Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[coco puff]

Mr. Hornsby, do you have an idea of what kind of juror profile the defense should be looking for? I do but I think it is unlikely the prosecution will allow 12, young, childless, horny um... I mean, girlfriend challenged, guys to serve as the jury.

 

[Wudge]

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.

Regarding the audience in any website that contains crime forums, my experience is that the vast majority of the posters will almost assuredly have a strong bias toward 'guilty' (pro prosecution bias) in most every high-profile case.

FWIW

 

[rhornsby]

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?

He will probably just disappear and be just another trivia answer.

If he wins though...

 

[whats the punch line]

Good Morning-

What do you think of Casey's appearance when in hearings? Don't attorneys attempt to have the client dress and appear as if they are innocent law abiding citizens?

In my opinion, the manner in which she is dressing, and appears, causes more attacks on her.

Don't you think they'd try to make her appear in a manner in which people would sympathize with her? (an impossible feat, I agree, but still....)

This question also applies to controlling her actions and behavior in the court room

 

[rhornsby]

Good Morning-

What do you think of Casey's appearance when in hearings? Don't attorneys attempt to have the client dress and appear as if they are innocent law abiding citizens?

In my opinion, the manner in which she is dressing, and appears, causes more attacks on her.

Don't you think they'd try to make her appear in a manner in which people would sympathize with her? (an impossible feat, I agree, but still....)

This question also applies to controlling her actions and behavior in the court room

Well, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with what she has been wearing.

It could be worse, she could show up in her jailhouse blues.

 

[mydailyopinions]

He will probably just disappear and be just another trivia answer.

If he wins though...

LOL, right...

Maybe this is just my way of thinking, but since he can't take first seat to this, it seems if they loose, he will be the only one to become the trivia answer, and if they win, then Andrea Lyons and LKB will have one more for their record while little ol Baez just is thrown into the corner...

 

[Wudge]

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.


SNIP

Sheaffer hoped to get a piece of the crimetainment industry pie, which, as you've correctly pointed out, requires those who play in that rat hole to obtain ratings so as to drive revenue. And the way crimetainment denizens obtain ratings is by offering a guilty perspective. That industry well knows that that 'guilty' sells. 'Not guilty' is a channel changer/page turner.

 

[LambChop]

Regarding the audience in any website that contains crime forums, my experience is that the vast majority of the posters will almost assuredly have a strong bias toward 'guilty' (pro prosecution bias) in most every high-profile case.

FWIW

Maybe it is because they are crime forums and there was a crime committed and a suspect is involved. Evidence is presented and people come to conclusions good or bad. If there is enough evidence of reasonable doubt to believe someone else may be responsible for the crime I believe posters would be speaking up as they have done here in this forum for Mr. Kronk. A crime having been committed and discussing all the evidence and lack of evidence to prove someone else committed the crime it only stands to reason must posters would be thinking "guilty" as charged.

I don't think it is mob mentality at all as this forum is well constructed and alternate views and opinions are welcome here. May not be well received by most posters but if based on factual information I believe most of the posters would accept the facts or investigate further to assure information presented is correct. Don't think it is "fun" that someone's life is on the line and that a child is dead because another mother just changed her mind about responsibility. Not reporting a child missing (fact) and partying for 31 days (fact) is not taking responsibility, plain and simple. The child ended up dead (fact) and Mom did not seem to care.

SA knows what they have, we obviously don't know it all. But what we do know is that at this point there is no proof that anyone other than KC is responsibile for her child's death. Once the defense presents their case everyone may change their minds. But for now, defense has shown us nothing to prove KC is not responsible for the death of her child.

With the "Sunshine Laws" the State's documented evidence is released to the public so how is that mob mentality. It is what it is, no more, no less. The best defense offers is that the State's evidence is "junk science". JMO

 

[Tracey276]

Unless the defense has listed another witness to explain away the nanny (they have not) I cannot conceive of any way to explain it away convincingly without her doing so.

Mr. Hornsby,

I find this one of the most fascinating aspects of the case. I also don't see how they explain away the nanny story without her taking the stand. However, I was thinking, since the jury cannot consider anything NOT heard inside the four walls of the courtroom during trial, I am guessing the defense will never try and use the nanny story. That would, in essence be their best bet, STAY AWAY from the nanny story.

But as I type this, I don't see how the defense can go in a completely different direction. KC told EVERYONE the nanny story. Had she not given that story and kept quiet (insert KC's ego here, thinking she could make everyone believe her lies) she may have been able to go with a more believable defense altogether.

