As most readers of this blog (both of them) probably know by now – Jose Baez recently filed a Motion in Limine to Introduce Prior Bad Acts and Other Circumstantial Evidence Pertaining to Roy M. Kronk (“the Motion”) – the blogosphere is buzzing.
And the fact Jose Baez filed this motion immediately after Mr. Kronk’s deposition concluded for the day raised some serious red flags about his motives (not to mention his pre-orchestrated appearances on every major news network the following morning).
But rather than jumping to conclusions, I instead read the motion and I have to tell you, from a legal perspective, it was sound, smart, and strategic.
The Motion was dead on about the law and it was a dead-on strategic move from a criminal defense perspective. And I opined this same position on WESH-NBC when I said “This is the first significant and credible shot the defense has taken against the state. I think it has a high likelihood of success.”
So I was flabbergasted when WFTV-ABC “legal analyst” William “Bill” Sheaffer said: “I deem these tactics as despicable” and then “blasted” Mr. Baez on his blog (Does Casey’s Defense Have No Sense Of Decency?), local news, and web video footage for WFTV-ABC.
Well ladies and gentleman, only one of us can be right… (I am, but more on that later.)
Now as WFTV-ABC’s “legal analyst,” Mr. Sheaffer is supposed to educate the viewers on the law and give them an informed opinion about the likely outcome of the legal issue presented (i.e. legal analysis).
However, Mr. Sheaffer basically called this motion frivolous and went so far as to claim Mr. Baez could be sanctioned by the Florida Bar (Yawn…). He even wondered openly if Mr. Kronk could sue Baez and Co. for defamation, slander, and libel. (Double Yawn.)
The very conviction with which Mr. Sheaffer blasts the Anthony Defense on the Motion makes me question when he last opened up one of those law books he is always sitting in front of (Although the Giraffes in his were a nice touch).
Importantly, this is the third time (I’ll detail the other two briefly at the end) that Mr. Sheaffer has provided “legal commentary” about the Casey Anthony defense that was completely cheap AND false. (It’s not like it is hard to take cheap shots at them – so why also resort to false ones?) And in my book, three strikes and you are out!
So I am posting this in direct response to Mr. Sheaffer’s comments regarding the Motion and openly questioning his knowledge of the law, his objectivity, and his own “sense of decency.”
I think it is time that someone puts WFTV-ABC reporter Kathi Belich and her sidekick Mr. Sheaffer to task for their Pro-Prosecution pandering to the anti-Anthony sentiment, rather than providing objective analysis of the legal issues in the case so that the Central Florida community can have an informed understanding of the legal issues in this case.
But rather than stoop to Mr. Sheaffer’s level and blast him for selling out his profession as a “criminal defense lawyer” to become a yes-man for Ms. Belich (I will do that at the end), I will instead provide you with an objective and informed explanation of why Mr. Baez’s newest motion is legally sound and likely to succeed. So without further ado, here goes:
Having authored an article on the Basics in Florida Criminal Pleadings, I know that every motion must contain four primary elements:
- The Grounds: What authority authorizes you to file the motion, i.e. statutory, constitutional, or procedural authority.
- The Relief Sought: What is it that you want the court to do?
- Supporting Facts: What are the facts of the case the warrant relief? There are two types of facts. Alleged facts and sworn facts. Alleged facts are nonbinding, sworn facts are binding on the person attesting to them.
- Argument and Law: Why do you think you are entitled to relief and why does the law authorize your relief.
So with that as a frame work, let us “analyze” Mr. Baez’s motion.
Mr. Baez seeks to introduce “Prior Bad Acts and Other Circumstantial Evidence Against” Mr. Kronk. So the first thing we must ask is whether there is any legal authority for the court to take such an action. Interestingly, Florida’s Evidence Code happens to have two statutes that fit the bill –
The first is Section 90.404, Florida Statutes, which states (irrelevant parts omitted by ellipses):
90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.–
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.–Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
…
(c) Character of witness.–Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.
(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.–
(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.
…
(c) 1. When the state in a criminal action intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), no fewer than 10 days before trial, the state shall furnish to the defendant or to the defendant’s counsel a written statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information. No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal.
…
The second is Section 90.608, Florida Statutes, which states:
90.608 Who may impeach.–Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by:
(1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony.
