Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[The World According]

What do you think about many the defense team members having books currently released, I knew about Andrea's, and LKBadden's and just learned one of the anthropologists has one too. Will that be known to the jury, the fact that they just so happen to have books out to sell? Is is common for a hired gun to be asked how much they were paid during the trial? Do you think it lessens their credibility as impartial with the jury if they know these folks are on national TV plugging their books? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6vq5agMedQ[/ame]

 

[Tracey276]

So, one question; is Kathi Belich still your Hero? :angel:

The short answer is, YES! And I'll tell you why. I appreciate that she asks the questions we want to hear the answers to. Does it sometimes feel yucky? Again, YES! However, for me, I like to see Baez show his true colors when she annoys him. And I like that she is not afraid to try. That is, after all, her job, to get a story.

What you made me realize is that, when I want to know an answer to a question, I will verify it more thoroughly and not take is as truth. It is really only that one persons opinion. Just because someone writes or says something on tv, internet or in the newspaper, does not mean it is true. When we see a judge, lawyer or MD speaking on a subject, we (I) assume, they know of what they speak. However, they don't tell you, I may be a lawyer but from another state, so I am possibly mistaken on FL law, for example.

With all due respect, I will also add that I am sure there are others out there that would even disagree with your positions. So, as for this case, I guess the only interpretations and opinions that will count, will be Judge Strickland. After all, he will be the one making the rulings on the actual law.

I thank you for all the time you have spent here answering questions and helping me to understand the law and this case better.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby,

Regarding the credibility of Jill Kerley's claims of being duct taped by Mr, Kronk, do you think this posting by "Darlene", purportedly the mother of Jill Kerley, written and posted online on August 10, 2009 (BEFORE Kronk became defense suspect per motions filed) will affect the credibility of Jill Kerley's claims?

She states her daughter, Jill Renee Kerley, has past done jail time, was also arrested this year and faces court for same at time of writing the letter (Aug 10, 2009), is Bipolar , has cancer, and apparently writes bad checks too.

Thoughts on her "prior bad acts"?

http://www.forallthewaysyoucare.com/user_profile/?userid=8800783096245393720
(user ID for Darlene)

http://www.forallthewaysyoucare.com/view_story/?storyid=4726418206195651796&viewmode=true#

(posting by Darlene on mental status of Jill Kersey)

He was married on October 3, 1992 to a Jill Renee Kerley in Monroe County, FL. Law enforcement is keeping Mr. Kronk under wraps while they investigate their ...
www.topix.com/forum/city/union-park-fl/TFBNARG9N2OG6UJI8/p671

If any of this is true, the State Attorney can question her about the claims in a deposition. With that said, bi-polar disorder is very common and would not make her incompetent to testify.

As for the claims of jail and bad checks, the only way she can be impeached (as opposed to being made a suspect in a bad check case) is if she has actually been convicted - not charged - with a felony or crime of dishonesty.

 

[rhornsby]

The short answer is, YES! And I'll tell you why. I appreciate that she asks the questions we want to hear the answers to. Does it sometimes feel yucky? Again, YES! However, for me, I like to see Baez show his true colors when she annoys him. And I like that she is not afraid to try. That is, after all, her job, to get a story.

What you made me realize is that, when I want to know an answer to a question, I will verify it more thoroughly and not take is as truth. It is really only that one persons opinion. Just because someone writes or says something on tv, internet or in the newspaper, does not mean it is true. When we see a judge, lawyer or MD speaking on a subject, we (I) assume, they know of what they speak. However, they don't tell you, I may be a lawyer but from another state, so I am possibly mistaken on FL law, for example.

With all due respect, I will also add that I am sure there are others out there that would even disagree with your positions. So, as for this case, I guess the only interpretations and opinions that will count, will be Judge Strickland. After all, he will be the one making the rulings on the actual law.

I thank you for all the time you have spent here answering questions and helping me to understand the law and this case better.

Okay, okay... I have learned another valuable lesson, no more Belich jokes.

