Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[RR0004]

It is odd.
Because if Allen is saying even after they identified smell in car was DECOMP
They still were searching for a very much alive Caylee,it is kinda like saying they did not fully believe their own supposed evidence that was used against Casey to get a grand jury to bring her up on MURDER ONE CHARGE.
So junk science defense may just be right after all!

Once the forensics were back he conceded to the fact that Caylee was, in fact, deceased.

 

[ZsaZsa]

My guess...it's highly inflammatory (and prejudicial).

Trouble is, our girl is in a bit of a pickle- ALL the evidence collected so far is highly inflammatory and prejudicial- because she is the perp! :dance:

 

[Virtual Truth]

It is odd.
Because if Allen is saying even after they identified smell in car was DECOMP
They still were searching for a very much alive Caylee,it is kinda like saying they did not fully believe their own supposed evidence that was used against Casey to get a grand jury to bring her up on MURDER ONE CHARGE.
So junk science defense may just be right after all!

Was this statement by Allen before KC was re-arrested in October '08? Because before that she wasn't charged with murder. Correct??

 

[Sooner Fan#1]

Hi All, I rarely post but have followed this case from the beginning and have read every doc that has been released.

I am a very small person, 5'2" and weigh 86 lbs. My husband was ill when our 13 year old lab (weight 125) died.( He had cancer) He was sick and my husband's only wish was that I bring him to the bedroom to be with him as we couldn't get in touch with our vet. When he was still alive, I rolled him over onto a big beach towel and drug him to my husband's bedside. During the night our Maestro died. I went to the garage and got a two-wheeler, dolly or whatever people call them. He was stiff and I rolled him on to the dolly and rolled him outside where my neighbor's teenagers came over and dug a hole and we buried him. It did not take a lot of strength. I say this with personal knowledge. Also, I double bagged him in garbage bags. I was concerned that our other labs would smell him and grieve and mourn and later I asked my vet and he told me that bagging him in plastic would slow decomp. We have a large property (3 acres) and we buried him way back at the back of our property near "his" pond. Just thought I would add this because it can happen. I didn't do anything heroic...just what I had to do and I didn't have much time to figure out what I had to do.

 

[mitzi]

OT-Congratulations, rhornsby...I hope you and your new wife have a wonderful life together!

 

[BeanE]

Question for rhornsby

Hi, Richard. A question came up on another thread regarding whether George, Cindy, and Brad Conway would be subject to cross-examination at this Friday's motions hearing.

I thought any time someone testified they were subject to cross, then realized I don't know this for sure.

Is there ever a time when someone testifying is not subject to cross-examination?

Thank you again for all the great info and insight you're giving us here. It's very helpful, and I'm learning a lot.

BeanE

 

[mydailyopinions]

Question for rhornsby

Hi, Richard. A question came up on another thread regarding whether George, Cindy, and Brad Conway would be subject to cross-examination at this Friday's motions hearing.

I thought any time someone testified they were subject to cross, then realized I don't know this for sure.

Is there ever a time when someone testifying is not subject to cross-examination?

Thank you again for all the great info and insight you're giving us here. It's very helpful, and I'm learning a lot.

BeanE

Good Question! Thanks BeanE
I was also wondering if security would be a bit more noticeable:crazy: in the court room this Friday..

 

[BeanE]

Question for rhornsby

Why oh why hasn't anyone on the defense team (other than Henry Lee's brief foray in the trunk) examined any evidence in a year??!!??

Inquiring minds want to know on this thread:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92590"]SA Motions filed 12/09/09 - LDB Slams Defense, JJ Protective Order - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

TIA!

ETA: Related motions for this and for thedeviladvocate's question regarding JJ below are in the first post of the thread. One motion for the evidence and one motion for JJ.

BeanE

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Question for rhornsby

Why oh why hasn't anyone on the defense team (other than Henry Lee's brief foray the trunk) examined any evidence in a year??!!??

Inquiring minds want to know on this thread:

SA Motions filed 12/09/09 - LDB Slams Defense, JJ Protective Order - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

TIA!

BeanE

And Mr. Hornsby, while you are at it, could you also explain what the JJ protective order is all about. TIA

 

[Kentjbkent]

Mr. Hornsby,

In reviewing the court documents from previous cases with Mr. Baez as defense attorney, he appears to have a fondness for filing many Motions for Continuance in regards to upcoming trials (some which eventually pled out) for reason of "defense not ready".

The recent motion filed by LDB this afternoon infers that Mr. Baez has yet to begin reviewing evidence, filing for depositions, and other defense work on this case.

In general, what discretion or guidelines do judges use to determine whether to allow a Continuance, and for what time period? In some of his previous cases, Mr Baez filed at least 4 - 5 continuances in a case, dragging the case on for longer than a year.

Do you have any opinion (based on the information made available re; state motions), as to whether or not JS will allow Continuations, and for how long (especially in light of the fact that it seems obvious that TeamBaez is NOT anywhere near ready!)

Thanks!

 

[Kentjbkent]

(Didn't want to address too different topics in same post! LOL)


Mr. Hornsby,

In light of the recent State Motions (damning in my opinion), should KC finally decide that she no longer believes that Mr. Baez is providing her adequate defense, I assume she can petition the court to dismiss Mr. Baez and have new counsel appointed (PD or retained)?

If so, what will this do to the case, and to AL association with case?

 

[rhornsby]

Question for rhornsby

Hi, Richard. A question came up on another thread regarding whether George, Cindy, and Brad Conway would be subject to cross-examination at this Friday's motions hearing.

I thought any time someone testified they were subject to cross, then realized I don't know this for sure.

Is there ever a time when someone testifying is not subject to cross-examination?

Thank you again for all the great info and insight you're giving us here. It's very helpful, and I'm learning a lot.

BeanE

A party is always entitled to cross examine a witness called to testify by another party - however, that cross-examination must be limited to the subject matter of the direct testimony.

In a hearing such as Friday's, this rule is strictly enforced. However, the rule is relaxed in an actual trial, so that the defense may go into other areas outside of the direct testimony to probe a person's bias, knowledge, etc..

 

[rhornsby]

(Didn't want to address too different topics in same post! LOL)


Mr. Hornsby,

In light of the recent State Motions (damning in my opinion), should KC finally decide that she no longer believes that Mr. Baez is providing her adequate defense, I assume she can petition the court to dismiss Mr. Baez and have new counsel appointed (PD or retained)?

If so, what will this do to the case, and to AL association with case?

I doubt Casey will ever fire Baez. However, even if she did, Ms. Lyon would stay on as would the other attorneys unless Casey specifically asked that they be removed as well.

 

[cyberborg]

I doubt Casey will ever fire Baez. However, even if she did, Ms. Lyon would stay on as would the other attorneys unless Casey specifically asked that they be removed as well.

Drat!!

I was very much looking forward to, ... "Mr. Baez, you are the weakest Defender. Goodbye!!"

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby,

In reviewing the court documents from previous cases with Mr. Baez as defense attorney, he appears to have a fondness for filing many Motions for Continuance in regards to upcoming trials (some which eventually pled out) for reason of "defense not ready".

The recent motion filed by LDB this afternoon infers that Mr. Baez has yet to begin reviewing evidence, filing for depositions, and other defense work on this case.

In general, what discretion or guidelines do judges use to determine whether to allow a Continuance, and for what time period? In some of his previous cases, Mr Baez filed at least 4 - 5 continuances in a case, dragging the case on for longer than a year.

Do you have any opinion (based on the information made available re; state motions), as to whether or not JS will allow Continuations, and for how long (especially in light of the fact that it seems obvious that TeamBaez is NOT anywhere near ready!)

Thanks!

Interestingly, I addressed this in my most recent blog post. So take a gander and it should get you started. Casey Anthony: Insufficient Funds Part Deux

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Interestingly, I addressed this in my most recent blog post. So take a gander and it should get you started. Casey Anthony: Insufficient Funds Part Deux

Good reading material, I bet you had fun writing this article.

Hypothetical legal question If the defense somehow manages to get the fraud case delayed until after the murder trial, and if KC was found not guilty of murder, then could she still be sentenced to 65 years if convicted on the 13 charges of fraud?

Another legal question, if you can find the time, What is the motion from prosecution about the protection order and Joe Jordon all about? Lawyer language tends to confuse laymen like me LOL. Thanks

 

[rhornsby]

Good reading material, I bet you had fun writing this article.

Hypothetical legal question If the defense somehow manages to get the fraud case delayed until after the murder trial, and if KC was found not guilty of murder, then could she still be sentenced to 65 years if convicted on the 13 charges of fraud?

Another legal question, if you can find the time, What is the motion from prosecution about the protection order and Joe Jordon all about? Lawyer language tends to confuse laymen like me LOL. Thanks

1. Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, provides guidance on when sentences are to be concurrent and when consecutive. And generally, convictions arising out of the same incident are to be run concurrent unless the judge specifically orders that they be run consecutive,
2. The motion for protective order is an enigma to me. But what I suspect is that there is some incriminating audio floating around that the State does not want released because it would hurt the trial somehow. Reading between the lines, it appears the audio would be incriminating to the defense team. However, under Florida law it is illegal to use secretly recorded audio in any case - as well as illegal to record it. So I think the State is trying to get a pretrial ruling to determine whether they have to release the inflammatory audio notwithstanding that it would be inadmissible in any proceeding.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Mr. Hornsby,
How long can the FBI hold onto whatever investigative discovery they have in this case?

 

[PaddieAB]

Hi Mr Hornsby. Once again I appreciate all your professional opinions you’ve so generously shared with us. My question is in regards to the Water Analysis Report released yesterday through Discovery, and what you think the implications of it to be to the case.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/casey_engineer_12379-12388.pdf

For others who may not have seen it, the conclusion of the study (page 7) says analysis revealed Area A - the site where the remains were found - was NOT under water for most of the period from June 16 2008 to December 11 2008. The area would have been submerged only for 10 days - August 18-28th 2008 (Tropical Storm Fay).

As this report is addressed to Mr Ashton, it appears this study was bought and paid for by the State. I looked three times at his name to make sure my eyes weren’t deceiving me - I really expected this to be work on behalf of the defense.

The State’s two key witnesses - Kronk supported by Miller/TES have stated the specific area in which Caylee’s body was discovered Dec 11th was submerged in water for a large duration in time, so the remains were there all along. We know the Defense is setting out to prove otherwise. That leads me to believe this water analysis will have a huge impact on the case.

1) If/when this case goes to trial, do you have any inkling how the prosecution could proceed? In my totally unexpert opinion it seems the State’s own expert witness’s water analysis greatly damages the credibility of both Kronk and Miller, without the Defense having to get out of bed.

2) If either the prosecution or defense hires an expert to conduct analysis on some aspect of a case, and the results are not “somewhat favorable”, are they obliged to use those results or could a simple shred the report/“well thanks anyway but so long” take place?

 

[AZlawyer]

Interestingly, I addressed this in my most recent blog post. So take a gander and it should get you started. Casey Anthony: Insufficient Funds Part Deux

Good post. One reason I think it will be tough for the defense to keep the check fraud facts out of the murder trial anyway (and therefore they might as well have consolidated the trials) is that (IIRC) Casey said she had lied, cheated and stolen to try to get her daughter back. Sounds like an inextricable intertwining of facts to me.