(2) Showing that the witness is biased.
(3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s. 90.609 or s. 90.610.
(4) Showing a defect of capacity, ability, or opportunity in the witness to observe, remember, or recount the matters about which the witness testified.
(5) Proof by other witnesses that material facts are not as testified to by the witness being impeached.
Call me crazy, but it appears that Florida’s evidence code DOES allow a person to introduce evidence of other “crimes, wrongs, and acts to prove a material fact in issue” and a party may attack the credibility of a witness by using “other witnesses” to testify that “material facts are not as testified to by the witness being impeached.”
Now, from the motion, we know Mr. Baez wants the court to allow him to introduce evidence that Roy Kronk has:
- A history of inappropriate behavior with young girls;
- A history of abusing, restraining, and holding women against their will;
- Previously used “Duct Tape” to restrain a woman;
- Is involved in imaginary worlds of fantasy and violence (BDSM); and
- Made contradictory and conflicting statements from the ones he made to law enforcement.
Now is it me (picture me scratching head), or does it seem that at “first blush” (as Mr. Sheaffer likes to say) Mr. Baez is authorized by Sections 90.404 and 90.608, Florida Statutes, to introduce evidence that it was no coincidence i.e. “mistake or accident” that Caylee Anthony, a young girl, was found by a man who just happened to have previously used duct tape to restrain another woman. (I mean really, when was the last time your husband restrained you with duct taped just for fun?) And does it seem that Mr. Baez is authorized to introduce “prior inconsistent statements” that Mr. Kronk made regarding when he found her body?
Well, hold onto your suspenders and lets look at the supporting facts Mr. Baez proffered (meaning offered as proof) in support of his motion.
However, before we go there, I wanted to address a statement by Ms. Belich about the Motion. She is quoted on the Orlando Sentinel saying
“But they were not questioned under oath. And the defense did not provide any evidence to support any of the allegations.” – Kathi Belich
Well, since Mr. Sheaffer obviously hasn’t provided her with any legal analysis (no pun intended), I think everyone should know that there is no requirement that a lawyer have “sworn evidence” before filing a motion/request with the court.
Specifically, Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.4(e) only requires that a lawyer not “allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence.” And the last time I checked, testimony from living, breathing human beings was considered admissible evidence. (But in case you do not believe me: See Section 90.601, Florida Statutes, “every person is competent to be a witness…”).
So considering Mr. Baez provided not just transcripts, but video of living breathing human beings who state exactly what is alleged in his motion – I think he is acting well within his means and in good faith.
But back to the evidence, Mr. Baez has proffered (Please note that the following video links of living breathing human beings are from WFTV-ABC’s own website – not sure if Kathi saw them).
- First we have a video of Mr. Kronk’s own flesh and blood, his son Brandon Sparks, telling us that Mr. Kronk has given what would be a prior inconsistent statement. (Video: KRONK’S SON: Also Answered Questions.)
- Second we have video of Crystal Sparks, Mr. Kronk’s ex-wife (and a Chief in the United States Coast Guard), who states (1) he was interested in fantasies, (2) Mr. Kronk’s father asked her to bond Roy out for kidnapping someone and the father had found duct tape, (3) She relates second hand “concerns” about Mr. Kronk with young girls, and (4) corroborating the timeline statements of her son. (Video: Kronk’s Ex-Wife)
- Third we have April Hensley, the daughter of Mr. Kronk’s ex-girlfriend who says implies Mr. Kronk may have “walked in on her” a few times and that he played “World of Warcraft.”
- Fourth we have Jill Kerley, another ex-wife of Mr. Kronk (who Mr. Kronk apparently told others had passed away). She claims he (1) restrained her with duct tape two times, (2) beat her several times, (3) was consumed with Dungeons and Dragons online, and (4) apparently had a reputation for dishonesty (stealing credit cards) and would not know the truth “if it hit him upside the head.”
Now that we know the applicable law and have the substance of the proposed evidence, we need to apply the law to the evidence and see what we get. And rather the opine on the admissibility of the proposed evidence collectively, I will instead analyze each portion separately (like any good lawyer would).
First we have Brandon Spark’s who would testify that his father had called him a week before Thanksgiving and said he found the skull of a little girl. This is obviously important because this is about three weeks before Mr. Kronk “found the body.” Mr. Kronk gave his son very specific details about what he saw, when he discovered the remains, and how he would be on television “tomorrow.”
Importantly, this evidence would be “impeachment evidence,” not “Similar Fact Evidence” because it deals with facts in the instant case, rather than a similar but collateral factual scenario that occurred in the past.
This evidence would be “impeachment evidence,” not “Similar Fact Evidence” because it deals with facts in the instant case, rather than a similar but collateral factual scenario that occurred in the past.
So if, on cross-examination, Mr. Kronk denied discovering the body earlier, the skull rolling out, or calling his son before Thanksgiving – Mr. Baez could then call Brandon Sparks as a witness to offer evidence that Mr. Kronk has previously made inconsistent statements. See Section 90.608, Florida Statutes.
Now before I leave Mr. Sparks, I should point out that a party calls a witness at his or her own peril. And after listening to Mr. Sparks interview, it seems likely he has his own time line confused.
So if the State were smart, they would subpoena his phone records to see if Mr. Kronk actually did call him a week before Thanksgiving. If his records reflect otherwise, they could impeach him at trial (or provide them to him before trial – or at trial – to refresh his memory so he testifies “accurately” for Mr. Baez).
Second we have Ms. Crystal Sparks, the first three points of her testimony is basically second-hand information received from others and thus is considered hearsay. And as most of you probably know, hearsay is inadmissible. See Florida’s Hearsay Rule: Section 90.802, Florida Statutes.
Now, if Mr. Kronk’s (apparently deceased) father were alive, the father (if willing) could testify to what he found and saw – and that evidence could possibly be admissible as “Similar Fact Evidence.” (More on that later).
However, Ms. Spark’s does have specific recollection of speaking to her son, Brandon Sparks, about his conversations with Mr. Kronk. And her memory of when the conversations occurred would be corroborating evidence of her son – this by definition further serves to impeach, or contradict, Mr. Kronk’s timeline. Thus this portion of her testimony should be admissible. (This could be considered collateral-contradiction impeachment evidence; if so, the State could object to her testimony on that ground.)
Third we have Ms. Hensley, who implies – but does not assert – that Mr. Kronk may have purposely walked in on her and that he was interested in “World of Warcraft.” Well the first question we must ask is whether this “evidence” is relevant; i.e. “does it tend to prove or disprove a material fact” in the trial. (See Section 90.401, Florida Statutes: Definition of relevant evidence) And if this evidence is “relevant” than it is “admissible, except as provided by law.” (See Section 90.402, Florida Statutes: Admissibility of Relevant Evidence)
We must ask … is this “evidence” relevant… “does it tend to prove or disprove a material fact” in the trial.
From the defense perspective, this evidence would tend to prove that Mr. Kronk was interested in young girls as well as fantasy role playing. Putting two and two together, it would advance a theory that Mr. Kronk was some type of deranged person who prayed on girls.
However, the State would argue that the implied inferences of this evidence is too speculative and intended only to embarrass Mr. Kronk.
They would likely also argue that even Mr. T. plays World of Warcraft – so there is nothing abnormal about that (joking). (Video: Mr. T on the World of Warcraft!)
On this particular point I think the State would be correct and the court would likely prohibit Mr. Baez from introducing this information (or calling Mr. T as a character witness). See Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, which states:
90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.
Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Finally we have Ms. Kerley and her testimony is the real prize for the defense – and the real battleground in this motion. (Listen: Richard Hornsby on 540 WFLA Radio.)
Specifically, she provides testimony that Mr. Kronk has used duct tape to restrain her. I think everyone would agree that such evidence is highly relevant to a defense theory that Mr. Kronk may have been involved in Caylee’s death because she was found with duct tape around her head.
And since all relevant evidence is admissible, except as provide by law; we must then ask what law prohibits its introduction. The State will raise two primary arguments:
First they will argue under Section 90.403 that the evidence’s “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading of the jury.”
They will also argue under Section 90.404 that the evidence is character evidence being offered solely to prove Mr. Kronk’s ‘general’ bad character. And they are obviously right on both counts – however, even though evidence may be inadmissible for one reason, it can still be offered for other reasons. See Williamson v. State, 961 So. 2d 229, 235 (Fla. 2007).
So, in turn, the Defense will argue that while this evidence is collateral, it is also Similar Fact Evidence that tends to prove Mr. Kronk has previously engaged in a conduct that is so similar to an issue in this case that it would be relevant for the jury to consider. (Relevant as to his credibility if he denies having used duct tape to restrain women and relevant to the possibility that he is the perpetrator.)
The question boils down to whether the evidence’s probative value in advancing Casey Anthony’s defense theory outweighs the prejudicial effect it will have on the State’s case.
In Florida, this type of evidence is called Williams Rule Evidence after the Florida Supreme Court decision authorizing such evidence’s admissibility in Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959). This case was later codified as Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
Usually this type of evidence is offered by the State to introduce similar facts of past collateral crimes or acts against a defendant to show modus operandi or absence of mistake among other things. Thus most of the caselaw interprets it from the prosecution’s perspective.
However, there is nothing that limits the use of such evidence to the State. A defendant can also introduce Williams Rule (or similar fact) evidence and it is commonly referred to as Reverse Williams rule evidence.
“Reverse Williams rule” is evidence of a crime committed by another person that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime. See Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1990). To be admissible, the defendant must demonstrate a “close similarity of facts, a unique or `fingerprint’ type of information.” See White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002). And “if a defendant’s purpose is to shift suspicion from himself to another person, evidence of past criminal conduct of that other person should be of such nature that it would be admissible if that person were on trial for the present offense.” See State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990).
So with the legality of Reverse Williams rule evidence established, the admissibility of Ms. Kerley’s claims boils down to this question:
If Roy Kronk was on trial for Caylee Anthony’s murder, would evidence that he has used strikingly similar duct tape to subdue a women be admissible against him as similar fact evidence?
I am a criminal defense attorney by profession – and my immediate answer would be without a doubt – YES. However, I am sure any prosecutor you meet would say absolutely not – it is not similar enough, the facts are different, etc. And that is why this will be the true battle ground of the Motion.
I would note that University of Florida law professor Michael Seigel was quoted by the Orlando Sentinel as saying “I wouldn’t be shocked that he allows it, but it’s a long shot.” Professor Siegel – HAVE YOU NO DECENCY!
But ultimately, the decision will be made by one person – the Honorable Stan Strickland. And really, that is why my legal analysis and commentary is nothing more than opinion – because the ultimate decision on who is right and who is wrong boils down to the judge of the case.
Having analyzed the Motion from beginning to end, I think I have more than proven my point regarding the Motion’s merits – but only Judge Strickland knows how this will play out.
However, I am not done with Mr. Shaeffer’s attack on the Motion. He seems to get his suspenders tangled in a knot over the fact the defense team filed this as a “Motion in Limine,” he goes on to state:
Before we proceed further however, I think it important to address this so-called “Motion in Limine” for what it is. A proper motion in limine, as the title suggests, is a request to the court made pretrial to exclude certain matters from being introduced, or even referred to, at trial. What a motion in limine is NOT is a request to INCLUDE certain matters at trial, which is exactly what the defense has done here. Now, either these lawyers don’t know proper pleading mechanics, the Florida Rules of Evidence, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, do not possess a Black’s Law Dictionary, or they have another agenda in filing this. – Bill “I have my Suspenders Tangled” Sheaffer
Well, for those of you that are unfamiliar with Black’s Law Dictionary – it obtains its definitions first from common legal usage and then from definitions given by specific cases. But Mr. Sheaffer’s definition is the second of the TWO definitions provided in Black’s Law Dictionary. The first reads as follows:
“In Limine: On or at the threshold; at the very beginning; preliminary.” – Black’s Law Dictionary
But no, I am not done with Mr. Suspenders, you see In Limine is actually a latin term and if you plug the Latin term into Google (And Google does not lie), you will likely get the Wikipedia entry which states:
Motion in limine (Latin: “at the threshold”) is a motion made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury in a trial.
Hold your suspenders tight, because I could swear that says that a Motion in Limine asks that “certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced.” So either Google is lying or Mr. Sheaffer is dead wrong – you make the call.
But wait, Mr. Suspenders, on his video at 4:28 seconds, says “I have just in 30 years not seen this type of pleading and it is an inappropriate pleading.” Really, well apparently other “real” criminal defense attorneys have heard of such a pleading and – HOLD YOUR BREATH – filed them.
As a matter of fact, the Florida Supreme Court just issued an opinion in a Death Penalty case where the defense attorney filed just such a motion:
Simpson filed a motion seeking a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of alleged “reverse Williams rule” evidence. Simpson v. State, 3 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 2009)
Now I realize Mr. Suspenders is ancient and probably hasn’t tried a case in years; but filing such a motion is good trial strategy for several reasons. The primary reason being judicial economy.
You see, prior to 2003, there was little incentive for an attorney to ask the court to make pretrial evidentiary rulings because the law required the proponent of the evidence to raise the issue during trial – or it was waived. So even if you thought you had questionable evidence, you were still required to proffer the evidence during trial to preserve the issue in the event of an appeal.
However, in 2003 the Florida legislature amended Section 90.104, Florida Statutes, to read as follows:
90.104 Rulings on evidence.–
(1) A court may predicate error, set aside or reverse a judgment, or grant a new trial on the basis of admitted or excluded evidence when a substantial right of the party is adversely affected and:
(a) When the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears on the record, stating the specific ground of objection if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or
(b) When the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer of proof or was apparent from the context within which the questions were asked.
If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
(2) In cases tried by a jury, a court shall conduct proceedings, to the maximum extent practicable, in such a manner as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means.
(3) Nothing in this section shall preclude a court from taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantial rights, even though such errors were not brought to the attention of the trial judge.
In layman’s terms, this means that if Judge Strickland rules against the defense before trial, they do not have to fly their witnesses here and offer the evidence a second time to preserve the issue for appeal as was required pre-2003 (probably the last time Mr. Sheaffer tried a case).
Also it allows the parties to plan for the trial based upon the evidence that will be admitted and it insures that the jury does not receive insinuation about evidence that never materializes.
Also, Mr. Sheaffer makes a big deal about the possibility that Mr. Kronk could sue Jose Baez for slander, libel, or defamation. Well, I could have heard wrong, but it was Mr. Kronk’s ex-wives (one was a Coast Guard Chief no less) calling Mr. Kronk a dirt bag.
But since they are the ones who made the accusations, they are the only ones who could be sued. Which also makes me wonder, if Mr. Kronk doesn’t sue them for defamation, slander, or libel – does that mean their accusations are true? Well, Bill does it???????
And to finally put the nail in the coffin – I need to point out those two other times that Mr. Suspenders has been dead wrong on the law and just taken cheap AND false shots at the Anthony defense.
On April 22, 2009 he faults Jose Baez for seeking the Court’s permission to seek telephone records. (WFTV-ABC: Legal Analyst: Casey’s Attorney Made Blunder) Mr. Sheaffer is quoted as follows:
Sheaffer said Baez filed an unnecessary court motion that will bring unwanted attention. “Asking the court’s permission to do something you have permission to do to begin with,” Sheaffer explained (watch interview).
Sheaffer said Baez could’ve identified the witnesses’ cell phone providers during depositions and then subpoenaed the companies’ records directly. Instead, he’s asked the judge’s permission.
There is only one itty bitty problem with Mr. Sheaffer’s legal opinion – he is dead wrong.
In fact, the Florida Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1976 (coincidentally two years before Mr. Sheaffer started practicing law) that you have to ask the judge’s permission to subpoena records.
Don’t believe me, well might I suggest you read Heath v. Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (1976), in which the Supreme Court of Florida stated subpoenas duces tecum are not permitted in a criminal matter without leave of court (i.e permission). See also State v. D.R., 701 So. 2d 120 (Fla 3d DCA 1997); Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h)(1).
And finally, I must point out that Mr. Sheaffer is not even current with Florida sentencing law. On April 10, 2009 WFTV-ABC did a piece on how Cindy Anthony acted during her deposition in the civil case (Legal Analyst On Anthonys: “Like Mother, Like Daughter”). WFTV-ABC then turned to Mr. Sheaffer for commentary on how Cindy Anthony might help Casey Anthony. This is a quote from the online article:
“Sheaffer said it might actually help Casey during the sentencing phase if she’s convicted. The jury might feel sorry for her and take her upbringing into consideration. – Bill Sheaffer (April 10, 2009)
There is only one problem with that statement – Casey Anthony was not facing the death penalty on April 10, 2009 and juries do not make sentencing recommendations in any case except for Death Penalty cases.
