Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[doogiesgirl]

I see her as guilty of something, I am just not sure of what; and I am definitely not convinced of First Degree Murder.

Well h*77 we're all guilty of something! Come on now...don't be coy...spit it out. If not 1st Degree Murder then what?

 

[rhornsby]

Well h*77 we're all guilty of something! Come on now...don't be coy...spit it out. If not 1st Degree Murder then what?

Count Three - Agg. Manslaughter because it only requires an intentional omission (not calling police ASAP); counts 1 and 2 require an intentional physical act.

With that said, if Caylee died accidentally and Casey somehow testifies, or defense alludes to that; calling police would not have have changed how Caylee died. Thus although the omission was intentional, it did not contribute to the death before the fact. And she could walk on that as well.

What bothers me is the State filed the Notice to Seek the Death Penalty on April 14 - and I still haven't seen something that just jumps out at me and says PREMEDITATED DEATH.

 

[rhornsby]

Counselor, please indulge me for a minute...

If I state that I have heard the Lyon tape, and I find it offensive BUT I inform the court that I can put that aside and reach verdict based soley upon the evidence presented as it relates to the accused, I am doing my duty as a fair and impartial jurist.

It is no different that if I state that I have heard all of the information regarding Casey Anthony, and I find it offensive, but I will put it aside until I hear the facts.

Isn't this approach and attitude what we desire of all jurists?

Very astute and while you may get past a "For Cause" challenge, I am willing to bet a Peremptory Challenge is coming your way.

But the real value of your "knowledge" would be for striking "For Cause" Billy Bob who is sitting in front of you during jury selection.

Thoughts of Billy Bob while you say what you heard: "Man that lady is ooooooogly, she thinks Drane Burdick has a strap-on hanging down yonder? Who is she to call me a Killer..."

Lyon to Billy Bob: Mr. Bob, what do you think of what you just heard. Well Mam', you called me a killer and I'll tell you what, you ain't got no respect for me I ain't got no respect - pauses to get remaining dip out of mouth - but, yah, shoot first and ask about whether any of you all manly looking women have a strap-on down there later. With all due respect...

Lyon: Of course....

 

[Luzer]

Count Three - Agg. Manslaughter because it only requires an intentional omission (not calling police ASAP); counts 1 and 2 require an intentional physical act.

With that said, if Caylee died accidentally and Casey somehow testifies, or defense alludes to that; calling police would not have have changed how Caylee died. Thus although the omission was intentional, it did not contribute to the death before the fact. And she could walk on that as well.

What bothers me is the State filed the Notice to Seek the Death Penalty on April 14 - and I still haven't seen something that just jumps out at me and says PREMEDITATED DEATH.

Casey is also charged with aggravated child abuse. Florida statutes allow for the death penalty for capital felonies which result in the death of a child under 12. Could be the prosecution will seek the death penalty for this charge.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/Sec141.HTM

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby, respectfully, let's just say that BS DID give those audios of Lyon to Kathy B. You say that Shaeffer is the one who will have caused a problem seating a pro-pros. jury....

I say if a certain envious attorney hadn't made such a stink, huge shink about it, there wouldn't be such a difficulty with seating a jury. IMO, you have played an equal role in this.

JMO

Mitzi - you say that because you care about this case, I did what I did because I care about the integrity of my profession.

You think I care about how jury selection in this case goes? I could care less. I care about how jury selection goes for every other criminal defense attorneys out there, I care about the quality speakers that will not go to seminars anymore because of that xxxx.

Listen, I am a xxxx in real life, but a xxxx who will never lie to you and will fall on his own sword before he would sell another person out to benefit himself.

So to those interested in the Casey case, sure I played a big role and glad I did. Where do you think that audio would show up next... Nancy Grace will have an hour special with Caylees picture up and Andrea Lyon replaying for thirty minutes straight every terrible thing Lyon said if I did not take the action I did.

Be clear about this, I have ZERO regrets. You think I care about tv? I mean really. I am unlikely to appear on local tv again because of my "stunt" that translates into less face time, which translates into less free advertising.

