This Week on Websleuths Radio Attorney Richard Hornsby

[Kimster]

:bump:

 

[panthera]

Very much looking forward to hearing Richard's comments!

Thank you, Tricia! :hug:

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Why no, I've never denied being a brown-nose....

Richard's blog blawg blohg here...Web Sleuthers asked couple of questions - he answered

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/05/websleuths-radio-appearance/comment-page-1/#comment-4585

 

[tlcya]

I am already getting excited and its still a whole day away.

 

[rhornsby]

One last question for Mr. Hornsby. If ICA killed Caylee accidentally during the crime of aggravated child abuse is that not murder 1?

Well if the jury found that she maliciously inflected harm on Casey, it would be hard for them to also find that the subsequent death was accidental.

But to answer your question, if they both found she committed aggravated child abuse, but that the death was nonetheless accidental, yes they could convict her of First Degree Murder.

In the penalty phase though, they would most likely view the accidental nature of the death as justifying a life sentence.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Excited for the show!

Born and raised in Georgia, but I am a die hard Gator Fan!
Hornsby has points for just that reason..that too, and I just love the blog. I would love to see he and Baez face off in a trial-but I guess that would require one of them to go to the "other" side! Hint..Hint..:crazy:

 

[momtective]

They were surprised???? Well anyone who knows Websleuths wouldn't have been surprised at all. :dance:
Well they know us now, don't they! :dance:

 

[rhornsby]

I'd like to know what Richard's impression of the opening arguments was, and also which side he feels is ahead of the game here. Doesn't ICA almost HAVE to testify now that the charge of molestation has been thrown in open court? Can Baez just ignore that now that he's opened the can of worms? Also, it seems like HHJB is almost having to teach Baez case law daily as he goes along. How is this ethical and is it grounds for ineffective council?

Thanks Tricia! I loved the last show and can't wait for the next!

I thought the state opening was methodical, thorough, and credible; which is all they needed to do.

As for the defense opening, like any good science fiction movie, I was captivated by the possibilities. But once it was over and I was no longer suspending my disbelief, I thought it was ludicrous.

Finally, does she have to testify, no; will she need to testify to give the defense a chance at supporting their theory, yes.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I thought the state opening was methodical, thorough, and credible; which is all they needed to do.

As for the defense opening, like any good science fiction movie, I was captivated by the possibilities. But once it was over and I was no longer suspending my disbelief, I thought it was ludicrous.

Finally, does she have to testify, no; will she need to testify to give the defense a chance at supporting their theory, yes.

Mr. Hornsby...Is there any legal recourse for George Anthony or Roy KRonk against Jose for his opening statements? Isn't there a loophole as Jose is not a witness?

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

I thought the state opening was methodical, thorough, and credible; which is all they needed to do.

As for the defense opening, like any good science fiction movie, I was captivated by the possibilities. But once it was over and I was no longer suspending my disbelief, I thought it was ludicrous.

Finally, does she have to testify, no; will she need to testify to give the defense a chance at supporting their theory, yes.

Just a question on courtroom presentation... Given the subject matter of the Defense's opening argument, do think it would have been more powerful if it had been delivered with sober, somber gravitas, rather than thundering (edited) insinuation?

I'll sit down now.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby...Is there any legal recourse for George Anthony or Roy KRonk against Jose for his opening statements? Isn't there a loophole as Jose is not a witness?

The general rule is that a defense attorney enjoys "absolute immunity [from law suit] in any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Delmonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

In this case, the claims were made in arguing a defense of his client and are therefore rationally related to the proceeding. As such, he is entitled to absolute immunity.

 

[rhornsby]

Just a question on courtroom presentation... Given the subject matter of the Defense's opening argument, do think it would have been more powerful if it had been delivered with sober, somber gravitas, rather than thundering ineptitude?

I'll sit down now.

Let's put it this way, I think Jose's intended audience was the talking heads on prime time cable news, not the men and women sitting 10 feet in front of him.

 

[sleutherontheside]

The general rule is that a defense attorney enjoys "absolute immunity [from law suit] in any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Delmonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

In this case, the claims were made in arguing a defense of his client and are therefore rationally related to the proceeding. As such, he is entitled to absolute immunity.

In this case....the claims are deemed rational? :innocent:

 

[sleutherontheside]

What am I recalling regarding defamation and "moral turpitude"?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

The general rule is that a defense attorney enjoys "absolute immunity [from law suit] in any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Delmonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

In this case, the claims were made in arguing a defense of his client and are therefore rationally related to the proceeding. As such, he is entitled to absolute immunity.

Isn't there a law that excludes them from immunity if they submit something to the jury in opening or closing that they have knowledge is a lie. IE - not a story their client gave, but if they know for a fact that what they are saying is a bold faced lie. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE - if you can answer this!

 

[ecs5298]

Let's put it this way, I think Jose's intended audience was the talking heads on prime time cable news, not the men and women sitting 10 feet in front of him.

Unfortunately for him, the talking heads will not be deciding the fate of his client!

Do you think his career in Orlando is about over after this case? Has he burned too many bridges in the legal community?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Jose, IMO will be fortunate to appear as a "talking head" before a high school debate team.

Question.... why isn't Lisabeth Fryer handling cross? She's far more adept than the "pocket square" model.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Mr. Hornsby --- any idea what Mr. Lippman's motion is about???? You know he thanked your on TruTV for you case law -- so I am hoping you have scoop!
(See, I even uploaded you getting the props from him! LOL)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0s-DBoH6X8[/ame]

 

[rhornsby]

Unfortunately for him, the talking heads will not be deciding the fate of his client!

Do you think his career in Orlando is about over after this case? Has he burned too many bridges in the legal community?

Unfortunately, the answer ultimately depends on the verdict. If the jury acquits her of the First Degree Murder charge, he will claim victory and attribute it to himself; and the cable news channels will have him on every chance they get, introducing him as the high profile attorney who saved Casey Anthony's life.

Never mind that every defense lawyer I know thinks this would have been a no-brainer outcome (ironically though, his ludicrous defense could easily cause the jury to convict her as charged now).

But even assuming she is convicted as charged, memories and attention spans are short in the social media generation, so he could likely continue on eventually.

 

[momtective]

Unfortunately, the answer ultimately depends on the verdict. If the jury acquits her of the First Degree Murder charge, he will claim victory and attribute it to himself; and the cable news channels will have him on every chance they get, introducing him as the high profile attorney who saved Casey Anthony's life.

Never mind that every defense lawyer I know thinks this would have been a no-brainer outcome (ironically though, his ludicrous defense could easily cause the jury to convict her as charged now).

But even assuming she is convicted as charged, memories and attention spans are short in the social media generation, so he could likely continue on eventually.

I would think that at this point Jose would be an absolute disgrace to his profession and that he would make other attorneys want to just uke:
Am I wrong? :giggle: