Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[cecybeans]

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.

Thanks. How much head up time does JB need to give the SA before he can release the discovery himself to the media? I thought it was 15 days or something. It looks to me like the motion was filed one day and JB delivered the tapes in person for the Today show and JVM the next.

I understand the qualified immunity he'd have introducing this information in court, but does something this defamatory being discussed on national news afford him the same pass from civil action?

I realize there are supposed to be "no surprises", but I just don't see the tactical advantage of allowing this so far away from trial in that the whole thing might fall apart like a house of cards. It just seems a tad risky at this juncture.

To my mind, it looks more to me that this is more of a preemptive strike for D Casey's upcoming depo.

 

[reeseeva]

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.

???? "You care about that I don't"................??
What ??? Me Think thou dost protest too much.........

 

[reeseeva]

What a game this is......I am totally disgusted by all these shenanigans....it is who Spins faster and quicker than the next, but nevertheless, does not get down to the issue at hand, How did Caylee die, and Who is responsible?

 

[JBean]

If rhorsnby comes back perhaps we can bring our discussion closer to TOS and ask questions for him to answer. It is a unique glimpse into another side of what is going on in this case.

 

[Omachka]

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.

Mr. Hornsby, I bolded the quote above where you stated that you care about your profession. I have nothing but respect for the legal profession. Our legal system is what makes our country great. You are probably right in one respect, having those tapes out there could hurt defense attorneys in general (although I think the real culprit here is AL and not BS) but having this whole ordeal outted the way you did it. In public, on your blog, in a less than professional manner probably hurt public perception of defense attorneys more than helped it. It was an immature response and as much as I believe you feel you did it for all the right reasons, you did it the wrong way. I have worked with both prosecutors and defenders and have great respect for both sides. I met your dad once and I knew Mr Schaeffer when I worked at the SA's office as well. Your blog made me question the respect I have for the defense though. It shouldn't be "win any way you can and ethics be darned". It needs to be done the right way. You may have been truthful on your blog (as you see it) but you weren't tactful. There really was a better way to handle it all so that people don't see the legal profession as a kindergarten full of kids arguing in the sand box. It could have been handled quietly with a few phone calls. The tapes would still have come down and we'd be right where we are just without all the pubic attention to the tapes so that the integrity of your profession wouldn't have taken a hit at all. Just my 2 cents and I don't mean to be disrespectful to you but I do think you mishandled it if your purpose was to guard the integrity of defense lawyers. I'm actually glad you came here to WS and hope that you will continue to post. You have a wonderful resume' on your site and I'm sure you can teach us all a lot.

Oh I guess I missed the funny pics... where are they? BTW, I used to spend some lunch hours in the bookstore looking for books of attorney jokes for a very cool defense attorney I worked for in a small town in Texas. He loved them and laughed louder at them than anyone else. He had a unique outlook on all this stuff. He believed in treating everyone with respect and it made everyone want to treat him the same way. Very smart fella.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Mr. Hornsby,

As a defense attorney, after the prosecution gets done questioning Cindy and George Anthony (and reveals all their little mis-truths and half-truths they find completely acceptable and the vast amount of contradictions and story changes they have spewed during this entire investigation) how would you go about questioning them in order for the jury to accept their testimony for their daughter as truth.

As a defense attorney, how much, if any damage has Cindy and George done to their daughters defense with their words and actions during this entire investigation?

Does Baez even have a remote chance to paint Cindy and George Anthony as honest people to the jurors?

 

[whats the punch line]

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.

I've seen questioning both ways..
Both seem to catch the witness off guard, and gets to the answer you are looking for. I like the I gotcha look, when the attorney nails exactly what they are looking for. You can see it when they return to their chair.

The attorneys nailed my sister and her husband so bad, (it was a closed court room) when the judge returned with her ruling, she stated their testimony was so in-credible, it was incredible. She stated each impeached the other. I ordered copies of the transcripts from our attorney just for that moment.

 

[whats the punch line]

Mitzi - ..... I care about how jury selection goes for every other criminal defense attorneys out there,......

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. .......

Truncated for space..

How do you think this may affect the case, other than jury selection?

Can Drane-Burdick turn it around to the favor of the state?

Because we have not seen a smoking gun yet, what are the hurdles the state faces?

What hurdles does the defense face?

TIA

 

[Rlaub44]

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.

Mr. Hornsby,

From this response, it appears that you don't feel the State will be able to effectively summarize the information that we here have pored over for over a year and built into a (IMO) damning timeline.

In your experience, don't you believe that a whittled-down version of all of this data can be even more effective at trial, especially if presented visually and covered in one chunk, such as during closing?

We have had many things that we have had to consider and disregard along the way (the syringe comes to mind), so it seems to me the prosecution has the advantage of distilling the mountains of evidence into a tight presentation of only the most relevant items.