You all can challenge my motives all you want, it is a losing proposition. Because to assume I intended to benefit, I must have had something to gain. Remember, I provided the Casey Anthony commentary for THREE news stations and one statwide radio network; WJS provided Casey Anthony commentary for 1 station. So do you really think it was envy... come on. (p.s. someone is posting some really funny pics of me at JQ about being a media darling, please keep them up, hilarious!)

Anyway, you don't know me, but I am the lawyer who calls out another lawyer in court for being the "plea attorney." I pick up the phone and offer to sit with a public defender if they need help in a trial - not because I am an elite pompous guy like WJS who is living on his past reputation, but because I love my profession and how hard they fight.

Call any Criminal Lawyer in Orlando and pretend you are looking for a lawyer, mention my name. 75% will tell you I am an A$$; zero percent will tell you I am dishonest or I don't know what I am saying.

So yes, I called a traitor out and made a big stink and it may have affected this case; you care about that, I don't. It was business for me and I feel GREAT about it.

He did not want justice for caylee, he wanted ratings for WFTV. Your beef should be with him; just for different reasons than mine were.

 

[rhornsby]

Do you think the judge will allow the defense's motion for prior bad acts of RK?

I detailed this answer on my blog, but the short answer is I think he will let part of the requested evidence in. Although the time-line testimony of when RK called comes in as impeachment evidence regardless of the motion.

 

[rhornsby]

RH-
None of the defense attorneys have peer ratings on Martindale-Hubbell.

were I the client, I can't say that I wouldn't be looking for a new defense team.

What do you think?

Martindale-Hubbell is a scam like AVVO. You have to pay to maintain your rating and the ratings are a sham. And they will not give you an AV or BV rating until you have been a lawyer for X amount of years - no matter how good you are.

At one point I was the youngest Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer in Orlando, I have tried (and won) more jury trials in the last four year than any other private attorney, and I am Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

And what is my MH rating? CV for an average but highly ethical attorney. Give me a break.

 

[rhornsby]

With all due respect, Mr Hornsby, we do have TOS on this forum (and constant reminder posts from moderators), and your choice of adjectives to describe your collegue is WAY out of line!

By the way, care to discuss your relationship and endorsement of Diana Tennis, the attorney of Dominic Casey?

It is as simple as I know Diana and endorsed her work on AVVO. She subsequently did the same for mine. Would you like me to explain my relationship to the other five attorneys who endorsed my work as well? Or does your conspiracy thought only hold water if a player in the Casey Anthony case is involved?

I mean, I was college roommates with an attorney who works for Amy Huizenga's law firm? I sat next to Brad Conway once at a luncheon, I know Mark Nejame personally and he is my Facebook friend (so is Brad Conway).... Oh where does the conspiracy ever end.

You guys are easy, please start asking me some legal questions if you want my opinion on something. Otherwise I will just go back to stalking the forums for a good chuckle.

 

[rhornsby]

Plus how is the defense going to explain KC coming to the conclusion the nanny kidnapped the child when their was no phone call, no ransom note...nothing, when other more reasonable situations could have taken place for the nanny not to be there. The JBP story is even more unreasonable. Given the full schedule KC had the night of June 16th and into the following morning with Tony, how convenient.

Edit to read: Oh, I forgot juror's are not that smart!

How many MONTHS have you been pouring through this evidence, how many months have you been perfecting this time-line. How long have you had to listen to others ideas and bounce questions off each other?

Oh, I forgot. This case will last at least three weeks, maybe more. Oh I forgot, the jury is told not to speak with each until they hear ALL of the evidence in the case. Oh I forgot, ALL the evidence the JURY hears is not all the information you have reviewed, Of I forgot, you are at home with your family right now and want to be on this forum for fun. Oh I forgot, a juror has to give up his livelihood for the entirety of the trial,. Oh I forgot the jury will be sequestered and kept from his family (will probably pick jury in one county and put up in hotel here for trial). Of I forgot that a jury will not see, hug, or kiss their family for a long time, Oh I forgot, you were trying to be cute but you never thought about what a jury will actually have to do before they reach YOUR verdict.

