Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[rhornsby]

This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?

The problem is you direct your question to the attorneys - when in reality an attorney is just en extension of the client. Therefore, your question is best analyzed from the perspective of the client.

So would I hold it against an accused person for objecting to incriminating evidence being used against them? Not a chance.

Just like I would never hold anything against an accused person for trying to introduce exculpatory evidence to prove their innocence - no matter how questionable the evidence was.

And why is that? Because a judge, not the attorneys, decides what is admissible and what is not. The attorneys are just the advocates for the respective sides.

And ultimately, even if a judge admits evidence into a trial, a jury is free to reject the value of the evidence entirely.

 

[rhornsby]

Even before/after the hearing?

It would just look so much better if she just said "Hi, mom. Hi, dad."

Well, I think part of the problem is she is shackled at her feet and legs and those two areas are connected together by another shackle. So moving around is more difficult than it would appear.

 

[rhornsby]

If this question as been asked previously, someone please point me in the direction of it.

Q: What the real reason that Casey's parents have not visited her?

Nothing short of a court order would stop me from seeing my child, whether they were guilty or not. It's a love driven decision with me.

You would have to ask them, but I would suspect it is because the release of the videos causes unneeded problems for the defense.

 

[CDMORLANDO]

Mr Hornsby:

Do you believe that any of Casey Anthony's statements to LE will be suppressed?

 

[BeanE]

Well, I think part of the problem is she is shackled at her feet and legs and those two areas are connected together by another shackle. So moving around is more difficult than it would appear.

That doesn't keep her from turning her head and saying, "Hi." When she walks in and leaves, her parents are always directly to her left or right, and she need only slightly turn her head.

But... another question on a different subject...

Question for rhornsby:

You've mentioned Baez' statements regarding what KC has said. Here's an example of something he said on national TV:

BAEZ: Well, you know, I wasn`t privy to the conversations that she`s had with police. My conversations with her is that she dropped the baby off with the baby-sitter and she has not seen her since. And that`s...

BBM

For the sake of argument, let's suppose the state wants to introduce the bolded statement at trial. How would they go about it? Would they put Baez on the stand? Or what?

TIA

BeanE

(statement from Nancy Grace show transcript Wednesday, July 23, 2008)

 

[citygirl]

Well, I think part of the problem is she is shackled at her feet and legs and those two areas are connected together by another shackle. So moving around is more difficult than it would appear.

OMG. I didn't know that. I didn't know they were connected. How humiliating.
Sorry, I know I'm not supposed to comment. Couldn't resist.

 

[rhornsby]

That doesn't keep her from turning her head and saying, "Hi." When she walks in and leaves, her parents are always directly to her left or right, and she need only slightly turn her head.

But... another question on a different subject...

Question for rhornsby:

You've mentioned Baez' statements regarding what KC has said. Here's an example of something he said on national TV:

BAEZ: Well, you know, I wasn`t privy to the conversations that she`s had with police. My conversations with her is that she dropped the baby off with the baby-sitter and she has not seen her since. And that`s...

BBM

For the sake of argument, let's suppose the state wants to introduce the bolded statement at trial. How would they go about it? Would they put Baez on the stand? Or what?

TIA

BeanE

(statement from Nancy Grace show transcript Wednesday, July 23, 2008)

Technically, I think they could call him as a witness. That opens a whole can of worms that I don't think the State even wants to bother with.

There is also a secondary question of whether he violated the attorney-client privilege. Since it is her privilege to invoke, she could try and prevent him from testifying - but she would have to fire him I presume.

Mostly though, this is an academic exercise.

 

[Tulessa]

Technically, I think they could call him as a witness. That opens a whole can of worms that I don't think the State even wants to bother with.

There is also a secondary question of whether he violated the attorney-client privilege. Since it is her privilege to invoke, she could try and prevent him from testifying - but she would have to fire him I presume.

Mostly though, this is an academic exercise.

I am so glad you joined WS. Even though I didn't like the way you handled BS, you have opened my eyes to the Florida law and I hope you continue posting through out Casey's trial. You think you might?

 

[LetJusticePrevail]

Richard, thoughts on these? Appreciate it - ty

Richard, if you have a few secs at some point, I'd appreciate your insight on the following:

1. In 7/09, WKMG filed a motion requesting the infirmary video be released. The court record doesn't show it was heard and we've not heard a peep about it since. Why, and wouldn't the record have to reflect the outcome?

2. Does naming Kronk answer to the state's motion asking the court to compel the defense to substantiate Macaluso's claim that :behind:'s innocent?