 

[rhornsby]

What do you think about many the defense team members having books currently released, I knew about Andrea's, and LKBadden's and just learned one of the anthropologists has one too. Will that be known to the jury, the fact that they just so happen to have books out to sell? Is is common for a hired gun to be asked how much they were paid during the trial? Do you think it lessens their credibility as impartial with the jury if they know these folks are on national TV plugging their books? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6vq5agMedQ

Their financial motives can be challenged by the State Attorney and if a juror were to find out they were doing work Pro Bono and COINCIDENTALLY they just happened to have released a new book that coincides with their hiring - well I have no doubt they will view anything said with suspicion.

 

[The World According]

With so many lawyers on his team, and interns and even law students helping why do you think Baez submits so many motions that are legally flawed? I think the judge shows a considerable amount of patience, but at what point is this ineffective counsel? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5J_ObjkTw[/ame]

 

[Rlaub44]

1. With the questions that have now been raised, yes.
2. Yes, but the state has to tread lightly here. You start charging her family members and suddenly the State's motives become highly scrutinized. They have little to gain by charging a family member for something now.

Thanks again, Mr. Hornsby, for being so patient with our questions. It is great to have a poster who can show us the defense perspective without insulting our intelligence by pretending Casey couldn't be involved.

It helps us see any realistic weaknesses in State's case .

I haven't seen this question answered yet. As it stands now, do you think the computer searches for "chloroform", "neck-breaking", and "household weapons" will come in at trial? Will it depend on what State's experts conclude about the source of chloroform in the trunk?

 

[The World According]

You commented that what this case is also lacking is a smart detective, I disagree, I think they have some wonderful detectives. I am interested to hear your take on Mark Furhman's analysis. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPdDRIIPc1g[/ame]

 

[JBean]

snipped for emphasis

What you made me realize is that, when I want to know an answer to a question, I will verify it more thoroughly and not take is as truth. It is really only that one persons opinion. Just because someone writes or says something on tv, internet or in the newspaper, does not mean it is true. When we see a judge, lawyer or MD speaking on a subject, we (I) assume, they know of what they speak. However, they don't tell you, I may be a lawyer but from another state, so I am possibly mistaken on FL law, for example.

With all due respect, I will also add that I am sure there are others out there that would even disagree with your positions. So, as for this case, I guess the only interpretations and opinions that will count, will be Judge Strickland. After all, he will be the one making the rulings on the actual law.

snippped for emphasis.

This is a big part of the reason we entertain different interpretions and analysis of the law here on the forum.

 

[songline]

Mitzi - you say that because you care about this case, I did what I did because I care about the integrity of my profession.

You think I care about how jury selection in this case goes? I could care less. I care about how jury selection goes for every other criminal defense attorneys out there, I care about the quality speakers that will not go to seminars anymore because of that xxxx.

Listen, I am a xxxx in real life, but a xxxx who will never lie to you and will fall on his own sword before he would sell another person out to benefit himself.

So to those interested in the Casey case, sure I played a big role and glad I did. Where do you think that audio would show up next... Nancy Grace will have an hour special with Caylees picture up and Andrea Lyon replaying for thirty minutes straight every terrible thing Lyon said if I did not take the action I did.

Be clear about this, I have ZERO regrets. You think I care about tv? I mean really. I am unlikely to appear on local tv again because of my "stunt" that translates into less face time, which translates into less free advertising.

You all can challenge my motives all you want, it is a losing proposition. Because to assume I intended to benefit, I must have had something to gain. Remember, I provided the Casey Anthony commentary for THREE news stations and one statwide radio network; WJS provided Casey Anthony commentary for 1 station. So do you really think it was envy... come on. (p.s. someone is posting some really funny pics of me at JQ about being a media darling, please keep them up, hilarious!)

Anyway, you don't know me, but I am the lawyer who calls out another lawyer in court for being the "plea attorney." I pick up the phone and offer to sit with a public defender if they need help in a trial - not because I am an elite pompous guy like WJS who is living on his past reputation, but because I love my profession and how hard they fight.

Call any Criminal Lawyer in Orlando and pretend you are looking for a lawyer, mention my name. 75% will tell you I am an A$$; zero percent will tell you I am dishonest or I don't know what I am saying.

So yes, I called a traitor out and made a big stink and it may have affected this case; you care about that, I don't. It was business for me and I feel GREAT about it.

He did not want justice for caylee, he wanted ratings for WFTV. Your beef should be with him; just for different reasons than mine were.

