This Week on Websleuths Radio Attorney Richard Hornsby

[rhornsby]

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

Casey is in big trouble.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Why Ashton?

(respectW O O)
Oh golly - that's easy (sssigh*)- ask SOTS why (ICA will bite; he won't and then...)

IMHO no female should ever get near ICA unless it's her surrogate, who used to be Andrea Lyons (where is she by the way - I live in her land and haven't heard a peep out of her? Perhaps her work here is done...) or DCS (who seems just about over the pendent princess...) Do you all notice a "type" in ICAs chosen female supporters and "friends". I know I do...

(* ICA fancies herself as a manipulator - of men in particular. Under certain circumstances, hotheaded JA can be manpuliated - ICA knows this. What ICA does not fathom is that JA knows she knows this and doesn't find her *ahem* compelling. It would be AWESOME!!!!11)

 

[rhornsby]

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?

It would depend on the truth.

If it was an accidental drowning, then I think she should get the max on the false reporting charges (actually more than that).

If the death was due to an attempt to sedate her so she could go out partying. 20 years.

If she really did intentionally kill Caylee, I would agree that death is appropriate.

However, I think it would be a greater punishment for her to spend the rest of her life in prison. That way she has to spend every day thinking of how such a stupid selfishness cost her the one thing she wanted in the first place, her freedom.

 

[john's mom]

Casey is in big trouble.

Well, Casey is in big trouble even if she does testify, no? lol

 

[darnudes]

Thanks Richard - wonder if we will ever know the truth?

 

[1tasha]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but if the defense has no psych experts how can a jury possibly believe that Casey blocked out her child's death due to the trauma of her sexual abuse?

 

[rhornsby]

Why Ashton?

Generally, the attorney who is most likely to elicit an adverse reaction from a witness should be the one to cross examine the witness.

Casey has specifically expressed her dislike for Ashton.

Also, Linda is a very methodical questioner, meaning it would be easier for Casey to maintain a consistency and time continuum with Linda's style of questioning. On the other hand, Jeff is better at examining without a scrit if you will and is more comfortable being argumentative with witnesses, whereas Linda maintains her composure and level.

 

[rhornsby]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but if the defense has no psych experts how can a jury possibly believe that Casey blocked out her child's death due to the trauma of her sexual abuse?

That is my question as well and why I think he State should have filed a Motion in Limine to block arguing such a theory without experts who would provide the necessary link between being molested as a child and being unable to either (1) report the death of your child or (2) grieve over the death of your child.

 

[SleuthTheTruth]

Fantastic - because I really think that is what JB and KC were trying to do by asking TL about the secret KC told him, and it BACK FIRED on them.


Did you get to see KC's melt-down today? What do/did you think about it?

 

[LaLaw2000]

Mr. Hornsby, do you think Mason will be the one to cross examine Cindy Anthony? I predict some fireworks regardless of which member of the DT does the cross.

Both Mason and Baez have gotten on my last nerve. Mason is past his prime, and the good old boy routine comes across as ridiculous, IMO. Baez does not have enough experience for this case, IMO. How do you think the jury perceives them?

Thank you!

 

[Jenny60123]

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.

Can't wait for tonight's show! In just reading the last few of your posts i've laughed out loud 3 times. It will definitely be a great show!

 

[LancelotLink]

I'll be tuning in after work, so I really appreciate that I can hear the show afterwards. Great show last week and this one is going to be off the chart!

I first heard of Richard from a news article concerning the cleanliness of Casey's trunk. Found it interesting, his take that it appeared almost too clean.
Since, have heard him on other radio shows where I wanted to throttle the host for talking over Richard continuously. :banghead:

I would like to hear his take on Baez claiming George, in driving the car off the tow lot, took away evidence of a homicide.

What will the jury think hearing the word homicide in a supposed accidental drowning scenario?

How will Baez now, after IMO, placing Caylee in Casey's trunk, try and refute the cadaver dogs, hair banding, smell of decomp, etc?

Baez promised we would all understand after his OS. I understand he is exactly what Richard Hornsby described.
Give me an "M"
Give me an "O"
Give me an "R"

Looking forward to the show!!

 

[reeseeva]

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.

This is exactly what I thought, and questioned how he, and Mason, can not see this eventual outcome. It makes me think, they do know, think their client is guilty, are following her script, and are just putting on a show, as being effective counsel. Is this at all possible?

Looking forward to the show tonight.

 

[babycat]

Glad to hear this! Can't wait to tune in tonight. I have a crawfish boil this afternoon/evening, and I hope to be back in time to catch it. Would love to hear RH's thoughts on the trial thus far.

More likely than not I'll be here...just full of beer and crawfish haha. If not I will depend on all of your wonderful recaps! Thanks :blowkiss:

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Thanks for the heads up and congrats to Tricia and her wonderful guests who helped to make last week's debut show so fantastic.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

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

Blaise

Well ... since Yuri can't do it I would have to vote for LDB because she did an excellent job with Cindy Anthony much to Casey Anthony's obvious chagrin I might add.

 

[ecs5298]

Glad to hear this! Can't wait to tune in tonight. I have a crawfish boil this afternoon/evening, and I hope to be back in time to catch it. Would love to hear RH's thoughts on the trial thus far.

More likely than not I'll be here...just full of beer and crawfish haha. If not I will depend on all of your wonderful recaps! Thanks :blowkiss:

You can listen to it any time after, babycat! You don't have to listen to it live!