So don't count your intravenous needles before they are injected in her.

 

[whats the punch line]

.....You guys are easy, please start asking me some legal questions if you want my opinion on something. Otherwise I will just go back to stalking the forums for a good chuckle.

Okay, Casey shows up on your doorstep, She has the Nanny story, and all the other reams and reams of paper with her version of the story. How would YOU proceed? And where do you think the case would be today,under YOUR counsel?

 

[rhornsby]

RH- Not to be a wise guy, but you said M-H and AVVO are scams, but in the next post you stated that you endorsed Tennis on AVVO. Why, if it's a scam?

Marketing, it is all about marketing. Listen, it is a different world nowadays. There are to many lawyers fighting for an finite pool of clients. I happen to think Diana is a great attorney and I endorsed her - note, I do not endorse an attorney just because they endorse me.

And for full disclosure, I endorsed Diana unsolicited. I happened to see she was updating her AVVO profile and I thought she was worthy of my humble endorsement.

Would you rather me lie to you and say that AVVO is the defining criteria for finding a good lawyer? Not a chance, but people go there and I would be a fool not to advertise there.

As for their rating - while I agree that I am worthy of a high ranking - their ranking criteria are a complete mystery and bogus to me. Some of those attorneys who have high rankings are terrible attorneys. On the other hand, some of the best attorneys in Orlando (Take Kirk Kirconnel, Mike Snure, James Russ, for example) don't even show up on the radar.

But they are from a different generation than me, I am technologically savvy and I use it to my advantage.

 

[rhornsby]

Okay, Casey shows up on your doorstep, She has the Nanny story, and all the other reams and reams of paper with her version of the story. How would YOU proceed? And where do you think the case would be today,under YOUR counsel?

I would close the door on her and go back to watching the History Channel :dance:

 

[cecybeans]

Sorry if this has been asked - so do you think it's good strategy to out RK like this so far away from the trial itself? Doesn't that give the SA plenty of time to discredit JB's "witnesses" as even lower on a credibility scale? What tactical advantage could this have (other than maybe a shot across the bow between depo days for RK)?

Also, I understand the legality of filing the in limine motion, but how vulnerable is JB to civil action by RK because after he filed it he jumped right on the media and showed the interview tapes? Those aren't even official discovery, they haven't been verified as anything substantial, other than a bunch of accusations by a biased and disaffected family member.

Could this tactic, so far out in the game backfire substantially?

 

[rhornsby]

BBM

Why not? I have read you from the begining, and you know she is guilty of first degree murder? Why the wavering now?? I had so much belief in your statements, prior to this, and now??...what changed your mind? or is it in vouge to sit on the fence and never be wrong??

Please provide me with a citation to where I said I "know she is guilty of a First Degree Murder." I don't even think you will find a piece where I have said they will get a First Degree Murder charge. The only thing you will find is pieces where I state I think I understand why the State is seeking the DP.

 

[Just Jayla]

How many MONTHS have you been pouring through this evidence, how many months have you been perfecting this time-line. How long have you had to listen to others ideas and bounce questions off each other?

Oh, I forgot. This case will last at least three weeks, maybe more. Oh I forgot, the jury is told not to speak with each until they hear ALL of the evidence in the case. Oh I forgot, ALL the evidence the JURY hears is not all the information you have reviewed, Of I forgot, you are at home with your family right now and want to be on this forum for fun. Oh I forgot, a juror has to give up his livelihood for the entirety of the trial,. Oh I forgot the jury will be sequestered and kept from his family (will probably pick jury in one county and put up in hotel here for trial). Of I forgot that a jury will not see, hug, or kiss their family for a long time, Oh I forgot, you were trying to be cute but you never thought about what a jury will actually have to do before they reach YOUR verdict.

So don't count your intravenous needles before they are injected in her.

