Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

[beach]

For Richard Hornsby, please -

1. Have you personally tried a case before Judge Perry? If so, can you elaborate on your impression of him.

2. How do you believe Mason and Baez are feeling about their decision to file their motion for recusal of Judge Strickland now? lol

 

[LinasK]

rhornsby, what is your opinion of lydia gardner's statements? Are trials in Fl. ever cancelled or postponed due to budget cuts??? Who makes those decisions?

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Mr. Hornsby, did you not at one time think that when the bottle containing the syringe was analyzed and showed traces of chloroform that it was the final piece of the puzzle, and that it showed premeditation?

And in light of that, would that not likely bring about a conviction for 1st degree?

Or have you changed your mind since then? If so, based upon what?
Also, if you care to speculate, what charge do you forsee her convicted of?

Thanks in advance for all of your time and interest.

 

[angeldust]

Thank you Mr Hornsby and your correct i did mean a technicality lol

i do understand the reasonable doubt part and its your job to make sure a client is being treated fairly in the eyes of the law. I get that.

In Scotland we have a judicial system that is different from England in as much as, we have a 3rd verdict Not Proven (reasonable doubt ). If after the trial undisputable evidence becomes available or you ADMIT GUILT you cannot be re-tried .

I know there has been talk about abolishing this law in Scotland but many are against it there is always some chit chat going on about it

Would the same apply if kc got off on reasonable doubt . Could she be tried again or not?

As for the technicality Im sure you understand that joe public (me) would find it unfair that someone who is most likely guilty got off on something trivial we get upset especially if its murder i think thats human nature . Can you be retried if you get off on a technicality ?

I do hope you know i wasnt implying as to how you can sleep at night because i promise you i wasnt I hope i havent offended you.

As for kc with regards to 1st degree murder or a lesser charge i understand its hard to prove how she actually died with no conculsive evidence, i can see WHY it could be reduced I just HOPE it isnt. As long as she spends the rest of her life behind bars i ll be just fine.

thanks for taking the time to answer

 

[SleuthTheTruth]

After it is all said and done, how long does a person have until they can appeal? How many appeals do you get? How does the appellate process work?

TIA

 

[Just Jayla]

I would have no problem sleeping if a jury of my client's peers, who heard all of the evidence, found a reasonable doubt as to my client's guilt; nor should you. Because our criminal justice system requires such an acquitall.

However, what you really meant to ask was how I would feel if a client got off on a technicality. I would answer that I would not feel bad as it was not me that let her off, I only pointed out the technicality. The jury is the one who chose to act upon it.

In any event, as it applies to this case, I have never thought Casey would be convicted of 1st Degree Murder. I think she will be convicted of a lesser crime, and that does not mean she got off. Only that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether she committed he greater crime.

BBM-You have piqued my curiosity-

Why?

Do you see something indicative of a plea? Or, are you speaking strictly in terms of the evidence of premeditation?

I am sure you have elaborated before, but if you would indulge, I will consume.

 

[AZlawyer]

After it is all said and done, how long does a person have until they can appeal? How many appeals do you get? How does the appellate process work?

TIA

I don't know the exact time frames for Florida. Here's a flow chart showing the appeal steps:

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/brokensystem2/images/flowchart.gif

In AZ, it can take 10-20 years to get through the whole process.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I would have no problem sleeping if a jury of my client's peers, who heard all of the evidence, found a reasonable doubt as to my client's guilt; nor should you. Because our criminal justice system requires such an acquitall.

However, what you really meant to ask was how I would feel if a client got off on a technicality. I would answer that I would not feel bad as it was not me that let her off, I only pointed out the technicality. The jury is the one who chose to act upon it.

In any event, as it applies to this case, I have never thought Casey would be convicted of 1st Degree Murder. I think she will be convicted of a lesser crime, and that does not mean she got off. Only that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether she committed he greater crime.