Just thought you'd like to know!

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by 1tasha
I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but if the defense has no psych experts how can a jury possibly believe that Casey blocked out her child's death due to the trauma of her sexual abuse?

That is my question as well and why I think he State should have filed a Motion in Limine to block arguing such a theory without experts who would provide the necessary link between being molested as a child and being unable to either (1) report the death of your child or (2) grieve over the death of your child.

The State DID file a Motion in Limine and it was GRANTED.
The State mentioned this matter in open court on Thursday May 27, 2011, and the Judge GRANTED it in open court the next day Friday May 28, 2011 (even though there is nothing on the Clerk's docket - yet)

Trial Thursday May 26, 2011
Ashton - we have motion in limine, was going to file in writing - ask court require defendant to proffer questions, before they elicit hearsay statements of defendant, so we don't have questions and objections all the time
Judge now or in the morning 8:30?
Baez - motion in limine in middle of trial? certainly past your deadline
Ashton - based on conduct of counsel in trial
Judge - file motion, I decide if it's timely and go from there

Trial Friday May 27, 2011
State's motion in limine
LDB - statements from witnesses w/o proffer to court as to admissibility of info in the question
counsel has been asking witnesses things that the defendant may or may not have said to them, clear violation of evidence code, exceptions for hearsay
causes us repeatedly, once the question is out, to object to this type of ... detrimental to our position in front of the jury
we are not asking that you prohibit the question, asking that counsel be ordered to proffer any time he wants to ask question about defendant's hearsay

Baez - untimely motion, perfect timing for prosecution, parading witnesses... now preclude that might hurt their prosecution, smart and strategical move, limits cross exam based on....
defense, there are topics that are sensitive in nature, come close to being objectionable, limiting our cross exam clearly obstructs truth finding process, issues that ....
don't need advance notice what witness testify to, not a scripted event, not know what witness testify to or change once take stand, require proffer, allow state witness to give prosecutor advance preview of what cross exam is going to be, defense prejudiced, the state has been impermissably been allowed to introduce...
we have theory of defense, right to explore it, have witnesses on the spot and ask specific questions, if objection to question, prosecution capable of objecting, not require us stopping, proferring, and giving them advance notice of what asked of particular witness

Judge - Ch 90 FL evidence code, framework was evidence is admissible, , must meet requirement of ch 90, this motion deals with attempts by defense to elicit statements by defendant from other witnesses, those under evidence code self serving, when attempted by the defense, basically 3 exceptions to that, not go into may permit some of these. Under those 3, foundation requirements must be asked before those questions asked, as of yet no attempt to establish those foundational requirements, not admissible , State motion in limine statements of defendant be proffered will be granted

 

[babycat]

You can listen to it any time after, babycat! You don't have to listen to it live!

Just thought you'd like to know!

Very good to know...though if I don't catch it live, how will I call in and heckle Mr. Hornsby? hehehe just kidding, of course I'm really excited to hear his thoughts. It's nice to have a defense attorney on the board to help us understand the defense's strategy.

Happy that Websleuths has a radio show now. I missed last week's episode...guess I'll go catch up now!

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by 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)

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).

The State DID file a Motion in Limine and it was GRANTED.
The State mentioned this matter in open court on Thursday May 27, 2011, and the Judge GRANTED it in open court the next day Friday May 28, 2011 (even though there is nothing on the Clerk's docket - yet)

Trial Thursday May 26, 2011
Ashton - we have motion in limine, was going to file in writing - ask court require defendant to proffer questions, before they elicit hearsay statements of defendant, so we don't have questions and objections all the time
Judge now or in the morning 8:30?
Baez - motion in limine in middle of trial? certainly past your deadline
Ashton - based on conduct of counsel in trial
Judge - file motion, I decide if it's timely and go from there

Trial Friday May 27, 2011
State's motion in limine
LDB - statements from witnesses w/o proffer to court as to admissibility of info in the question
counsel has been asking witnesses things that the defendant may or may not have said to them, clear violation of evidence code, exceptions for hearsay
causes us repeatedly, once the question is out, to object to this type of ... detrimental to our position in front of the jury
we are not asking that you prohibit the question, asking that counsel be ordered to proffer any time he wants to ask question about defendant's hearsay

Baez - untimely motion, perfect timing for prosecution, parading witnesses... now preclude that might hurt their prosecution, smart and strategical move, limits cross exam based on....
defense, there are topics that are sensitive in nature, come close to being objectionable, limiting our cross exam clearly obstructs truth finding process, issues that ....
don't need advance notice what witness testify to, not a scripted event, not know what witness testify to or change once take stand, require proffer, allow state witness to give prosecutor advance preview of what cross exam is going to be, defense prejudiced, the state has been impermissibly been allowed to introduce...
we have theory of defense, right to explore it, have witnesses on the spot and ask specific questions, if objection to question, prosecution capable of objecting, not require us stopping, preferring, and giving them advance notice of what asked of particular witness

Judge - Ch 90 FL evidence code, framework was evidence is admissible, , must meet requirement of ch 90, this motion deals with attempts by defense to elicit statements by defendant from other witnesses, those under evidence code self serving, when attempted by the defense, basically 3 exceptions to that, not go into may permit some of these. Under those 3, foundation requirements must be asked before those questions asked, as of yet no attempt to establish those foundational requirements, not admissible , State motion in limine statements of defendant be proffered will be granted