Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[BeenaBobba]

Mr. Hornsby, thanks for posting here! I've enjoyed reading your responses.

My questions:

1.) If Casey was your client, which piece(s) of evidence would you attempt to get thrown out when this case goes to trial? Why?

2.) What kind of jurors would you choose for this case? Why? I know you've said earlier in this thread that more moderate jurors will be chosen, which makes sense, of course, but my question has more to do with demographics.

3.) It goes without saying that one does not have to believe in his client's innocence to effectively represent him/her. Do you think Jose Baez actually believes Casey's innocent? It sort of seems that way to me, though I could be wrong.

Well, thanks in advance if you get around to answering my questions.

 

[Wudge]

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.

It is, indeed, a small world.

I would also enjoy having Mr. Hornsby provide this forum with his take on most anything, 'Wendy Murphy'.

For background, I believe three things deserve illumination.

First (for Richard), on another high-profile case, Ms. Murphy has been previously been invited to offer her position here on Websleuths, which she did. Moreover, I believe she is generally held in high regard here.

Second, an event in recent years that I greatly enjoyed watching was when the well regarded defamation attorney, L. Lin Wood, appeared on Larry King's show in 2006, and he used that national soapbox to pointendly advise Ms. Murphy to tread very carefully with her claim that John Ramsey had sexually abused Jon Benet; i.e., unless she wished to bring a defamation lawsuit upon herself.

Third, I believe Mr. Hornsby has a brother who is also an attorney (Brandon or Brendan?) and, in recent years, worked in Mr. Wood's firm in Atlanta. So I highly suspect Mr. Hornsby might well have decent insight into all things Wendy Murphy -- and defamation lawsuits as well.

(I've long held that Wendy Murphy can actually make Nancy Grace appear to be non delusional.)

 

[babycat]

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.

No worries, as I stated earlier, that top part was not directed at you; it was rhetorical and I was speaking in generalities. I agreed with your post, and only quoted it because I was referencing the bottom part. I was really just expounding on it, not responding to it. It seemed to echo my own sentiments.

 

[rhornsby]

It is, indeed, a small world.

I would also enjoy having Mr. Hornsby provide this forum with his take on most anything, 'Wendy Murphy'.

For background, I believe three things deserve illumination.

First (for Richard), on another high-profile case, Ms. Murphy has been previously been invited to offer her position here on Websleuths, which she did. Moreover, I believe she is generally held in high regard here.

Second, an event in recent years that I greatly enjoyed watching was when the well regarded defamation attorney, L. Lin Wood, appeared on Larry King's show in 2006, and he used that national soapbox to pointendly advise Ms. Murphy to tread very carefully with her claim that John Ramsey had sexually abused Jon Benet; i.e., unless she wished to bring a defamation lawsuit upon herself.

Third, I believe Mr. Hornsby has a brother who is also an attorney (Brandon or Brendan?) and, in recent years, worked in Mr. Wood's firm in Atlanta. So I highly suspect Mr. Hornsby might well have decent insight into all things Wendy Murphy -- and defamation lawsuits as well.

(I've long held that Wendy Murphy can actually make Nancy Grace appear to be non delusional.)

LOL - my brother did work for Lin Wood and on the Ramsey case; but I don't know about any of the drama with Ms. Murphy, but I will ask...

 

[whats the punch line]

RH-
Am I wrong to assume that the prosecution will first focus on the lessor charges, and work their way up to the murder charges?

In my opinion eating the elephant one bite at a time seems to be the logical approach.

(but I am not a prosecuting attorney, and my logic may be flawed)

 

[rhornsby]

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.

I had never heard of Ms. Murphy before I read your post, but after reading her article it is clear she is uninformed.

There will be no secret evidence produced by the State that will magically appear at trial of which we have never heard.

The only evidence that is being withheld are the autopsy photos, which is authorized by statute as an exception to the Sunshine Laws (was enacted because of the Dale Earnhardt death). See Section 406.135, Florida Statutes, "Autopsies; confidentiality of photographs and video and audio recordings; exemption."

As for her "legal interpretation" of when evidence will be withheld; not only is it dead wrong, but it only applies if the victim is alive or if a suspect is still on the loose.

In sum, her commentary was illogical, sensational, and wrong - all it did was feed the conspiracy theorists hunger for more conspiracy.

Post-Script
I may get together with my brother and execute a blog entry about her... Hope she reads this.

 

[rhornsby]

*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

1. I am not an ethics attorney... My feeling would be no professional violation, just a moral one.
2. It would only be speculation, so what does it matter,

 

[BeanE]

Rhornsby, two questions:

1) Care to comment on TwizzlerGate?

http://www.wesh.com/news/18861435/detail.html

Hoover also quotes Dominic Casey describing a scene in jail where Casey Anthony started eating one end of a licorice string with her attorney Jose Baez eating from the other end that was passed through a glass partition. Hoover says Dominic Casey claims it looked "like they were kissing through the glass or something." it reminded him of the spaghetti scene in "Lady and the Tramp."

