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

[trixi491]

Isn't it a gamble for Jose to ask for a COV for the murder trial ?

I have read that they strive to pick a community that is demographically similar to the one where the crime was committed, when there is a COV. I know Jose hopes for Miami, but Jacksonville or Tampa would fit that requirement as well. I have also heard that, when a COV is granted, they often end up in a more rural community (less court schueduling problems).That would probably mean a more conservative jury, IMO, this could back fire on the defense.

I think JB wanting Miami because he thinks his Hispanic background will effect the jury can majorly backfire. Don't forget, the woman KC told everyone kidnapped and killed KC has one of the most Hispanic names ever. I believe she told people not to trust RM (another Hispanic, who appears to be pro-prosecution) and Kio Torres claims that her mother hated Hispanics and wouldn't let her in the house. If he thinks all this can be ignored because one of her attorneys is Hispanic, he is totally mistaken.

 

[Searchfortruth]

Sorry for all the questions. If the state offered a plea to Casey would it be anything less than LWOP ? I am not sure on the rules for this. I thought a capital murder conviction only gives two choices in FL, the DP or LWOP ?

 

[rhornsby]

Sorry for all the questions. If the state offered a plea to Casey would it be anything less than LWOP ? I am not sure on the rules for this. I thought a capital murder conviction only gives two choices in FL, the DP or LWOP ?

If she is convicted as charged, the Section 782.04(1)(b), Florida Statutes, states "In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment."

And in Florida, Life means Life.

 

[rhornsby]

rhornsby,

Casey was heard saying "make him stop" to her attorney during Ashton's argument on Friday, and it sounds like the response she received was "I can't".

Is the reason her attorneys did/could not object because Ashton's postulation of what a juror might conclude was based on the evidence? Or is there some other reason?

Thank you in advance!

There was nothing objectionable, Jeff Ashton was simply providing a rebuttal argument alleging a "hypothetical" scenario based on the known facts that a jury would be able to believe in order to justify the death penalty.

 

[rhornsby]

Even though Baez is hispanic and would prefer a hispanic jury, does it really make sense seeing how his client has accussed a hispanic woman (that no one can seem to find) of kidnapping and killing her child? Wouldn't that fact make the hispanic community not like Casey Anthony at all? It seems to me like Baez is wanting to play his own version of Russian Roulette (sp?) and is not as worried about his clients chances of a fair trial as he is getting "famous" among his own people.

I doubt he is getting "famous" among any demographic.

 

[rhornsby]

Do you think KC (Casey) acted alone?

My intuition is that someone helped her dispose of the body, but lately I have been second guessing that suspicion.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby,
I agree that JA’s argument was powerful and moving, but as another poster mentioned AL cited many case laws against the DP, where JA argued only that 70% of AL’s arguments just repeated itself. To me, that means that 30% of AL’s argument was relevant to what the judge needs to consider in making his decision whether or not to dismiss the motion, and JA gave nothing legally relevant for the judge to consider. Although JA’s argument was powerful and moving, it was speculative and was not fact based. The autopsy report could not determine cause of death, and no evidence of drugs were found. There is no physical evidence tying KC to the duct tape. The docs involving evidence from the trunk are relying heavily on two traces of human decomp, one in the carpet sample and the adipocerelike substance on the napkins found in the potentially contaminated white trash bag. So JA basically made up this powerful and emotional scenario, and topped it off by saying, If we get to this point, the jury will already know that the killers eyes that Caylee was looking into were the eyes of her mother. Moo
So, my legal question is this, what did JA say in his argument that the judge will consider when making his decision to allow or dismiss this motion?
One other question, is it common for prosecution to make up fairytales to argue motions?

Well if a person's legal argument is 100% wrong and 70% of their argument is simply the same thought said in different ways, does it make them any more right? Or does it make their argument over 70% repetitive?

As for Jeff Ashton's argument; he was 100% correct and didn't need to cite any case law. The Murder statute states exactly what he argued (That the potential of the Death Penalty is applicable in every First Degree Murder case). See Section 782.04, Florida Statutes.

 

[LetJusticePrevail]

RH, what would be the repercussions if AL were 2 step down in your opinion & even though u feel it's a moot issue (she won't). Thanks!