Dear Mr. Richard Hornsby
Read only up to page 10 so far...I love your code of ethics. thank you.
Wish to also thank you for your time and expertise, which have validated much of my own thinking.
I have said to many times that I hope this will NOT be like the OJ case. But I am afraid it will.
I said to many times that while all things point to KC nothing ties her directly to the deed itself.
I have said to many times that Cindy and George did a great clean up job and misdirected LE to look for a live baby while refusing to give a child garment to the search team, thus hoping/resulting in not finding her before all the flesh was all gone / found no evidence left on Caylee that will tell a story.
I also said that her attorney did not drop out of the sky but was referred by some a pretty nasty man named Robert X who did not want to be involved.

I would love for her to be convicted, but was never sure of what she can finally be convicted for.
I don't post here as often as I have in the early stages of this case, but feel LWOP was realistic (Not DP) but even the maggots/flies do not have any Caylee DNA to tell a story, too much time passed thanks to her parents, who IMHO should be charged for abstraction.

I do not have a question for you at this time, but thank you for validating much of what I have been thinking. and I will go back to read the rest of this thread.

 

[fay]

You commented that what this case is also lacking is a smart detective, I disagree, I think they have some wonderful detectives. I am interested to hear your take on Mark Furhman's analysis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPdDRIIPc1g

I agree with your whole post. And all the fancy footwork Team Casey is doing, well I believe the State can keep up just fine. When the defense is constantly throwing paper just to see what sticks, one would think the judge would be annoyed. So I wonder why they keep doing it. The defense' job is to confuse jurors, twist evidence and delay delay delay. That's why. JMO.
Really, this case just doesn't seem that hard. I think jurors will have common sense and all the what ifs, will not out weigh the evidence. Just because there is not witness or smoking gun, come on, there is plenty of other stuff.
With that being said, in the unlikely event I got it trouble, who would I call? A defense lawyer of course!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

This is a big part of the reason we entertain different interpretions and analysis of the law here on the forum.

ITA Jbean. Exploring what the prosecution/defense may or may not do at trial based on what we have seen in docs, etc. is very helpful in formulating a well rounded opinion.
Some posters in here have suggested opinions similar to Mr. Hornsby’s in other threads, prior to Mr. Hornsby’s recent postings here. These opinions were often met with an onslaught of negativity, dismissed as nonsense or lacking in logic. The effect of this negativity is counterproductive, since many posters will not state their opinions or interpretations simply because they KNOW they will be, let’s just say, met with strong resistance from the majority. I believe WS is far better than most similar sites, in that it does ask and welcome opposing views and opinions. The reality however is, IMO that even on this site, a fairly large number of potential posters decline to post their opinions because of the strong resistance from the majority. I understand how the majority opinion came about, there is a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence in this case. I just believe that opinions that differ from the majority should be considered before being written off as invalid. Also, and I believe this to be the worst case scenario, we do not get to hear some posters thoughts, because of this strong resistance.
Most of us are laymen when in comes to the legal aspects in this case. I, for one, am extremely grateful to Mr. Hornsby for his participation here at WS. When analyzing this case, I am pleased to have the opinion of an Orange County defense lawyer to consider.
If the content of this thread has indirectly caused previously quiet posters to openly express their opinions, I think that is wonderful. With so many members, we have the opportunity to learn so much. When the minority opinions are not voiced for whatever reason, we all lose from that scenario.

Recently, as in since RH began posting, I have been quite surprised that a number of members entertain the idea of a possible accidental death. I am surprised by this because after several months of reading multiple threads, I was of the opinion that most posters in here were of the opinion that an accident was out of the question. I only bring this up because I think there may be other opinions here in WS that need to posted, and it seems that minority opinions are now a bit more acceptable for consideration than they were in the past. IMO if those who have had minority opinions in the past were now to post those opinions, WS would become an even better forum than it already has proven to be. Just a for instance, if one posts an opinion contradictory to that of the majority, 3 or 4 responses from the majority opinion that disputes the contradiction should be sufficient. There is no need for multiple posts to beat a non majority opinion into the ground. It just seems a minority opinion poster may be more inclined to post, if those posts were answered by several respectful rebuttals, versus being met with an onslaught of negativity.