How do you know what each individual poster has lived through, experienced, what they care about and don't, and what their feelings about KC really are, or why they are here?....If you want to answer legal questions, there is a legal thread. If you want to chuckle, be my guest.....but honestly, there are great defense attorneys on this board that do not attack other posters as you are, I think I would rather ask them.

 

[rhornsby]

Isn't this a pretty simplistic view to think this would actually occur this way.

They ask juror #1 a question, he answers. Then they ask juror #2, he answers, etc., on down the line So, then as this continues, they go back to juror #1 and all of a sudden he just says out loud, he agrees with juror #2 and he's disqualified? Come on. Really?? I mean, you even stated yourself, Mr. H, that you it would not be appropriate to comment on AL's seminar because you hadn't heard it. Do you not believe there are juror's in FL who may actually be intelligent enough to say the same? That doesn't give much credit to our jurors, does it? I just don't see it happening.

I could be wrong though. Just my opinion.

Jury Selection in Central Florida and with Judge Strickland is directed to the entire panel. So it is more like a townhall, than a 1 on 1 questioning. This is onea area I am 100% correct on. So no more responses from me to how the selection process occurs.

 

[nssherlock]

I would close the door on her and go back to watching the History Channel :dance:

What would be your reason for closing the door on her? I'm assuming you're saying you would not take this case............and I'm interested in knowing why. TIA

 

[whats the punch line]

Would you rather me lie to you and say that AVVO is the defining criteria for finding a good lawyer? Not a chance, but people go there and I would be a fool not to advertise there.

One thing I like about you is you don't lie, well at least I've always found things that collaborate what you have said.

I also don't think you are an azz.

I think you are acting like a trial attorney. Which you are. When questioning a witness you hit them hard.

When you are questioning a witness, do you skip around in your questioning?

Like: where were you born? Do you shop at target? Do you have a babysitter? Do you swim in the backyard? How often do you go to target?
Did you graduate from high school? How long have you lived on hopespring? What type of items do you usually buy at target...

Or do you have a different style in questioning?

 

[rhornsby]

Sorry if this has been asked - so do you think it's good strategy to out RK like this so far away from the trial itself? Doesn't that give the SA plenty of time to discredit JB's "witnesses" as even lower on a credibility scale? What tactical advantage could this have (other than maybe a shot across the bow between depo days for RK)?

Also, I understand the legality of filing the in limine motion, but how vulnerable is JB to civil action by RK because after he filed it he jumped right on the media and showed the interview tapes? Those aren't even official discovery, they haven't been verified as anything substantial, other than a bunch of accusations by a biased and disaffected family member.

Could this tactic, so far out in the game backfire substantially?

The best way to answer this is to explain that, other than exactly what a defendant will testify to, there are not supposed to be any surprises at trial.

So under Florida Rule Crim. pro 3.220, Baez had an obligation to at least list the witnesses before trial and allow the state enough time to investigate them.

Baez has ZERO potential exposure. He is entitled to qualified immunity for anything he said in motion. Plus, it is official discovery and it has been verified.

The fact he listed tangible video makes it "official discovery" and the fact they say on the video what they would say makes it "verified."

Please understand, evidence or discovery can come from either side. There is no need that it be sworn to or obtained by law enforcement to be official or verified.

 

[rhornsby]

One thing I like about you is you don't lie, well at least I've always found things that collaborate what you have said.

I also don't think you are an azz.

I think you are acting like a trial attorney. Which you are. When questioning a witness you hit them hard.

When you are questioning a witness, do you skip around in your questioning?

Like: where were you born? Do you shop at target? Do you have a babysitter? Do you swim in the backyard? How often do you go to target?
Did you graduate from high school? How long have you lived on hopespring? What type of items do you usually buy at target...

Or do you have a different style in questioning?

I group my questions into categories. And one of my best tactics is when I have a witness locked into an answer that I know another person will deny. I then make them commit to what will be an extremely important issue in my closing argument and then I call a bunch of witnesses who completely discredit the material fact assertion made by the witness.