11-25-2009, 04:07 PM #1
Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby
A major topic is going to be who heard pretrial publicity. So while Potential Juror 1 may not have heard the tapes, Potential Juror 2 may have and will then say "well I heard she said this about jurors, and I think she is a witch." Suddenly PJ1, who had no position agrees with PJ2 and asserts his agreement when asked if anyone else agrees with PJ2.
Now both jurors would be stricken for cause, as they would have exhibited a bias against the defense team.
Now once this will likely become a heated topic, and suddenly PJ5, PJ7, PJ14, etc all express the same bias - and they all too are excluded.
Now the State is left with PJ3, PJ4, PJ6, PJ9, PJ9, etc who all said they understood the context of what was said and why it was said and they stay in the jury pool because they have not expressed a bias against the defense, nor by saying they understand the context of the statements are the expressing a sympathy for the defense that the State could use to strike them for cause.
So basically, once this questioning is done. All of the shoot now, sort 'em out later people are off the jury and you are left with more level headed people.
Now, once the jury is seated with a pro-defense jury, the statements will never be discussed again.
Also, the entire audio of her speech would not be played for any reason, even during jury selection. Rather, the only exposure during jury selection would be what people remember hearing.
11-25-2009, 04:16 PM #2
Besides, the part bolded by me in your statement is in fact ideal as far as I"m concerned. I guess it's funny to me that you assume the level-headed people will automatically be pro-defense.
11-25-2009, 04:21 PM #3
Although I may not agree with all you have said in your posts here, I sincerely appreciate your efforts. I am happy to have the opinions of someone who is much more knowledgeable about the law, as well as the legal environment in Orlando,than I am, made available in this forum. I do hope you keep posting.
11-25-2009, 04:26 PM #4
And with all due respect, wouldn't it have been better to do what you felt you needed to do to correct this wrong you say WJS has committed and not announce it for all to see, patting yourself on the back all the while? Gloating is not usually one's finest attribution."Judge, Mr, Ashton is laughing at me..... " ~ Jose Baez, Closing Argument 7/3/11 (Paraphrased, of course!)
11-25-2009, 04:30 PM #5
11-25-2009, 06:03 PM #6
Okay, so if I am following the logic of Mr. Hornsby's post:
BS released the tapes to get ratings/readers (which is his job) and in doing so has set up the trial for a pro-defense bias because anyone with a bad opinion of Ms. Lyons will be dismissed from the jury pool. That about sums it up right?
It seems to be BS's story will have zero effect on jury selection because the ONLY people in the world who would have listened to those tapes are people like ourselves that are interested in this case, legal proceedings, and true crime, etc..... and that the vast majority of that pool already had an opinion about Ms. Lyons and what she is willing to do to win a case.
Anyone with that feeling that says they can not set it aside would be dismissed. But I would suggest that person would have been dismissed anyway.
Everyone seated on a jury in this case will have an opinion going in. There is no way to be a local and not be aware of the case. The entire jury will have been exposed to information and reports prior to trial. They will be asked to set that aside.
11-25-2009, 06:13 PM #7
First, to make a claim such as I did about not just another lawyer, but one who is a local television personality, I better be pretty confident I would survive any resulting defamation or libel suits. And let me just say this, I would love to place BS and Belich under oath in a deposition - so there will be no such suit forthcoming. I think their silence will be my answer. Because if he had accused me of what I accused him, well you all know the rest.
Second, I only said I was informed he was being given the option to resign or be expelled. So my money is on him no longer being a member after a month or so (enough time for him to save face and resign).
If I am wrong, well he will still be a member and at that that time and you can call me out. I am not worried.
p.s. And let's not forget that WFTV took down every trace of the information and BS is their employee; so if he dishonestly acquired it for them, they would be as liable for any resulting civil suits as BS.
On the other hand, if they had acquire it legitimately, do you really think they would "cave" to a bunch of defense lawyers?
This was the ONLY Casey Anthony story they have ever removed. They were pretty concerned and their statement allowed them an easy way to save face.
Last edited by rhornsby; 11-25-2009 at 06:17 PM. Reason: added post script
11-25-2009, 06:22 PM #8Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
11-25-2009, 06:37 PM #9
That by definition means you will have a more conservative jury panel, so if you are left with a conservative panel - the more level headed people you have versus cowboys, the more pro-defense your jury gets.