Jbean, Tricia, I apologize if the bulk of this post is off topic, but I believe you want WS to be open to both sides. I believe that posters long before I joined WS have left perhaps because of an onslaught of negativity.
I am just trying to point out an excellent opportunity to all who enjoy posting here, that the input from posters of both inclinations are valuable. I think the past is past, and can’t be changed, but if we learn from the past, and we deal with minority opinions in a more tolerating manner, we all will benefit.

 

[rhornsby]

I haven't seen this question answered yet. As it stands now, do you think the computer searches for "chloroform", "neck-breaking", and "household weapons" will come in at trial? Will it depend on what State's experts conclude about the source of chloroform in the trunk?

Excellent question and I am unable to answer it based on the evidence released so far, here is why.

The report that references these claims was made by Det. Yuri Melich in the 11/26/08 document dump. He obviously is relating information from someone else. And while hearsay is allowed in a police report, the originator of the hearsay must testify in court to their findings, methodology, and credentials.

This brings me to the only Computer Forensic Report I have seen, which was authored by OCSO Computer Forensic Examiner Sandra G. Caw - she examined Casey's laptop, but does not mention the results Meilich referenced.

So here is where I could use your assistance to answer your question, please provide me a link to the firsthand Computer Forensic Report that identifies the alleged information.

I have not seen such a firsthand report (I have only seen Melich's), but I am sure I am wrong considering how much the neck breaking and chloroform searches are referred to.

 

[rhornsby]

You commented that what this case is also lacking is a smart detective, I disagree, I think they have some wonderful detectives. I am interested to hear your take on Mark Furhman's analysis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPdDRIIPc1g

Well I am not sure what to say, are you saying that the guy who WAS the reasonable doubt in the O.J. case is a super detective, or the OCSO detectives are? I would answer neither of them are. In any event, it appeared Fuhrman was pointing out what a poor job OCSO did in collecting evidence (i.e. videos).

But lets talk about the car I think the reason she kept running out of gas is she was keeping the engine running - and why would you keep the engine running - to keep the air conditioner running - and why would you keep the air conditioner running - to minimize a foul odor that results from a dead something being in a hot humid place.

But that is my theory, not sure if it has been said on here before - but that is what I would gander.

 

[The World According]

Well I am not sure what to say, are you saying that the guy who WAS the reasonable doubt in the O.J. case is a super detective, or the OCSO detectives are? I would answer neither of them are. In any event, it appeared Fuhrman was pointing out what a poor job OCSO did in collecting evidence (i.e. videos).

But lets talk about the car I think the reason she kept running out of gas is she was keeping the engine running - and why would you keep the engine running - to keep the air conditioner running - and why would you keep the air conditioner running - to minimize a foul odor that results from a dead something being in a hot humid place.

But that is my theory, not sure if it has been said on here before - but that is what I would gander.

I think that is spot on about her running the car, and of course it is easy for Mark , or us , to Monday morning quarterback, but the detectives were up against some difficult circumstances, nevertheless, they realized Casey was lying straight away. They had the parents not cooperating, they had Casey lying, it had been 31 days, I don't think it is fair to represent that they aren't smart, that is all. What would you have hoped they did that you feel they dropped the ball on? What do you think of all of the new motions Andrea filed this Thanksgiving? I am more interested in that actually. TIA!

 

[rhornsby]

I think that is spot on about her running the car, and of course it is easy for Mark , or us , to Monday morning quarterback, but the detectives were up against some difficult circumstances, nevertheless, they realized Casey was lying straight away. They had the parents not cooperating, they had Casey lying, it had been 31 days, I don't think it is fair to represent that they aren't smart, that is all. What would you have hoped they did that you feel they dropped the ball on? What do you think of all of the new motions Andrea filed this Thanksgiving? I am more interested in that actually. TIA!

The following is a true story:

On July 30, 2008, the same day that Casey Anthony was seeking a bond in courtroom 6-D of the Orange County Courthouse; I was in courtroom 6-A of the Orange County Courthouse (literally 50 feet away) defending a man accused of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation.

My case involved my client's girlfriend's daughter saying my client forced her to manually stimulate him until he ejaculated onto the carpet.