Comment...2 me, JA has a quirkiness about him (facial expressions, etc) which make him really interesting to watch. 4 some reason, that quirkiness translate 2 a man who can't quiet a brilliant mind, always working. JA = my captured attention. Maybe others agree...maybe not.

 

[sleutherontheside]

My intuition is that someone helped her dispose of the body, but lately I have been second guessing that suspicion.

Interesting comment. Does that mean you are second guessing your initial suspicions because you now feel more confident that she acted alone, or because you suspect she may be innocent? What was the catalyst for your shift in suspicions?

 

[Kentjbkent]

Good Evening, Mr Hornsby,

In light of recent conversation concerning the possibility/hope for a plea deal offer discussed on another thread, I have a general question for you as a defense attorney.

Hypothetical situation:

You are representing a defendant who is adamant that he is innocent.

You are aware that the evidence is strong and plentiful against the guilt of your client, and your client has still not provided you with any logical explanations to work with to prove his innocence.

The state approaches you about a possible plea deal.

You approach your client who repeats they "dinnit do it!".

Would the conversation end there? How far would you go (or what tactics) might you use to get your client to take some time to clearly weigh his options from a logical standpoint, while remaining ethical?

It is being suggested that perhaps Baez is not/did not emphasize strongly enough the reality of KC's situation, so am curious as to how much effort or time is spent (typically) in trying to convince a defendant what you believe is in their best interest? Or does it even come into play?

Thanks!

 

[whats the punch line]

In regard to Mr. Ashtons arguments on the 11th, the state has shown a card, and revealed how they will try KC.

As a criminal defense attorney, under the same situation, what do you do with the bone you've been thrown? What would be your agenda?

(I'm not asking what Baez will do, as I believe that group is unpredictable.)

Does anyone in either bull pen run in the same social circles as Judge Strickland? ( as this would allow you to understand his mind set, and beliefs) Not in regard to any ex parte communications in any way...that would be unethical

Why does it appear to me that when Ms. Lyon speaks to Judge Strickland, she's talking down to him. She brings up her experience in larger venues (ie Cook County-(I, myself am cook county born and raised....)) as if orange county is at the edge of the universe. Shouldn't she be trying to captivate her audience (Judge Strickland), not alienate him?

To me, she's using the mind set I have to use when training a horse....You have to make yourself "bigger" then them. Shouldn't the opposite apply when working with a judge?

And lastly, why does Baez remind me of the feeble attempts at defense reminiscent of Joe Pesci in my cousin Vinnie?

 

[citygirl]

This is such a bummer. How dare he go and get married in the midst of all this? Total distraction.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Well if a person's legal argument is 100% wrong and 70% of their argument is simply the same thought said in different ways, does it make them any more right? Or does it make their argument over 70% repetitive?

As for Jeff Ashton's argument; he was 100% correct and didn't need to cite any case law. The Murder statute states exactly what he argued (That the potential of the Death Penalty is applicable in every First Degree Murder case). See Section 782.04, Florida Statutes.

I stand corrected. JA did argue that the DP is applicable in every first degree murder case in Florida.
You did say IF a person’s legal argument is 100% wrong, and not when a person’s legal argument is 100% wrong, so I now have to ask you,
Was AL’s legal argument 100% wrong?

If her legal argument was 100% wrong, then when do you think she will start displaying the skills she used to become highly reknowned in her field?
Or is this just standard operating procedure from AL? I honestly don't know. I have heard the accolades about how good she is, and I admit sometimes lawyers actions leave me bewildered, but I don't understand what good it would do to file a motion, and then present a 100% wrong legal argument.

 

[whats the punch line]

This is such a bummer. How dare he go and get married in the midst of all this? Total distraction.

It's okay, in his spare time he's begetting more little barristers....


You do have spare time, Right?

 

[lisalei321]

Isn't it a gamble for Jose to ask for a COV for the murder trial ?

I have read that they strive to pick a community that is demographically similar to the one where the crime was committed, when there is a COV. I know Jose hopes for Miami, but Jacksonville or Tampa would fit that requirement as well. I have also heard that, when a COV is granted, they often end up in a more rural community (less court schueduling problems).That would probably mean a more conservative jury, IMO, this could back fire on the defense.

