue.

 

[marspiter]

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.

See I just don't agree with this assesment. What your basically trying to say is that because Casey didn't have a definitive "plan" for disposal she couldn't have a "plan" for murder.

http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/2_01/2_28_01/regional_fiske_admits.shtml

This link is to a case here in NC that I remember very well and have some info about.

The mother in this linked case was pregnant and disguised the fact that she was pregnant. All her friends thought she gained weight but not one of them ever thought she was pregnant. That and who in their right mind is going to say to a woman "have you been gaining weight?". She was already a larger girl and tended to wear baggy or lose fit clothing.

She continued to party and drink as though nothing was wrong. In fact the night that she "delivered" she had been drinking and partying with friends. She woke up in the middle of the night and delivered the baby while the other people in the apartment were asleep. In fact one of her friends woke up after hearing noises in the bathroom and asked if she was ok. She said everything was fine and the friend went back to sleep. Mean while she was killing her baby by suffocation and eventual in order to make sure the job was finished she put her full weight on the baby and crushed it's chest.

She then cleaned the bathroom and all of the evidence. Placed it all in a trash bag and then into the trunk of her car. She made sure to leave before anyone else woke up and then took the body and evidence to her place of employment. The body was then placed in the dumpster behind the building.

The child's body was found in the local area land fill. The woman came forward saying she knew who's baby it was and began to give the police false names of students she had classes with. Eventually after checking out these stories the police asked her more in depth questions because of her lies. In the end she eventually admitted to the father of the child what she had done and he turned her in to police.

This woman had no "plan" as to the disposal other then she needed to get rid of the evidence. However she had more then ample time to form premeditation. In fact the only reason she didn't get first degree was because she was willing to plead out.

I always thought this linked case had some parallels to this Casey case.

 

[whats the punch line]

I think Mark Hacking is another example of that.