RBBM..thank you Richard for your input...what is the sentence for the aggravated manslaughter of a child? With no COD, I doubt highly, ICA would be given a death sentence. But isn't the manslaughter also a life sentence, no chance for parole??

Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.

Justice for Caylee

 

[beach]

RBBM..thank you Richard for your input...what is the sentence for the aggravated manslaughter of a child? With no COD, I doubt highly, ICA would be given a death sentence. But isn't the manslaughter also a life sentence, no chance for parole??

Justice for Caylee

FL Statute 782.07(3) - aggravated manslaughter of a child

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084

Per FL sentencing guidelines, I believe that would carry a sentence of 30 years.

(also per RH's comment posted on April 12, 2010)

 

[LolaMoon08]

FL Statute 782.07(3) - aggravated manslaughter of a child

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084

Per FL sentencing guidelines, I believe that would carry a sentence of 30 years.

(also per RH's comment posted on April 12, 2010)

Quoting Beach's post to help with my question...

Is there a thread on this subject? I just erased my entire post because I do not think if falls under the category for asking a lawyer a question, but I would really like to talk about this?

 

[rhornsby]

For Richard Hornsby, please -

1. Have you personally tried a case before Judge Perry? If so, can you elaborate on your impression of him.

2. How do you believe Mason and Baez are feeling about their decision to file their motion for recusal of Judge Strickland now? lol

1. I have had about five cases, but not trials, in front of Judge Perry. My impression is that he is a no nonsense, conservative leaning, by-the-book judge.

2. Like idiots.

 

[strawberry]

1. I have had about five cases, but not trials, in front of Judge Perry. My impression is that he is a no nonsense, conservative leaning, by-the-book judge.

2. Like idiots.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[rhornsby]

rhornsby, what is your opinion of lydia gardner's statements? Are trials in Fl. ever cancelled or postponed due to budget cuts??? Who makes those decisions?

Lydia is a politician first and her statements were made to get attention. But it is worth noting that in Georgia the last few years, many death penalty cases were put on hold because there was no money to pay attorneys.

 

[rhornsby]

Thank you Mr Hornsby and your correct i did mean a technicality lol

i do understand the reasonable doubt part and its your job to make sure a client is being treated fairly in the eyes of the law. I get that.

In Scotland we have a judicial system that is different from England in as much as, we have a 3rd verdict Not Proven (reasonable doubt ). If after the trial undisputable evidence becomes available or you ADMIT GUILT you cannot be re-tried .

I know there has been talk about abolishing this law in Scotland but many are against it there is always some chit chat going on about it

Would the same apply if kc got off on reasonable doubt . Could she be tried again or not?

As for the technicality Im sure you understand that joe public (me) would find it unfair that someone who is most likely guilty got off on something trivial we get upset especially if its murder i think thats human nature . Can you be retried if you get off on a technicality ?

I do hope you know i wasnt implying as to how you can sleep at night because i promise you i wasnt I hope i havent offended you.

As for kc with regards to 1st degree murder or a lesser charge i understand its hard to prove how she actually died with no conculsive evidence, i can see WHY it could be reduced I just HOPE it isnt. As long as she spends the rest of her life behind bars i ll be just fine.

thanks for taking the time to answer

People talk about defendants getting off on "technicalities" but in reality, there are no high profile cases where someone has gotten off on a technicality - it only happens in the movies.

The closest example of such an occurrence is the OJ Simpson case, but he got off because there were very real reasonable doubts as to whether the state proved their case.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Can you explain your reason for thinking that Casey could be found guilty of a lesser charge? What evidence do you think would prove to a jury that this was an accidental death (neglect?) and not an intentional murder?

 

[ynotdivein]

Is the jury ever shown on television/broadcasts of trials? I can't think of an instance outside of "Law & Order" where the camera panned to the jury, and it seems to me that the courtroom cameras are often positioned deliberately to not include the jury box.