Orange County Jail spokesman Allen Moore, however, said attorney-client meetings are not held in rooms with a glass partition, so "the physical plant makes the account of such activity a virtual impossibility."

James Hoover's LE interview:
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0305/18862217.pdf

2) Whose statements do you think have been more damaging to Casey's case - Casey's or Cindy's? (IMO, Cindy's.)


Thank you for participating in WS. I appreciate you sharing your perspective and legal knowledge/experience.

 

[whats the punch line]

I had never heard of Ms. Murphy before I read your post, but after reading her article it is clear she is uninformed.

There will be no secret evidence produced by the State that will magically appear at trial of which we have never heard.

The only evidence that is being withheld are the autopsy photos, which is authorized by statute as an exception to the Sunshine Laws (was enacted because of the Dale Earnhardt death). See Section 406.135, Florida Statutes, "Autopsies; confidentiality of photographs and video and audio recordings; exemption."

As for her "legal interpretation" of when evidence will be withheld; not only is it dead wrong, but it only applies if the victim is alive or if a suspect is still on the loose.

In sum, her commentary was illogical, sensational, and wrong - all it did was feed the conspiracy theorists hunger for more conspiracy.

Post-Script
I may get together with my brother and execute a blog entry about her... Hope she reads this.

I'm going to assume I was correct in my assertion that unless the defense files a motion to seal evidence, the media can request it based on sunshine law, it can come out to the public.

If this is an incorrect assumption, please let me know. (I could be full of horse manure, I shovel it every day)

ps So glad you added the personal message/quote, because I prefer calling you a trial attorney (as I have), rather than a defense attorney, and those are my sentiments as well.

 

[rhornsby]

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

Dan Abrams, chief legal correspondent for NBC.

 

[Blaise]

Dan Abrams, chief legal correspondent for NBC.

Interesting. He was the first one to doubt Nifong (Duke Lacrosse Case).

Blaise

 

[rhornsby]

I'm going to assume I was correct in my assertion that unless the defense files a motion to seal evidence, the media can request it based on sunshine law, it can come out to the public.

If this is an incorrect assumption, please let me know. (I could be full of horse manure, I shovel it every day)

I would say you are completely correct.

 

[whats the punch line]

RH you might have missed as i editted my comment, but I like your quote from Darrow.

I have referred to you constantly as a trial attorney and not a defense attorney. I do believe there is a difference. (Trial attorneys nail witnesses... simplified, but I think true)

 

[RR0004]

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.

So basically, I got it right, huh?

 

[jandkmom]

Have you met Andrea Lyons, and if yes, what was your impression of her?

Since Ms. Lyons has won all of the 19 cases that she has taken to the penalty phase, which is stated all the time, do you think that she is coming to Florida with a higher expectation than a Florida attorney would?

 

[La.Sandy]

Interesting. He was the first one to doubt Nifong (Duke Lacrosse Case).

Blaise

And Wendy Murphy got it very very wrong on that case. I have no respect for her after the statements she made about that case/hoax.

 

[RR0004]

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. Amongst other things, I've long considered this to evidence that the mob mentality (join in the fun) remains alive and well across America.

FWIW

I'm so glad WS is clearly not like the rest.

JMHO

PS- I have a personal problem with viewing any of this as "fun". But, maybe that's just me.

 

[rhornsby]

For those really interested in Florida's Public Records laws, I suggest you purchase The Florida Public Records Handbook (2nd edition) which is sold by the Florida First Amendment Foundation.

The FFAF also sells other resources on Florida Public Records Law.

 

[whats the punch line]

Gonna be out on a limb here, but here goes....

the ony evidence we have not seen is:

1. Autopsy photo's videos, etc

2. The video of reaction on 12/11 (sealed)

3. how KC is paying for the defense (in camera- sealed)

All else if fair game (sunshine laws) nothing else is sealed???

Based on what we have before us, and sunshine laws, motions, we really are left with hoping they can build the case on negelct (IMHO)

Defense is gonna refute the coffin flies, and how they established that was indeed what they were.

Defense is gonna refute the body farm reports as they have never been admitted to a court as evidence before.

personal opinion of someone that thinks they see a body outline in a photo can be argued as opinion and speculation

The defense in my opinion have the best shot at some one else did it.

Do I like looking at this? no

Maybe RH can shoot down my opinion.

 

[rhornsby]

Have you met Andrea Lyons, and if yes, what was your impression of her?

Since Ms. Lyons has won all of the 19 cases that she has taken to the penalty phase, which is stated all the time, do you think that she is coming to Florida with a higher expectation than a Florida attorney would?

1. No, but several colleagues of mine have spoken very highly of her.
2. Yes, a unanimous jury and majority of the jurors are very different things. Also, a loss is a loss to me - so while I greatly respect what she did by saving her clients life, it does not impress me.