So, my question after all that thought is this. How does the defense go in a completely different direction when his own client has told everyone it was "zanny the nanny"? How can he NOT go with the nanny stole my child story?

PS.Thank you for answering my jury question so I could understand better.

 

[MysticOne]

I understand what you are saying, but why shouldn't we be listening to this? This is the same sort of thing that a juror will hear at trial. (Not directed to you, it was really just a rhetorical question...I understand the nature of your post.)



As far as people giving up on incriminating information because a defense attorney shot it down, I can say that many, many times I have thought in this case (hell, even POSTED in this case) "This is it! The smoking gun!" Only to call my mother on the phone (another dear websleuths member ) and find us both shooting holes in our own theories. My mom is certainly no defense attorney- we're just two normal (well, maybe not normal) people who realize that even though we want the case to be airtight, there will be holes in the case when it goes to trial, and people on the jury might be swayed by the defense.

Some of us had these doubts before any defense attorney posted here, but they aren't always popular theories or welcome opinions, so we just keep quiet.

Do I think Casey is guilty of murdering Caylee? Yes! Do I want to see her serve LWOP? Yes! Am I convinced that she will be convicted of first degree murder, or get the death penalty, or serve lwop, etc, based on the case the state has now, before we know that will be allowed as evidence? No.

I am sorry if I did not express my true sentiments properly, maybe it was the late hour or the leftover turkey :waitasec:

I am very thankful for this thread and DO think we should be reading here. It has given me some very interesting food for thought. In my mind, it put me in the shoes of the jury, which is what I meant by it being an exercise of an attorney to work with a group of people and see if he could persuade them to re-think their previous ways of thinking about the possible eventual outcome of this case.

My main point was, wouldn't it be an interesting discussion if we could get two expert attorneys (pro-defense and pro-prosecution) feeding us what they would at trial (based on just the discovery we have to date) in the way of a mock trial.

Again, I am most thankful to have read Richard Hornsby's comments, and they have really made me re-think some things I thought certain.

 

[Tracey276]

if they had it, they were obligated to release it to Baez...in a specific time frame from receiving it. They haven't. (IMHO)

I believe there are some pieces of "discovery" (evidence) that the SA and the defense may have that does not have to be released to the public under the sunshine law. So, I believe it is very possible the SA has something more, that even the defense already knows about, that we have just not seen.

I remember reading this article by Wendy Murphy on the Sunshine Law a while back, when I was discussing this very thing and worrying the SA may not have much more.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...1/the-evidence-yoursquore-not-allowed-to-see/

Respectfully clipped from article by Wendy Murphy:

Despite everything I just said, Casey will probably be convicted because I believe the state has much more evidence than any of us are privy to.

It is highly likely that a mountain of evidence is being withheld from public view under one or more exceptions to Florida's "Sunshine Law," a statute that presumptively requires disclosure of all government-held information, such as evidence in criminal cases. Sounds great—except that the law is so fraught with exceptions, it's a wonder we've been allowed access to anything.




Continued at the link above.

So, with this in mind, I am thinking there is more we haven't seen. So, I agree it is premature to think KC will get a not guilty. I just don't see these prosecutors be so vehement on going for the DP, IF the discovery we have seen, is all they have.

Mr. Hornsby, can you inform me on this? Am I totally off base in my understanding of this? And also, let me state, I am aware this may be only Ms. Murphy's opinion, as it is a blog. So, I am not stating it as fact. I am rather, asking if this is, in fact, accurate?

Mods: I hope this was done correctly. I wasn't sure if I could post a link to the article, since it is to anothers blog or if I did this correctly. Please feel free to modify if I did anything incorrectly.

 

[cecybeans]

Lyons has also written papers doubting the efficacy of the SODDI defense because she says that, if the defendant is found guilty, it can backfire during the penalty phase if mitigating factors have been overlooked. Yet supposedly in those infamous released tapes she advises students to do so.

How would you explain her change of strategy? As it regards this case, do you think she is aggressively pursuing the SODDI defense because she inherited it (I mean KC's nanny story was the original one) or because she thinks it will prove effective?

 

[Blaise]

*IF* Baez knows for a fact that Casey is guilty, as in she has flat told him so, is he guilty of an ethical or legal violation to go on television and say, "Casey is innocent"?

* DO you think Baez knew where the body was prior to discovery?