Oh...come on now...Polk County is between Orange (Orlando) and Hillsborough (Tampa) County...Move the trial here

Mr. Hornsby, what are the chances of that?

 

[whats the punch line]

I stand corrected. JA did argue that the DP is applicable in every first degree murder case in Florida.
You did say IF a person’s legal argument is 100% wrong, and not when a person’s legal argument is 100% wrong, so I now have to ask you,
Was AL’s legal argument 100% wrong?

If her legal argument was 100% wrong, then when do you think she will start displaying the skills she used to become highly reknowned in her field?
Or is this just standard operating procedure from AL? I honestly don't know. I have heard the accolades about how good she is, and I admit sometimes lawyers actions leave me bewildered, but I don't understand what good it would do to file a motion, and then present a 100% wrong legal argument.

This goes to my statement of her singing her accolades in other venues. I hope Mr Hornsby will admonish me if I am incorrect, but I don't believe she is well sung in Fla. state laws, and fumbles accordingly.

Again, is this a faux pas?

Has she neglected to submerse herself in Florida law?

Her audience is Judge Strickland, and I do not see how she is "playing" to her audience.

What does Rhornsby think?

 

[JBean]

as always be sure to read this and previous threads before asking questions. Yours may have been answered already.

This is not directed at anyone or any question in particular.

 

[rhornsby]

Good Evening, Mr Hornsby,

In light of recent conversation concerning the possibility/hope for a plea deal offer discussed on another thread, I have a general question for you as a defense attorney.

Hypothetical situation:

You are representing a defendant who is adamant that he is innocent.

You are aware that the evidence is strong and plentiful against the guilt of your client, and your client has still not provided you with any logical explanations to work with to prove his innocence.

The state approaches you about a possible plea deal.

You approach your client who repeats they "dinnit do it!".

Would the conversation end there? How far would you go (or what tactics) might you use to get your client to take some time to clearly weigh his options from a logical standpoint, while remaining ethical?

It is being suggested that perhaps Baez is not/did not emphasize strongly enough the reality of KC's situation, so am curious as to how much effort or time is spent (typically) in trying to convince a defendant what you believe is in their best interest? Or does it even come into play?

Thanks!

First, people who maintain their innocence plead out every single day because "the evidence is strong and plentiful." So no, the conversation does not end there; and the greater the stakes if a person loses, the more serious the discussion needs to be.

With that said, I long ago stopped brow beating my clients into taking plea deals. There is a difference between having a rationale discussion about the possible sentence if you lose and scaring the $hit out of your client. And I fear many attorneys try to scare the $hit out of their clients so they will take a plea, even if the case could be won at trial.

With that said, I suspect that at the beginning nobody had a rationale discussion with her. But my feeling is that since Ms. Lyon had come aboard, someone has had that discussion.

But it is hard to rationalize with someone who has already been brainwashed to believe something else.

 

[amethyst221]

I don't think you'd get total agreement that AL is some astoundingly super lawyer, though she has in some cases been effective in keeping a convicted defendant from getting the DP. Despite the law not being on her side on the issue of the state seeking the DP, I think she may believe she is making a record for a later appellate court, in the event Casey in convicted and sentenced to death. I imagine she has a fairly standard repertoire of motions that she files and sometimes files more than once in every case. It gets all the anti-DP information on the record and it can cause delay, which is the friend of a defendant. JMO.

 

[whats the punch line]

And I must clarify my statements, and again, If I am wrong I hope Mr. Hornsby will correct my misconceptions.

At this time, during motion hearings and case law arguments, the each side is presenting interpretations of case law, and hoping it applies in the presentation to Judge Strickland.

At trial each side will be present facts and theory to the jury, hoping it sticks.

Right now, it's about case law. No more, no less. no facts, no theory, nothing to do with KC's guilt or innocence, strickly how prior rulings affect this case. And each will try to ascertain the case law represents their rendition of the findings, and that those findings support the arguments they present.

At trial, it's about who can present the best "beyond a reasonable doubt" theory, and have the jury act on it. Case law does not pertain, as that has been sorted at motion and pretrial hearings.

Please Mr. Hornsby correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you