If jurors are protected from being filmed during trial, what are the laws that provide for that? Are they federal laws applicable in every state? Or is it state-by-state but every state happens to have the same laws?

How are jurors protected from being filmed/identified as they move from the courthouse to the van that takes them back to their sequestered temporary home? (Yikes, lots of questions here, sorry.)

And as long as we're on the general topic, what laws govern jurors' decisions post-trial to take part in televised events where they recap their experience of deliberations?

(And as always thank you! :blowkiss

 

[OpenMind4U]

More questions to our lawyers...

IMO, after Friday's ruling, DT should realize that chance to win this case is almost zilch!...so, let's assume (absolutely hypothetically!) that:
a) DT will approach SA and Judge to ask for the plea bargain (using the popular argument of saving taxpayers money during economical hardship);
b) SA will agree on whatever reasonable term...Questions. Which of the following is true?:

1. As part of the plea bargain, KC must truthfully tell what happens under cross examination?
2. If #1 is true then who should be present during this so called 'confession'? And what kind of role the Judge plays during the cross examination and/or plea bargain process?
3. If #2 is true then does KC 'confession' will be the public record? Can public read about or (even better!) watch it on TV? Or it's strictly the secret procedure?

Thank you in advance for education....

 

[Just Jayla]

BBM-You have piqued my curiosity-

Why?

Do you see something indicative of a plea? Or, are you speaking strictly in terms of the evidence of premeditation?

I am sure you have elaborated before, but if you would indulge, I will consume.

The jury will hear most of what we have heard and read.

Why would their opinion be any different than yours, or mine, or the many people that voted on the WFTV poll-taken before a lot of the evidence was revealed-that KC should be convicted of murder?

What I want to know from RH, and I have to check back in the legal thread to see if he has answered, is if he bases his prediction not on what their opinions will be, rather what they will be instructed to let be their guide.

Their opinions and what they are permitted by instruction to acknowledge and debate may be two vastly different things.

RH, we have carried this conversation forward into the realm of opinions on another thread, but for this fact-based thread, I thought I should add quote above. Some, all, or none of the above...? if I am making no sense, well...that would actually be a normal day for me-Hopefully you can decipher.

Where is the deficit in the state's case?

ETA-AZ, you are welcome to shed light as well....was it Lincoln who said that the best way to beat your adversary was to think like your adversary? Put on your thinking cap, girlfriend-where can this fall apart for the state? What would eliminate/downgrade a 1st degree murder finding as the case stands now? Could I manage to make the question any broader? (that last one is for self deprecation purposes only)

ETAA-Sorry to imply that your thinking cap is not permanently attached to your head, AZ!

 

[AZlawyer]

Is the jury ever shown on television/broadcasts of trials? I can't think of an instance outside of "Law & Order" where the camera panned to the jury, and it seems to me that the courtroom cameras are often positioned deliberately to not include the jury box.

If jurors are protected from being filmed during trial, what are the laws that provide for that? Are they federal laws applicable in every state? Or is it state-by-state but every state happens to have the same laws?

How are jurors protected from being filmed/identified as they move from the courthouse to the van that takes them back to their sequestered temporary home? (Yikes, lots of questions here, sorry.)

And as long as we're on the general topic, what laws govern jurors' decisions post-trial to take part in televised events where they recap their experience of deliberations?

(And as always thank you! :blowkiss

Good question. I think it's just done by court order--i.e., the judge orders the media not to show jurors' faces.

Most courthouses nowadays have secret exits for judges to get to their cars. I bet they could use the same exits for sequestered jurors.

I don't know of any laws preventing jurors from discussing their deliberations post-trial.

More questions to our lawyers...