Now she did not make this claim until three months later, after they no longer lived at the alleged crime scene when her mother said he might move in with them. Of course mom freaked out and broke up with my client. (Way more baggage I am omitting to get to the point).

But when they reported it to the Detective Mark J. Leubscher they told him that not only could they both identify the exact spot, but that there was still a stain on the carpet (I kid you not).

So what does Detective Leubscher do? He writes an arrest affidavit based solely on their allegations and has my client arrested - and he never sends a forensics person to obtain the carpet sample.

My client was not arrested until about 5 months after the alleged crime, once he hires me I immediately send someone to try and obtain this carpet sample which my client swears will not exist because it never happened. Turns out the new owners has torn the carpet out and thrown away months ago.

So what does that have to do with the detectives in this case? Well while the detectives in the Anthony case were spouting off in the bond hearing about how they obtained air samples indicating human decomposition, the detective in my case told the jury with a straight face he did not bother to go obtain the carpet sample because in his experience the DNA would have already degraded to much to get a match. (I mean the exact same time super cops were saying human decomposition air samples were obtained in the Anthony case).

Now here is the kicker, the detective in my case and Melich were assigned to the exact same unit in the East Orlando when both these cases were going on.

So don't kid yourself about these detectives, they say whatever will get their suspect convicted. And I don't know any detective worth his weight who would start participating in online discussions about an active case.

Not sure if I made my point, but hope I did.

p.s. This does not mean I think Casey is innocent, just that the assigned detectives are not all you think they are.

 

[Blaise]

And I don't know any detective worth his weight who would start participating in online discussions about an active case.

That's one of those things that have been tossed around to the point its become an urban legend. Melich never participated in online discussions about an active case. He said thanks for those who had expressed sympathy about his broken leg and asked all to pray for the Anthony family.

That's all. And that's not participating in discussions about an active case.

Blaise

 

[jandkmom]

While 20/20 hindsight makes it easier to think could have/should have, when the detectives investigated Caylee's disappearance, it seems like the Anthony family was acting like they were wanting to help find Caylee, but at the same time believing the lies that KC had been telling. I would guess that defense attorneys don't get along well with detectives and law enforcement as a general rule. Would that be correct? Do you have any friends in law enforcement?

 

[JBean]

Your story has reminded me of an issue I have always struggled with.

Cindy reported the "dead body" like smell in the car to the 911 dispatch.
Responding officers arrived during that phone call.
neither the officers nor the detectives asked for the car until the next day at which time it was turned over voluntarily by George and Cindy without a warrant.
I have always wondered why this car wasn't sealed off or impounded immediately when there was a missing child report and a smell that was unmistakably decomp coming from the car.
ETA: At the bond hearing, Melich said after they checked out KC's stories he remembered that someone said something about a smell in the car and he went to check it out. To me it almost sounded like an afterthought. JMHO of course.

In your opinion was leaving the car overnight neither here nor there or should it have been preserved immediately?

 

[Wudge]

Well I am not sure what to say, are you saying the guy WAS the reasonable doubt in the O.J. case is a super detective, or the OCSO detectives are? I would answer neither of them are. In any event, it appeared Fuhrman was pointing out what a poor job OCSO did in collecting evidence (i.e. videos).

But lets talk about the car I think the reason she kept running out of gas is she was keeping the engine running - and why would you keep the engine running - to keep the air conditioner running - and why would you keep the air conditioner running - to minimize a foul odor that results from a dead something being in a hot humid place.

But that is my theory, not sure if it has been said on here before - but that is what I would gander.

We have to wait to hear what story (theory) prosecutors will present to the jury. However, if prosecutors were to claim that Casey drove around for one or more days with Caylee's body in the trunk of her car, I would consider that to be a favor to the defense. For that storyline would not support the charge that Casey murdered Caylee with planning and deliberation (murder one). Rather, that storyline would clearly argue against Casey committing a planned murder, and I think most any juror would have a hard time looking past this truth.

Moreover, this says nothing of the fact that as part of the prosecution's premeditated murder charge, they must necessarily claim that the best disposal plan Casey could devise was to bag Caylee's body and then leave it on top of the ground close to her home. I consider this to be yet another strong argument that works hard against the State's 1st degree murder charge (premeditated murder).