Its like this, assume our trial is about politics. FOX is conservative, MSNBC is liberal, and CNN is moderate. By default no MSNBC jurors are even allowed on jury, so you are left with FOX and CNN jury pool. Defense would want more CNN than FOX, the State would like all FOX.
11-25-2009, 06:48 PM #10
Frankly, regardless of how the tapes were obtained by Ms. Belich, I am glad she published them. Ms. Lyon should know in this day and age, you shouldn't SAY or DO anything you don't want to end up on the internet..... or maybe Ms. Lyon is one of those "technology challenged" persons Mr. Baez spoke of to Judge Strickland.
I have a TON of respect for Mr. Sheaffer for not blasting you the way you have blasted him..... I have always believed if I ever needed the services of an attorney, I would want Mr. Sheaffer. My opinion has not changed. I once had a lot of respect for you.... until you started this personal attack against Mr. Sheaffer.
There is a way to do things... and a way NOT to do things.... I believe you chose the way NOT to do things.
JMO."Judge, Mr, Ashton is laughing at me..... " ~ Jose Baez, Closing Argument 7/3/11 (Paraphrased, of course!)
11-25-2009, 06:54 PM #11
And I'd like to see a link of your contention that BS obtained the tape "dishonestly". Not that I don't believe you...we just like links here.
Gotta give you credit Hornsby...you came back. But, I should warn you...WS is highly addictive.
ETA: Knowledge is power. Knowledge is always a good thing.
Last edited by RR0004; 11-25-2009 at 07:01 PM.
11-25-2009, 07:02 PM #12
Thank you for responding.
You're right, a dp-qualified jury is more prone to impose the death penalty than non, but what I was saying is that Lyon herself has filed motions saying that death-qualified juries are more likely to convict. I'm not even talking about the penalty phase, and neither was she.
Your analogy is sound, IMO, but I do think it precludes a plethora of variables that would take me too far off-topic to get into here. Politically speaking, I'll go on a limb and surmise that given what we know so far of this case, even a jury chock full of Colbert or Jon Stewart fans would probably convict Casey. As for imposing the death penalty, I don't know.
11-25-2009, 07:08 PM #13On Time Out
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
I appreciate you giving us your time and words. There is no such thing as too many lawyers on a "sleuthing" forum. Thank you for explaining Florida law.
But--you had to know that was coming--I can't agree that "technically" legal and ethical are the same. Sometimes a human being needs to be more concerned about "doing unto others" than "doing the job".
You and Ms. Lyons both know that Mr. Kronk had nothing to do with Caylee's demise. Whatever prior bad acts Mr. Kronk may have committed, he doesn't deserve being called a murderer, even by implication. I think you know that. I think Ms. Lyons knows that.
Sometimes lines have to be drawn...you can't knowingly destroy an innocent person's life, even if it's a blemished life, and call yourself a moral person. Sorry...
That being said, I do hope you stick around.
Last edited by Jolynna; 11-25-2009 at 07:23 PM.
11-25-2009, 07:43 PM #14
With that said, Mr. Kronk does not come to the table with clean hands. There are so many questionable things about him that I do not lose a second of sleep over him being vetted by the defense.
Let us not forget, we all originally thought Ms. Kerley's claim were recent fabrications because she had an ax to grind. And Kronk had previously denied he had anything to hide.
HOWEVER, the next day Kronk's lawyer issued a statement admitting that he was not only arrested for the charges (meaning probable cause was found for the arrest) but that a Grand Jury was convened. The very fact a grand jury was convened is a big deal and it does not mean they found he did not do it, it only means they did not believe that a conviction could be obtained "beyond a reasonable doubt."
And I know this - he had the arrest records expunged, and expungements usually occur because someone has something embarrassing in their past they do not want someone to find out about.
So Kronk is no angel, is he Caylee's killer - I don't think that AT ALL. I just have no problem with him being fully vetted.
p.s. A person I know from high school worked with Kronk in his "office" job before Kronk got the axe. The only thing Kronk cared about was reward money and his workers compensation claim for his back. And he apparently bragged about putting the stick he used up for sale on eBay and other loony ideas to make a buck.
Last edited by rhornsby; 11-25-2009 at 07:44 PM.
11-25-2009, 08:17 PM #15
If you don't mind me asking, would you ever appear on NG as a regular contributor?
Last edited by JBean; 11-27-2009 at 01:34 PM. Reason: removed quoted post to take the post to another thread
By nursebeeme in forum Michelle YoungReplies: 58Last Post: 03-02-2012, 07:47 PM