Blaise

 

[SCSam]

I'm sorry, but I still believe the State has a very strong case, albeit circumstantial (as far as we know), against KC. I just don't believe in my heart that a jury of 12 sane people would allow this woman to walk away from a murder charge when it is SO obvious she killed her daughter. Many a criminal has been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

RH may be pointing out the weaknesses in the State's case, but we hear from others that say the case against KC is STRONG. And I also remind myself that we still have not seen all the evidence.

It matters not to me if she gets the DP. It is what she deserves, but as long as she gets LWOP, that will be fine with me.

I just KNOW I should read to the end before I open my big mouth BUT... I believe the outcome will all depend on the jury (and the State's closing argument) . I believe the State has an extremely strong circumstantial evidence case. I read of defendants being convicted with much less. Baez et al will file tons of motions, foster the SODDI defense, and throw a decade's worth of spaghetti on the wall. IMHO, the sentence may just be LWOP - which is fine with me - although I think Casey will do very well in prison. Baby killers are never popular but she is still attractive enough to latch on to a mate to protect her.

 

[whats the punch line]

I believe there are some pieces of "discovery" (evidence) that the SA and the defense may have that does not have to be released to the public under the sunshine law. So, I believe it is very possible the SA has something more, that even the defense already knows about, that we have just not seen.

I remember reading this article by Wendy Murphy on the Sunshine Law a while back, when I was discussing this very thing and worrying the SA may not have much more.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...1/the-evidence-yoursquore-not-allowed-to-see/

Respectfully clipped from article by Wendy Murphy:

Despite everything I just said, Casey will probably be convicted because I believe the state has much more evidence than any of us are privy to.

It is highly likely that a mountain of evidence is being withheld from public view under one or more exceptions to Florida's "Sunshine Law," a statute that presumptively requires disclosure of all government-held information, such as evidence in criminal cases. Sounds great—except that the law is so fraught with exceptions, it's a wonder we've been allowed access to anything.



Continued at the link above.

So, with this in mind, I am thinking there is more we haven't seen. So, I agree it is premature to think KC will get a not guilty. I just don't see these prosecutors be so vehement on going for the DP, IF the discovery we have seen, is all they have.

Mr. Hornsby, can you inform me on this? Am I totally off base in my understanding of this? And also, let me state, I am aware this may be only Ms. Murphy's opinion, as it is a blog. So, I am not stating it as fact. I am rather, asking if this is, in fact, accurate?

Mods: I hope this was done correctly. I wasn't sure if I could post a link to the article, since it is to anothers blog or if I did this correctly. Please feel free to modify if I did anything incorrectly.

But clearly I said to Baez, not the media and public.

To Mr. Hornsby, would Baez have to petition the court in order to seal the defamatory evidence, discovery, or is it automatically protected from release by the sunshine laws

 

[SCSam]

Second smartest thing any of us have said.

Mercy me! Abxolutely love it.... ROFLMAO!!:dance: Trying NOT to get my cocktail on the keyboard.

 

[JBean]

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.
snipped for emphasis.

Exactly.

 

[Blaise]

Who do you think is the most factually accurate, knowledgeable commentator on television, both locally in Orlando, and nationally?

And no fair choosing yourself.

Blaise

 

[Tracey276]

They might have released it to JB but it wasn't made public. The Florida Sunshine Laws prohibit discovery released to the public that would be so incriminating as to prevent the defendant from getting a fair trial. Personally, I think the defense already knows and has the evidence that could put KC away for life or be executed. IMO, that's why they suddenly do these media blitzes - to plant reasonable doubt in potential jurors because they know they don't have a case.

Ahhh, Autumnlover, I'm sorry I didn't see this post earlier when I posted mine about this. I read an article about this and posted it. I completely agree with you. I think we just have not seen it all. And some will say there has had to have been a hearing on this to not release it under the sunshine law. I don't believe that is correct though. There are just some things that doesn't have to be released and is known by all parties involved that it doesn't have to be.

Again, Mr. Hornsby, am I correct in my assumptions? I know, I know, what they say about assuming and all. So, I ask the expert with much respect!

 

[whats the punch line]

Well, we do know that there are several counts she is charged with in this case.

Another question I have is regarding the child neglect charges.

Even if they can plant reasonable doubt regarding who murdered Caylee, she still can be found guilty of the other charges.

Because KC was responsible for the reasonable care and well being of Caylee, if SODDI, she failed as the guardian, and can still be sentenced to something on those charges, correct?

Also, if they can prove the lessor charges would that not help them establish some culpability in the murder? In establishing culpability, is that enough to persuade the jury to find her guilty? Or am I off the mark?