Rhornsby Legal Q&A #3 Relevant to the Anthony Case

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Rhornsby.. is there any occasion when it is proper for a viewing of an attorney client meeting? When would a judge think it is appropriate and does not interfere with the clients constitutional rights according to Florida law?
 
Good morning!
What's your professional opinion on the cadaver dog evidence? (We are discussing this on the "dead body in dam car" thread) How reliable will it be at trial? thanks!
 
rhornsby;

Now that DP stays, there seems to be some general confusion as to Ms. Lyons' role. JB is not qualified. I take this to mean AL is now lead counsel, and JB is co-counsel. Could you clear this up for everyone?

Thanks in advance, and for the past posts too.

ETA: It seems the board thinks JB is lead counsel, and AL is just there for DP penalty phase. I have never seen a DP case handled in that manner before.
 
Mr Rhornsby.. is there any occasion when it is proper for a viewing of an attorney client meeting? When would a judge think it is appropriate and does not interfere with the clients constitutional rights according to Florida law?

I would argue it is never appropriate. But I am a defense attorney.
 
Rhornsby,
Do you know if the state attorneys or the judge review videos of Casey’s friend and family visits before deciding whether or not to release them to the media? Would Baez have been able to block the release of any of these videos? Also, is it likely that there are any videos that weren’t released?
 
Any chance that D. Casey's dep would be held in the courtroom in front of Judge Strickland?

Blaise
 
Hi

KC has been charged with check fraud. That case will go to court before the Murder trial. The Murder trial and the Fraud trial are two separate cases yes but also part of the States investigative evidence against KC for the Murder charge. KC said she worked at Universal, investigators took her to Universal and once there she said she didn't work there. Released evidence points to her not being employed. The Anthony's interviews with LE where they say she was here and there working. The jail visitation video where KC tells her parents "I don't care what I have to do. I would steal to get her back". The witnesses on the States List that said they thought KC had the type of job where she could work from home, and were also asked about how KC paid for groceries etc by check cash or credit card. If prior convictions (if KC is convicted of the check fraud) cannot be brought up during trial will prosecutors not be able to even mention anything to do with KC's financial situation because it would fall short of an explanation for the jury about where KC was getting money? Would introducing evidence about KC's state of unemployment and witness testimony that she always had money be topics that may have a significant potential for unfair prejudice - alluding to but stopping short of saying KC is a thief?
 
Hi

KC has been charged with check fraud. That case will go to court before the Murder trial. The Murder trial and the Fraud trial are two separate cases yes but also part of the States investigative evidence against KC for the Murder charge. KC said she worked at Universal, investigators took her to Universal and once there she said she didn't work there. Released evidence points to her not being employed. The Anthony's interviews with LE where they say she was here and there working. The jail visitation video where KC tells her parents "I don't care what I have to do. I would steal to get her back". The witnesses on the States List that said they thought KC had the type of job where she could work from home, and were also asked about how KC paid for groceries etc by check cash or credit card. If prior convictions (if KC is convicted of the check fraud) cannot be brought up during trial will prosecutors not be able to even mention anything to do with KC's financial situation because it would fall short of an explanation for the jury about where KC was getting money? Would introducing evidence about KC's state of unemployment and witness testimony that she always had money be topics that may have a significant potential for unfair prejudice - alluding to but stopping short of saying KC is a thief?
I believe all of this information would be admissible in the Capital case. That is why I believe Baez should have tried to consolidate the cases.
 
Rhornsby,
Do you know if the state attorneys or the judge review videos of Casey’s friend and family visits before deciding whether or not to release them to the media? Would Baez have been able to block the release of any of these videos? Also, is it likely that there are any videos that weren’t released?

The State Attorney is given access to the family and friend visits first. But otherwise no review by anyone.
 
No, there is not. <added by moi -- D. Casey depo held in front of da Judge.>

CAN the State have the Judge on speed dial, as in D. Casey sez, "I will not answer" and the disembodied voice of Strickland can say, "Oh yes, you will."?

i.e. can it be arranged so that Strickland can immediately rule on what Casey can and cannot answer?

That happened in a John Grisham novel.

Blaise (Nice sig file)
 
CAN the State have the Judge on speed dial, as in D. Casey sez, "I will not answer" and the disembodied voice of Strickland can say, "Oh yes, you will."?

i.e. can it be arranged so that Strickland can immediately rule on what Casey can and cannot answer?

That happened in a John Grisham novel.

Blaise (Nice sig file)
Yes, I have actually had a deposition with Mr. Ashton that had to be "refereed" by a judge. Essentially we went to the judge over a disagreement as to whether a witness had to answer a specific question (I forget now what the issue was) and the judge ruled on that issue and said "I will be in my office during your deposition" if something else comes up, call my office and we will resolve the issue by phone.
 
Dear Mr Rhornsby ~
This is my first post but have been reading here since July 2008. I especially appreciate your time and consideration here. If I recall correctly, when GA was found at the motel room and taken to a hospital, a suicide letter was found in his car. The contents of the letter was determined to remain private. We all imagine that if his suicide attempt was genuine, anything he may have divulged in the letter would be important, either exculpatory or inculpatory, for KC. Any chance either the SA or the defense will be able to use this letter to bolster their side?
 
Dear Mr Rhornsby ~
This is my first post but have been reading here since July 2008. I especially appreciate your time and consideration here. If I recall correctly, when GA was found at the motel room and taken to a hospital, a suicide letter was found in his car. The contents of the letter was determined to remain private. We all imagine that if his suicide attempt was genuine, anything he may have divulged in the letter would be important, either exculpatory or inculpatory, for KC. Any chance either the SA or the defense will be able to use this letter to bolster their side?
If I recall, the State said they were not going to use it as it did not have any evidentiary value. Which is why it was not considered "part of the investigation" and thus not subject to public records release. So my answer is it would not be used.
 
Can a member of the public find out what complaints have been filed against an Attorney with the Florida Bar Assn - or do they have to be proved before that information is available? If I were about to hire a lawyer, can I find out what complaints have been lodged, whether substantiated or not? Like BBB for lawyers?
 
Can a member of the public find out what complaints have been filed against an Attorney with the Florida Bar Assn - or do they have to be proved before that information is available? If I were about to hire a lawyer, can I find out what complaints have been lodged, whether substantiated or not? Like BBB for lawyers?
Only substantiated complaints are publicly available.
 
I am wondering why Jose would take the fraud case to trial considering the evidence. Can you explain why he/Casey would risk a jury trial when the evidence is overwhelming with video? Along the same lines, why wouldn't they just settle the civil case and move on?
 
I am wondering why Jose would take the fraud case to trial considering the evidence. Can you explain why he/Casey would risk a jury trial when the evidence is overwhelming with video? Along the same lines, why wouldn't they just settle the civil case and move on?

Well, in reverse order. I think the civil case is ridiculous so there is no reason to settle, plus it is clear the civil case is not "really" being pursued for altruistic reasons. But I digress.

I agree with you, there is no reason to go to trial. But their only other option is to plead to the bench, which they probably do not want to do until the last second.
 
I agree with you, there is no reason to go to trial. But their only other option is to plead to the bench, which they probably do not want to do until the last second.

Aren't they doing jury selection sometime this week or something? Won't they have to do a jury trial if they pick a jury?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
1,282
Total visitors
1,365

Forum statistics

Threads
605,790
Messages
18,192,188
Members
233,543
Latest member
Dutah82!!
Back
Top