This Week on Websleuths Radio Attorney Richard Hornsby

[rhornsby]

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)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0s-DBoH6X8

I think the motion is one the state probably should have filed, which is a motion in limine to prohibit the defense team from insinuating George molested Casey in questioning until such time as someone has actually testified to it (i.e. Casey Anthony).

The state should have probably made the motion immedietly after the opening statements, as it is improper for a lawyer to ask questions of witnesses that imply facts not in evidence or that the lawyer does not have a good faith belief will be established by the eventual evidence.

Ironically, this opening statement issue was part of a case that led to Nancy Grace being disgraced (no pun intended) as a prosecutor. See Carr v. State, 482 SE 2d at 322 (GA. 1997) ("The transcript of the opening argument shows that the prosecuting attorney (Nancy Grace) repeatedly made references to physical abuse although the trial court had ruled out all evidence of purported abuse. There is no occasion and no excuse for attempting to influence the jury in advance by improper statements as to evidence which counsel knows he cannot prove or will not be permitted to introduce.")

Anyway, as you can see from the case involving Nancy Grace, if argued correctly, Lippman's motion would force Baez to proffer to the court how be believes in good faith he will establish George molested Casey to support his defense theory.

If his proffer does not involve him stating on the record that Casey (or someone else) will testify to it, the judge would likely prohibit him from pursuing the line of questioning (unless the Judge finds that the Anthony's don't have standing for such a motion - in which case the State should adopt the motion).

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

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.

BTW - JB will end up as a talking head no matter what (Both "Idiocracy" and "Network" being pure prophecy as far as I can see...) My question, though, is why would the inimitable legend also known as Cheney Mason tie himself to a stinking-pig-of-a-case like this?

 

[rhornsby]

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:

Yes, but only because most attorneys already feel that way.

 

[rhornsby]

BTW - JB will end up as a talking head no matter what (Both "Idiocracy" and "Network" being pure prophecy as far as I can see...) My question, though, is why would the inimitable legend also known as Cheney Mason tie himself to a stinking-pig-of-a-case like this?

What can be said of Cheney, he is a blow hard and well past his glory days, bottom line.

Did you see his absurd cross examination of Matthew Crisp? When a witness laughs at your cross examination, it may be time to reexamine yourself.

 

[Blaise]

* Why the disconnect between the opinions of the cable attorneys and the local attorneys? Can I assume the locals are more accurate?

* Will you be joining Lippman in representing George and Cindy, and, if you do, will you come here and unethically break their confidences and tell us what they say? Just Kdding! Well, no I'm not.

If Casey is convected and Cindy / George writes / visits, would those letters / conversations still to be released?

Blaise

 

[Joanner]

If Casey is found guilty, I would assume she will try to appeal. Do you think some other private attorney will step up to tackle ithat? Could she write a book or give movie rights to earn some money to hire another attorney for appeal? That is, if there is anything left after the IRS is done with her.

Edited to add: Thanks for answering our questions.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

What can be said of Cheney, he is a blow hard and well past his glory days, bottom line.

Did you see his absurd cross examination of Matthew Crisp? When a witness laughs at your cross examination, it may be time to reexamine yourself.

Oh, I saw that cross - and got myself in quite a bit of hot water because of it. And I actually think CM may have gotten a little thinkin' done before this long weekend is over (Geez - I am in a Tennessee William's play...)

 

[beach]

Richard, the one thing I think the Defense opening statement did that was beneficial for them (at least in the beginning - I do not think it will last for the long haul), is that it appeared to TOTALLY catch the SA off-guard. It seems that they had to scramble and probably are burning the midnight oil to adjust their order of witnesses and how they plan to examine each one. (fwiw, I thought they were forced to call George as their first witness to rehabilitate him immediately.)

Is that a fair assessment? Or do you believe the State has had to make any adjustments to their case-in-chief?

 

[Cher352]

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.

I know there is not but there ought to be a law against these horrid type of accusations unless the defense intends for his client to support them on the stand or has some other means of substantiating them. I know I would support anyone fighting for a change in the law on this subject.

 

[Tricia]

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.

Richard I want to thank you for agreeing to appear on Websleuths radio tomorrow night. With you as our guest it is going to be a lively show.

I will be in touch tomorrow to set up the specifics.

Don't know about you buy my brain is on overload with just the first week of the trial.

Cindy on the stand today was heartbreaking. I've been very hard on Cindy in the past but watching her try to talk about Caylee was gut wrenching.

We'll talk about this and a whole lot more tomorrow

 

[rhornsby]

Richard, the one thing I think the Defense opening statement did that was beneficial for them (at least in the beginning - I do not think it will last for the long haul), is that it appeared to TOTALLY catch the SA off-guard. It seems that they had to scramble and probably are burning the midnight oil to adjust their order of witnesses and how they plan to examine each one. (fwiw, I thought they were forced to call George as their first witness to rehabilitate him immediately.)

Is that a fair assessment? Or do you believe the State has had to make any adjustments to their case-in-chief?

They might have been caught off guard, but then Ashton pulled out his b!tch slap hand and called George Anthony as his first witness and point blank said, have you ever molested your daughter. Drum roll please, NO!

And what did Baez do, he sat there mumbling through his cross-examination because his face hurt so bad from getting b!tch slapped ten minutes into the evidence.

 

[Blaise]

Assuming Casey takes the stand, who should cross -- Ashton or LDB?

Blaise

 

[rhornsby]

Assuming Casey takes the stand, who should cross -- Ashton or LDB?

Blaise

Ashton

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Ashton

Why Ashton?

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

They might have been caught off guard, but then Ashton pulled out his b!tch slap hand and called George Anthony as his first witness and point blank said, have you ever molested your daughter. Drum roll please, NO!

And what did Baez do, he sat there mumbling through his cross-examination because his face hurt so bad from getting b!tch slapped ten minutes into the evidence.

SWEET!

and not for one minute do I think that they hadn't prepared (even at the lasssst minute) for that eventuality.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Ashton

ITA.....crush aside.

 

[Cher352]

They might have been caught off guard, but then Ashton pulled out his b!tch slap hand and called George Anthony as his first witness and point blank said, have you ever molested your daughter. Drum roll please, NO!

And what did Baez do, he sat there mumbling through his cross-examination because his face hurt so bad from getting b!tch slapped ten minutes into the evidence.

Absolutely LOVE you take on it!!!! :floorlaugh:

 

[SleuthTheTruth]

If KC does not testify and JB has no witness to back-up the statement what happens?

 

[mydailyopinions]

They might have been caught off guard, but then Ashton pulled out his b!tch slap hand and called George Anthony as his first witness and point blank said, have you ever molested your daughter. Drum roll please, NO!

And what did Baez do, he sat there mumbling through his cross-examination because his face hurt so bad from getting b!tch slapped ten minutes into the evidence.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[darnudes]

Richard, I don't know if I've ever asked you this but what do you personally think would be the right sentence for Casey Anthony?

As a father yourself how long do you think she deserves to spend in jail?