3. Was it perfectly reasonable for me to wonder if I'd been dropping acid while reading :doughboy:'s motion to travel to places of interest w/:behind: in private?

4. Do you think anyone on the defense team has asked the $64K question, 'Did you murder your daughter?'

 

[rhornsby]

Richard, thoughts on these? Appreciate it - ty

1. Well, not sure on the dates, but I think the judge previously sealed the video. Regardless, WKMG would need to set it for a hearing if they want a definitive answer.
   
2. My opinion would be that to properly comply with the judge's order, the defense would have to file both a Witness List and what is known as a Written Discovery Exhibit as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d)(1)(B); this is exhibit is required to list any statements, reports, papers, photographs, etc.
   
   With that said, the fact that Baez disclosed much of this information in his motions would serve to put the state on notice of these witnesses and statements - so they could not move to preclude this defense information at trial for non-disclosure.
   
   
3. Yes.
   
4. I don't know, because if she affirmatively admits to a crime, it creates a littany of ethical standards that you are bound to abide by. This is a question best left for a classroom.

 

[niaa]

1) All evidence to be used in trial must be released (state and defense) but what is deadline for All evidence to be released
2)Witnesses are not allowed to be in the courtroom until they have testified. If this case is broadcast these witnesses can merely watch the trial on live TV. Do you think it is possible that the case will not be broadcast ? Can the court issue an order attempting to keep witnesses from watching ?
3) How does the court keep jurors from making money by selling their stories after the trial
4) I think that the overwhelming little pieces of evidence will show that KC is guilty. From the evidence released to date, do you see one single piece of evidence that the defense would most like to keep out of the trial ?
5) Trial Date - Any predictions ?

 

[BondJamesBond]

RH: Thanks again for investing some time here entertaining & educating.

I believe it was in thread 1 you discussed some of your thoughts on intentional vs. accidental and alone vs. assisted disposal. IMHO, the manner of death being the most important - absent some evidence we haven't seen yet - I've been attempting to think objectively 'bout how SA may take what we have seen to create the most compelling circumstantial case. I'd be interested in your thoughts/comments.

For example...

• Neighbor Jean testifies to verbal altercations that reflected Casey in a very disprectful light (e.g. Jean said that language would never be used w/ a parent from a child)
• Jesse testifies to Lee's account of a fight Sunday 6/15 (that we have suggested must originate from Cindy vs. Casey) in which Cindy had her hands at Casey's neck to choke her. Important that the source becomes Cindy vs. Casey here.
• Shirley testifies as to her statement that she was concerned Casey hated her mother more than she loved Caylee. Would rather this testimony come from someone other than Shirley - God love her.
• Lee testifies that 7/15 Casey indicated that her actions were provoked.."spiteful b*tch". Paraphrasing here, but, I 'spect you'll get the point

I believe I understand the reasonable doubt angle well-enough that I see the challenge for the legal decision. Interesting indeed.

 

[BondJamesBond]

RH: Thanks again for investing some time here entertaining & educating.

I believe it was in thread 1 you discussed some of your thoughts on intentional vs. accidental and alone vs. assisted disposal. IMHO, the manner of death being the most important - absent some evidence we haven't seen yet - I've been attempting to think objectively 'bout how SA may take what we have seen to create the most compelling circumstantial case. I'd be interested in your thoughts/comments.

For example...

• Neighbor Jean testifies to verbal altercations that reflected Casey in a very disprectful light (e.g. Jean said that language would never be used w/ a parent from a child)
• Jesse testifies to Lee's account of a fight Sunday 6/15 (that we have suggested must originate from Cindy vs. Casey) in which Cindy had her hands at Casey's neck to choke her. Important that the source becomes Cindy vs. Casey here.
• Shirley testifies as to her statement that she was concerned Casey hated her mother more than she loved Caylee. Would rather this testimony come from someone other than Shirley - God love her.
• Lee testifies that 7/15 Casey indicated that her actions were provoked.."spiteful b*tch". Paraphrasing here, but, I 'spect you'll get the point

Acknowledge the defense will attempt to say Casey was afraid of her mother. Too afraid to admit it was an accident, and that fear is what compelled the 31 days (and even then it wasn't Casey that brought a "missing Caylee" to authorities) and counter that with the notion that it was certainly fear, but, rather fear of the consequences for her own narcissistic self. The same person that carried out the acts enumerated by the forensic evidence (i.e. partying, etc.)

• At this point introduce the timing of the penning of Diary of Days relative to the last viewing of Caylee's pics on the laptop. Focus on the "remember the words spoken" phrase and draw the conclusion that it speaks of the 6/15 fight.

...just some thoughts. Comments?

 

[notthatsmart]

Thank you RH for being here.

Why in the world would a Judge seal part of interview of a witness?
Does it have to be something major? Like smoking gun info?
Or can it be minor? Like a social security number?

And then to follow up the witness and the defense put in motions to stop any further depositions for that person. Do you think it is likely something major and something to do with the giving up defense strategy?

 

[Kentjbkent]

Mr. Hornsby,

I have a question about jail communications between inmates and family members. As I mentioned on another thread, the guy who buffs my business' floors was recently jailed and is awaiting his next court appearance. His wife stopped to see me, and being inexperienced in this, I asked her about their communications (at least here in local jail).

She stated that letters written between them are not pre-screened. The jail delivers mail to the inmates and makes them open them in front of an officer but that officer does not read the contents, but is merely checking for contraband, etc. Is this the same policy in Florida?

Concerning phone conversations....she told me that she (her cell phone) is registered on website PayTel.com and she "funds" this account and her husband then has access to call this phone number ($ per call). The site clearly states that all phone conversations are recorded.

I assume this operates similarly in Florida? If so, what is the procedure or protocol for the media getting ahold of these recorded phone calls? Do they just randomly call to see if a particular inmate has made any outgoing phone calls?

I am just curious as to whether or not the Anthonys and KC ARE having some phone conversation of a general nature that have not been released to the media if they are not requested?

How does this work?

Thanks so much!

 

[BeanE]

rhornsby,

Okay, I give up. What in the world would Brad Conway be testifying to at the upcoming motions hearing? I'm assuming it's in regards to releasing tapes of Cindy/George's jail visits with Casey, but what in the world would Brad be testifying to?

TIA

Casey Anthony will be back in court Friday December 11 for motion hearings and her parent's, George and Cindy Anthony, along with their attorney Brad Conway have been subpoenaed to testify.will be back in court Friday December 11 for motion hearings.

Judge Strickland will hear four motions in the State vs. Casey Anthony case beginning at 9:30 a.m.:

Motion to preclude the death penalty procedures
Motion for a protective order prohibiting Orange County Jail from videotaping attorney visits
Motion for a protective order directing Orange County Jail to destroy videos of family visits
Motion to dismiss counts 1,2, 4, 5, 7, 8 10, 11, 13 for violation of double jeopardy clause

 

[QB.]

Mr. Hornsby,
Have G&C been asked to testify by the state or is it by defense in this Friday's hearing?
Thank you

 

[rhornsby]

rhornsby,

Okay, I give up. What in the world would Brad Conway be testifying to at the upcoming motions hearing? I'm assuming it's in regards to releasing tapes of Cindy/George's jail visits with Casey, but what in the world would Brad be testifying to?

TIA

Casey Anthony will be back in court Friday December 11 for motion hearings and her parent's, George and Cindy Anthony, along with their attorney Brad Conway have been subpoenaed to testify.will be back in court Friday December 11 for motion hearings.

Judge Strickland will hear four motions in the State vs. Casey Anthony case beginning at 9:30 a.m.:

Motion to preclude the death penalty procedures
Motion for a protective order prohibiting Orange County Jail from videotaping attorney visits
Motion for a protective order directing Orange County Jail to destroy videos of family visits
Motion to dismiss counts 1,2, 4, 5, 7, 8 10, 11, 13 for violation of double jeopardy clause

There are only one of two reasons George, Cindy, or Brad would be called to testify.

1. On behalf of Jose Baez to explain how tramatic and humiliating the release of the jailhouse interviews have been.
2. In regard to the protective order regarding Dominic Casey, basically to testify as to some aspect of his employment.

Otherwise, I am as stumped as you all.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby,
Have G&C been asked to testify by the state or is it by defense in this Friday's hearing?
Thank you

Well, the clerk's docket does not show courtesy copies of the subpoenas having been filed, so I question whether they were actually subpoenaed to testify.

The reason being is that a subpoena is not a prerequisite to being allowed to testify; rather, a subpoena is only required to compel a reluctant or uncooperative witness to testify.

This means that Jose Baez could verbally request their agreement to testify - and they say yes.

So, the reports of George, Cindy, and Brad being subpoenaed could actually just be reporters inferring they must have been subpoenaed because Baez said they would be testifying.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby,

<snipped>

I am just curious as to whether or not the Anthonys and KC ARE having some phone conversation of a general nature that have not been released to the media if they are not requested?

How does this work?

Thanks so much!

It is the same in Florida, so the answer is that yes, Casey could be talking on the phones with her parents and we do not know - IF nobody makes a public records request of those phone calls.

Interesting, I have not asked any reporters whether they have requested copies of phone interviews...