On April 10, 2009 – Casey Anthony was not facing the death penalty.
So there would be no sentencing phase that the jury would participate in. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720 “Sentencing Hearing”; Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.780 “Sentencing Hearing for Capital Cases;” and Section 921.141, Florida Statutes, “Sentence of Death or Life Imprisonment for Capital Felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence.”
However, it does not escape me that less than four days later – on April 14, 2009 – the State filed a Notice of Intention to Seek the Death Penalty (WFTV: State To Seek Death Penalty In Casey Anthony Case).
On April 14, 2009 – the State filed a Notice of Intention to Seek the Death Penalty
So this leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Sheaffer either (1) has no understanding of Florida Sentencing Law or (2) he had advance knowledge of the State’s intention to file a notice to seek the death penalty.
While I suspect the former (Mr. Sheaffer is clueless), I doubt the conspiracy theorists in Casey Anthony’s camp believe the latter. The only real question would be who does Mr. Sheaffer know that might have a cozy relationship with someone at the State Attorney’s Office? Oh, wait a minute, Ms. Belich dated Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton at one time, didn’t she?
But nah, their is no way Ye Old Suspenders had a senile moment and referred to something that wasn’t supposed to be publicly known yet. Or maybe, just maybe, Jose Baez’s conspiracy theories about the State leaking evidence are true….. very interesting….
Now I am about done with my tirade about Mr. Suspenders – I mean Sheaffer. I know that the anti-Casey Anthony element will think I am some liberal criminal defense attorney who just wants to see Casey Anthony go free . So let me at least provide some anticipatory rebuttal to your forthcoming comments on my piece. (Interesting Sidenote: My Brother was one of Georgia’s Most Successful Death Penalty Prosecutors.)
I do all of my legal commentary for free (Mr. Sheaffer is on retainer with WFTV-ABC) and approach the interviews the same way I approached a consultation with a potential client: I take the facts that are presented to me (by the reporters) and gave my honest “legal” opinion about the particular legal issue.
I take the facts that are presented to me (by the reporters) and gave my honest “legal” opinion about the particular legal issue.
I explained not just the “black letter law,” but also how the particular demeanor of the assigned judge or the skills of the prosecutor would play into the ultimate outcome – whether it be by plea or trial.
I have tried several cases in front of Judge Strickland – so I am very familiar with his legal disposition. As recently as October of last year I tried a week long Second Degree Felony case in front of him (See Richard Hornsby Trial Verdicts) as well as litigating in a separate case at the same time a very complex legal evidentiary issue in front of him – and won (See Defendant’s Motion and Order Finding in Favor of Defendant).
As for the prosecutors on the case. I have tried cases with two of the three. In 2008 I lost a Robbery with a Firearm trial to Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton; but in 2007 I won two different Attempted Murder Cases against Assistant State Attorney Frank George. (See original Orlando Sentinel Articles on each client’s arrest: “Suspect Pursued to Hospital Door” and “Suspect Hunt Disrupts Residents”)
So when I speak about the issues in the case – I speak not just from my legal education, but from actual experience.
More importantly though, my critique of Mr. Sheaffer is something I would give of any criminal defense attorney who I thought was misstating the law – or pandering to the media as Mr. Sheaffer has decided to do.
Frankly, it is exactly why I don’t hold any punches when speaking about Mr. Baez’s representation of Ms. Anthony. However, I never fault him when he does something right and even when I disagree with him, I sure as hell don’t misinform the public about the legality of what he has done.
Take one of my earliest (and worst) interviews for example. It was a live broadcast on August 18, 2008 at CF News 13 (Video: Revoking Casey Anthony’s Bond) where I was paired up with Cheney Mason (arguably one of Orlando’s best known Criminal Defense Attorneys).
What is important about that interview is not the amount of times I said “Um” but my response to the question of whether Leonard Padilla could revoke Casey Anthony’s bond. Mr. Mason said that Leonard Padilla “could not just revoked Casey Anthony’s bond” because they had a contractual agreement (And Mr. Mason should know about contractual agreements). However, I disagreed with Mr. Mason and explained what the law on that issue was – specifically that Mr. Padilla was within his legal rights to surrender (i.e. