Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[mom2chloe]

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.

Respectfully bolded

Mr. Hornsby, would the same hold true if the FBI was behind recorded audio? I recall the story of Baby Sabrina who went missing from Florida many years ago and the Feds were allowed to admit their secret recordings of the parents.

 

[rhornsby]

Respectfully bolded

Mr. Hornsby, would the same hold true if the FBI was behind recorded audio? I recall the story of Baby Sabrina who went missing from Florida many years ago and the Feds were allowed to admit their secret recordings of the parents.

No, law enforcement is allowed to secretly record someone, but private citizens acting on their own are not.

 

[rhornsby]

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?

The prosecution is required to turn over any evidence or reports that would be favorable to the defense or exculpatory - this is known as Brady Material.

On the flip side, there is no corresponding obligation for the defense to provide incriminating expert opinions to the state. For example, if the defense hires an expert entomologist to review the discovery material and that entomologist either agrees with the State's experts or comes up with a finding that is not beneficial to the defense, there is no requirement that the defense disclose that expert to the state.

However, if the defense team's entomologist makes some exculpatory findings and some incriminating findings, the defense is required to disclose both findings if they want to use the entomologist at trial.

 

[BeanE]

Questions for rhornsby

Is it of concern for the defense to have gone this long - a year and a half since Caylee was reported missing; a year since her remains were found - without having any defense 'experts' examine the evidence (except for one exam of the trunk by Henry Lee)?

Reference this motion just filed by the state:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21913703/detail.html

Thank you in advance!

 

[rhornsby]

Questions for rhornsby

Is it of concern for the defense to have gone this long - a year and a half since Caylee was reported missing; a year since her remains were found - without having any defense 'experts' examine the evidence (except for one exam of the trunk by Henry Lee)?

Reference this motion just filed by the state:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21913703/detail.html

Thank you in advance!

All that I can say is that I tend to agree with the State's motion.

The problem that Baez may actually have is that even though he has engaged all of these experts, they might not be disagreeing with the State's experts findings regarding botany, entomology, etc. (the traditional sciences). In which case, he is in a pickle, because if he lists them, the State could actually call them as witnesses to testify to their "expert" opinion.

This actually happens once in a while, where a defense lawyer mistakenly lists an expert they did not intend to use, because the expert does not support the defense teams theory, but once the state found out, they called the expert as their own witness.

Judge: State call your next witness.
State: Judge we call Dr. Smith.
State: Dr. Smith, can you please tell the ladies and gentleman of the jury how you became involved in this case.
Dr. Smith: I was contacted by Mr. Wonder over there and he asked me to review your experts' findings.
State: And what was your opinion?
Dr. Smith: That your experts were correct.
State: No further questions, Mr. Wonder's witness.

 

[RR0004]

All that I can say is that I tend to agree with the State's motion.

The problem that Baez may actually have is that even though he has engaged all of these experts, they might not be disagreeing with the State's experts findings regarding botany, entomology, etc. (the traditional sciences). In which case, he is in a pickle, because if he lists them, the State could actually call them as witnesses to testify to their "expert" opinion.

This actually happens once in a while, where a defense lawyer mistakenly lists an expert they did not intend to use, because the expert does not support the defense teams theory, but once the state found out, they called the expert as their own witness.

Judge: State call your next witness.
State: Judge we call Dr. Smith.
State: Mr. Smith, can you please tell the ladies and gentleman of the jury how you became involved in this case.
Mr. Smith: I was contacted by Mr. Wonder there and he asked me to review the your experts' findings.
State: And what was your opinion?
Mr. Smith: That your experts were correct.
State: No further questions, Mr. Wonder's witness.

So what do they do...shop around more for the expert that will be willing to be bought for his/her testimony to say what they want to hear?

 

[Coldpizza]

That's classic.

:croc:

I love it...lol

 

[QueenD]

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,

1. 
   
   
   rhornsby thanks for all your info
   Can you tell me as I have always wondered, what is the difference between
   "concurrent" and "consecutive"
   I know concurrent means happening at same time and
   consecutive means running together without interuptions but either way wouldn't they both mean sentence runs together? Can you break those terms down a bit more. Thanks.

 

[cyberborg]

rhornsby thanks for all your info
Can you tell me as I have always wondered, what is the difference between
"concurrent" and "consecutive"
I know concurrent means happening at same time and
consecutive means running together without interuptions but either way wouldn't they both mean sentence runs together? Can you break those terms down a bit more. Thanks.

If it helps, to me Concurrent means all at the same time (parallel) while Consecutive means one after the other (serial) = longer.

 

[rhornsby]

rhornsby thanks for all your info
Can you tell me as I have always wondered, what is the difference between
"concurrent" and "consecutive"
I know concurrent means happening at same time and
consecutive means running together without interuptions but either way wouldn't they both mean sentence runs together? Can you break those terms down a bit more. Thanks.

Concurrent sentences are served at the same time. Consecutive sentences are served one after another.

If Casey Anthony was sentenced to 5 years on each of the 13 counts, to be run concurrently. She would only serve 5 years total.

If Casey Anthony was sentenced to 5 years on each of the 13 counts, to be run consecutively. She would serve 65 years total.

 

[Macushla]

In the unlikely even (moo) that Judge Strickland rules that the death penalty is not appropriate in this case, will Andrea Lyon then bow out? Is she allowed to do that or must she stay on the defense team regardless? I know a previous death penalty qualified attorney removed himself from the case, but he had not done as much work on it as Ms. Lyon has. How do you think this would affect the defense team?

 

[rhornsby]

In the unlikely even (moo) that Judge Strickland rules that the death penalty is not appropriate in this case, will Andrea Lyon then bow out? Is she allowed to do that or must she stay on the defense team regardless? I know a previous death penalty qualified attorney removed himself from the case, but he had not done as much work on it as Ms. Lyon has. How do you think this would affect the defense team?

There is ZERO chance Judge Strickland will grant Ms. Lyon's motion (no matter how well intentioned it was).

 

[logicalgirl]

There is ZERO chance Judge Strickland will grant Ms. Lyon's motion (no matter how well intentioned it was).

Could you take a moment and clarify for me (and anyone else who wants to know) why Ms Lyons would present this argument lasting 40 minutes at this time? Is it just the first step in a staircase of arguments she will do as the case progresses. While I have some sympathy for her general death penalty argument ( sorry folks, I'm a Canuck) the majority of what she said seemed completely irrelevant to THIS case, THIS Trial, and Casey. Isn't there a better place for her to be presenting her arguments?
It just felt like she shot herself in the foot - big time.

 

[Kimster]

Could you take a moment and clarify for me (and anyone else who wants to know) why Ms Lyons would present this argument lasting 40 minutes at this time? Is it just the first step in a staircase of arguments she will do as the case progresses. While I have some sympathy for her general death penalty argument ( sorry folks, I'm a Canuck) the majority of what she said seemed completely irrelevant to THIS case, THIS Trial, and Casey. Isn't there a better place for her to be presenting her arguments?
It just felt like she shot herself in the foot - big time.

This really bugged me too! It was like she was on the floor for a filibuster. Is this a tactic used by a defense when appearing before a judge only? I hope her opening and closing arguments are no more compelling, that's for sure.

 

[rhornsby]

Could you take a moment and clarify for me (and anyone else who wants to know) why Ms Lyons would present this argument lasting 40 minutes at this time? Is it just the first step in a staircase of arguments she will do as the case progresses. While I have some sympathy for her general death penalty argument ( sorry folks, I'm a Canuck) the majority of what she said seemed completely irrelevant to THIS case, THIS Trial, and Casey. Isn't there a better place for her to be presenting her arguments?
It just felt like she shot herself in the foot - big time.

Well, she only shot herself in the foot because it allowed Jeff Ashton to step up to the plate and completely change the psychological makeup of this case; he both removed all doubts as to why the death penalty is being sought, and removed any vestiges of sympathy the public might have had for Casey Anthony's situation.

With that said, I have no problem with Ms. Lyon arguing the motion, because a motion must be heard to properly preserve it for appellate review.

As for my prediction, I only make it because the law is clear as to how Judge Strickland must rule - even if he morally agreed with her. (And if he did, I bet it disappeared after Jeff spoke.)

Regardless, Judge Strickland rules based on the law, even if he disagrees with it (and usually, if he does, he will say so).

 

[Kimster]

Mr. Hornsby,

I am totally enthralled with your reaction to this hearing. Honestly, it seals the deal for me that justice will be served. Thank you!

 

[wenwe4]

Well, she only shot herself in the foot because it allowed Jeff Ashton to step up to the plate and completely change the psychological makeup of this case; he both removed all doubts as to why the death penalty is being sought, and removed any vestiges of sympathy the public might have had for Casey Anthony's situation.

With that said, I have no problem with Ms. Lyon arguing the motion, because a motion must be heard to properly preserve it for appellate review.

As for my prediction, I only make it because the law is clear as to how Judge Strickland must rule - even if he morally agreed with her. (And if he did, I bet it disappeared after Jeff spoke.)

Regardless, Judge Strickland rules based on the law, even if he disagrees with it (and usually, if he does, he will say so).

I heard Strickland say that AL something to the effect of she "had his ear" about double jeapordy but they were not there to reinvent the wheel.
What do you think about the defense's "good lawyering " skills in todays hearing? Just wanting your input on how you define good lawyering and if today the defense appeared to look better than they have in the past. (Not saying they won the day or anything)

 

[spiderlady]

Mr. Hornsby,

I have only speculated on this once on these boards and would be interested to know what you think of a possible Alford Plea in this case. What would the maximum punishment remain if this route is taken?

 

[logicalgirl]

Well, she only shot herself in the foot because it allowed Jeff Ashton to step up to the plate and completely change the psychological makeup of this case; he both removed all doubts as to why the death penalty is being sought, and removed any vestiges of sympathy the public might have had for Casey Anthony's situation.

With that said, I have no problem with Ms. Lyon arguing the motion, because a motion must be heard to properly preserve it for appellate review.

As for my prediction, I only make it because the law is clear as to how Judge Strickland must rule - even if he morally agreed with her. (And if he did, I bet it disappeared after Jeff spoke.)

Regardless, Judge Strickland rules based on the law, even if he disagrees with it (and usually, if he does, he will say so).

ONLY! heh heh.

 

[cyberborg]

Well, she only shot herself in the foot because it allowed Jeff Ashton to step up to the plate and completely change the psychological makeup of this case; he both removed all doubts as to why the death penalty is being sought, and removed any vestiges of sympathy the public might have had for Casey Anthony's situation.

With that said, I have no problem with Ms. Lyon arguing the motion, because a motion must be heard to properly preserve it for appellate review.

As for my prediction, I only make it because the law is clear as to how Judge Strickland must rule - even if he morally agreed with her. (And if he did, I bet it disappeared after Jeff spoke.)

Regardless, Judge Strickland rules based on the law, even if he disagrees with it (and usually, if he does, he will say so).

To me, thinking of Vegas and gambling, you have to look at the odds in this case. What are the odds, not just hard evidence but public perceptions?

IMHO KC is taking a terrible risk.

If today's motion hearing was anything to go by, we got a sampler from the SA (JA) and the harsh and appropriate stance they are taking. This is the first time that KC has really truly been called out and ... this is not just a lie, it is a life.

KC and the A's did not deal well with JA's short passionate speech today, so how on earth are they going to deal with the trial and prevail? KC took a life and she may yet get to take another, her own.

RH -- if you are a gambling man would you take these odds and let this play out at trial? Would you go for it or concede a plea?

[Admittedly the stakes are different for JB, he gets to showcase at the trial of the century, at the expense of his client. Is JB focused on his own fame and ill advising his client?]