IMO, after Friday's ruling, DT should realize that chance to win this case is almost zilch!...so, let's assume (absolutely hypothetically!) that:
a) DT will approach SA and Judge to ask for the plea bargain (using the popular argument of saving taxpayers money during economical hardship);
b) SA will agree on whatever reasonable term...Questions. Which of the following is true?:

1. As part of the plea bargain, KC must truthfully tell what happens under cross examination?
2. If #1 is true then who should be present during this so called 'confession'? And what kind of role the Judge plays during the cross examination and/or plea bargain process?
3. If #2 is true then does KC 'confession' will be the public record? Can public read about or (even better!) watch it on TV? Or it's strictly the secret procedure?

Thank you in advance for education....

Zilch? No way. There is still a possibility of a defense win here. If there weren't, I wouldn't be so interested.

With that said, none of the things you listed are true.

RH, we have carried this conversation forward into the realm of opinions on another thread, but for this fact-based thread, I thought I should add quote above. Some, all, or none of the above...? if I am making no sense, well...that would actually be a normal day for me-Hopefully you can decipher.

Where is the deficit in the state's case?

ETA-AZ, you are welcome to shed light as well....was it Lincoln who said that the best way to beat your adversary was to think like your adversary? Put on your thinking cap, girlfriend-where can this fall apart for the state? What would eliminate/downgrade a 1st degree murder finding as the case stands now? Could I manage to make the question any broader? (that last one is for self deprecation purposes only)

ETAA-Sorry to imply that your thinking cap is not permanently attached to your head, AZ!

I suppose I would go for the theory that Caylee died in a terrible accident, not caused by any culpable negligence on Casey's part, following which Casey engaged in an idiotic cover-up attempt out of mortal terror of her mother, during which she was able to present a "happy face" to the world by suppressing her emotions deep into her subconscious, a symptom of her mental illness caused by the emotional and sexual abuse by her parents and brother. The "Bella Vita" tattoo was to help her remember the beautiful life of her baby, because the emotional suppression caused by her mental illness scared even her. Caylee was the only thing in Casey's life that ever broke through the mental illness and brought out normal emotions in her, so after Caylee was gone Casey's illness got even worse, explaining her horrifically ice-cold statements to police.

If they go for the "Zanny did it" theory, I think they're sunk.

 

[Solace]

Good question. I think it's just done by court order--i.e., the judge orders the media not to show jurors' faces.

Most courthouses nowadays have secret exits for judges to get to their cars. I bet they could use the same exits for sequestered jurors.

I don't know of any laws preventing jurors from discussing their deliberations post-trial.



Zilch? No way. There is still a possibility of a defense win here. If there weren't, I wouldn't be so interested.

With that said, none of the things you listed are true.



I suppose I would go for the theory that Caylee died in a terrible accident, not caused by any culpable negligence on Casey's part, following which Casey engaged in an idiotic cover-up attempt out of mortal terror of her mother, during which she was able to present a "happy face" to the world by suppressing her emotions deep into her subconscious, a symptom of her mental illness caused by the emotional and sexual abuse by her parents and brother. The "Bella Vita" tattoo was to help her remember the beautiful life of her baby, because the emotional suppression caused by her mental illness scared even her. Caylee was the only thing in Casey's life that ever broke through the mental illness and brought out normal emotions in her, so after Caylee was gone Casey's illness got even worse, explaining her horrifically ice-cold statements to police.

If they go for the "Zanny did it" theory, I think they're sunk.

That won't work because we have the neighbors and Annie Downing telling the police that KC called her mother a "f___in idiot" when she was out on bail the first time, and also the neighbors heard KC yelling at her mother with obscenities in front of their house.

That blows the terrified daughter theory.

And if they use the sociopath theory - that won't work because it is a "disorder" and not a "disease".

Also, she tried to hide it and as I first mentioned she hid it from someone she openly called a "f in" idiot. She was not afraid of Cindy.

As far as the sexual abuse theory, KC said she would wake up with her bra above her head. So we are all supposed to believe that she is such a "heavy" sleeper that she noticed nothing during the act. That story gets shredded in a matter of five questions.