(I bolded the question portion so it wouldn't get lost in my ramble.) Thanks!

 

[whats the punch line]

If rhorsnby comes back perhaps we can bring our discussion closer to TOS and ask questions for him to answer. It is a unique glimpse into another side of what is going on in this case.

Thank you for the time and efforts creating the new thread, and moving the posts.

I am a new user, so please nudge me if I appear to be out of line.

I hope I have been within the TOS.

Thanks again for the new thread.

 

[JBean]

Thank you for the time and efforts creating the new thread, and moving the posts.

I am a new user, so please nudge me if I appear to be out of line.

I hope I have been within the TOS.

Thanks again for the new thread.

You are very welcome. I am trying to move over some pertinent q&a from the other thread, but.. ahem.. there is a lot of carpola in there LOL.

The last thread was a bit of a departure from our usual fare. Typically, name calling and personal insults are never allowed. We opened it up with a little wiggle room for each poster to say what was on their minds. But it went downhill. So hopefully we can get some good q&a on this thread and keep it more constructive.

Let's see how it goes. Hopefully rhornsby will answer some good questions that we may come up with.

 

[rhornsby]

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

I'm having a hard enough time justifying my motives behind my attack on WJS; could you see me defending myself if I took over now.

But lets say she shows up at my doorstep (hopefully sans bacne). I would review her documents, ask her story, ask her what her realistic expectations are given the evidence, and then...... QUOTE HER A LOT OF MONEY TO REPRESENT HER.

I would then require 1/2 down, just like I require each client. If she could not pay, I would ask her parents to co-sign and pay on her behalf, etc.

You see, when this case first occurred, it did not become a media sensation the same day. Baez was her attorney of record within 14 hours of her arrest.

That meant she was arrested at midnight, was booked and processed, went to initial appearance, found time to get Baez's number, he then drove from Kissimmee (about 30 minutes away) then met with her, got a contract signed, got paid, and then entered his Notice of Appearance at the downtown Orlando Courthouse. He did not fax it in, the original is shown as clocked in at the courthouse around 3:45 p.m. WTF?

I am sorry, nobody had any idea that this case would take off like it did - thus the invaluable media exposure that might justify taking it on for free.

And media exposure aside, I am not personally getting involved in a case where a potential client's daughter has been missing for 31 days unless I receive a significant down payment and a guaranty of complete payment from a reliable source.

I am sorry, I am usually very logical about my thought process - but as a practicing lawyer in the same jurisdiction as Baez, I can't imagine not just entering a notice of appearance in such a serious case without assurance of payment, but doing so within 14 hours of the person's arrest.

Somehow they had to have had prior contact for him to have entered a notice of appearance that quickly - and that equates to a guilty conscious on the part of Casey Anthony if I am correct in my suspicion. Because innocent people do not seek out a criminal attorney before they are arrested, guilty ones do.

 

[Blaise]

You're saying she had conceivably had contact with Baez and lined up representation prior to 07-16-08 . . .

Wow.

As an FYI, how much do you charge to represent for 1st degree murder? And would there be a websleuths discount, and would we use a coupon code . . .

Blaise

 

[jandkmom]

I'm having a hard enough time justifying my motives behind my attack on WJS; could you see me defending myself if I took over now.

But lets say she shows up at my doorstep (hopefully sans bacne). I would review her documents, ask her story, ask her what her realistic expectations are given the evidence, and then...... QUOTE HER A LOT OF MONEY TO REPRESENT HER.

I would then require 1/2 down, just like I require each client. If she could not pay, I would ask her parents to co-sign and pay on her behalf, etc.

You see, when this case first occurred, it did not become a media sensation the same day. Baez was her attorney of record within 14 hours of her arrest.

That meant she was arrested at midnight, was booked and processed, went to initial appearance, found time to get Baez's number, he then drove from Kissimmee (about 30 minutes away) then met with her, got a contract signed, got paid, and then entered his Notice of Appearance at the downtown Orlando Courthouse. He did not fax it in, the original is shown as clocked in at the courthouse around 3:45 p.m. WTF?

I am sorry, nobody had any idea that this case would take off like it did - thus the invaluable media exposure that might justify taking it on for free.

And media exposure aside, I am not personally getting involved in a case where a potential client's daughter has been missing for 31 days unless I receive a significant down payment and a guaranty of complete payment from a reliable source.

I am sorry, I am usually very logical about my thought process - but as a practicing lawyer in the same jurisdiction as Baez, I can't imagine not just entering a notice of appearance in such a serious case without assurance of payment, but doing so within 14 hours of the person's arrest.

Somehow they had to have had prior contact for him to have entered a notice of appearance that quickly - and that equates to a guilty conscious on the part of Casey Anthony if I am correct in my suspicion. Because innocent people do not seek out a criminal attorney before they are arrested, guilty ones do.

First, thank you for coming on here and answering our questions.

You have said that you feel like she is guilty of something, and you are just not sure what, and that for the right price you would represent her correct? As a defense lawyer is there any circumstance that you would not represent someone no matter what fee they could pay, or do you believe that everyone should have someone represent them no matter what they did?

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby,

From this response, it appears that you don't feel the State will be able to effectively summarize the information that we here have pored over for over a year and built into a (IMO) damning timeline.

In your experience, don't you believe that a whittled-down version of all of this data can be even more effective at trial, especially if presented visually and covered in one chunk, such as during closing?

We have had many things that we have had to consider and disregard along the way (the syringe comes to mind), so it seems to me the prosecution has the advantage of distilling the mountains of evidence into a tight presentation of only the most relevant items.

(I bolded the question portion so it wouldn't get lost in my ramble.) Thanks!

The problem is your idea of ALL the evidence and my idea of ALL the evidence are two different things.

Please trust me, a lot of the evidence will not come in for a variety of reasons: evidentiary, overly-prejudicial, suppressible, redundant, not admissible, unreliable, repetitive.

And I am glad you asked that, because when the reporters asked me questions, it was always in a vacuum, as if that piece of evidence was the most important piece in the whole case. Take the jailhouse reaction video for example - that video WILL NOT COME INTO EVIDENCE.

Why? Because it is pure speculation as to what exactly her reaction means. State will argue it shows guilt, defense will argue that not only was it illegally obtained (trust me, it was) but that her reaction was as equally consistent with how an innocent mother would act.

Why? Because her daughter's story was the only one that was all over the TV, so it mattered not that no one told her what the report was about, a *advertiser censored* would know who was likely found the minute the reporter said they found a body of a young child.

But more importantly, they had nothing to compare it to. Take when Padilla said he found the body at the river. Now if they had taken her into the room when that newscast occurred and she did nothing, well you would have something to juxtapose the actual finding of Casey with.

But that would have required a smart detective, which this case lacked.

 

[whats the punch line]

You see, when this case first occurred, it did not become a media sensation the same day. ......

I am sorry, nobody had any idea that this case would take off like it did - thus the invaluable media exposure that might justify taking it on for free.

And media exposure aside........

I don't know where quiznos has franchises.

But at one time they had these horrible, ugly hamsters ( not zhu-zhu's) singing this they're toasty song. Quiznos claimed even bad advertising, is advertising. (and it was bad)

I can't see where Baez or any other attorney would think that this press (advertising) is good.

I would think the best approach would be to try and stay away from the lime light.

Is Baez that inexperienced that he hasn't learned that yet?

I'm assuming that you would not put yourself nor your client in the media spotlight.

Can you elaborate on the whole media subject, and what you feel the merits or detraction's to the case are? Does the state or the defense benefit from this?

 

[whats the punch line]

You're saying she had conceivably had contact with Baez and lined up representation prior to 07-16-08 . . .

Wow.

As an FYI, how much do you charge to represent for 1st degree murder? And would there be a websleuths discount, and would we use a coupon code . . .

Blaise

Wait I think I can answer that...

If you have to ask how much, I don't think he wants you as a client. (MHO) LOL (six figures plus)

 

[Blaise]

'Nother question. In the radio call-in show, you said you doubted Judge Strickland would impose the dealth penalty, no matter what the jury decided.

Why?

Blaise

 

[rhornsby]

First, thank you for coming on here and answering our questions.

You have said that you feel like she is guilty of something, and you are just not sure what, and that for the right price you would represent her correct? As a defense lawyer is there any circumstance that you would not represent someone no matter what fee they could pay, or do you believe that everyone should have someone represent them no matter what they did?

Yes, I have turned away many clients. I see it this way, I agree to represent clients - they don't hire me.

I have my own personal experiences in life that shape my morality. If after meeting with a client I think he beat, not hit, but beat his own child or his wife, I decline those cases because it is my personal choice.

HOWEVER, if I was court appointed to take the case for some reason (I used to take on court appointed cases) I would defend the person as vigorously as possible and put my personal beliefs aside.

Why, because in the first scenario, the client has a choice and I have a choice. In the latter, the client has no choice because he is indigent and I have previously agreed to take any case assigned.

Also, I will not discuss whether I would take her case if I had the option anymore. Because it is a moral debate that would be based on hind-sight. What would be the point, the debate could never be won by either side.

 

[cecybeans]

Baez lives a couple of miles down the road from the owner of Fusian. Do you think he knew KC before all this went down, or do you think KC called the owner and asked for a rec? I had heard that before this JB was mainly doing DUIs for LEO's. Could she have gotten a recommendation from one of the many officers she seemed to know?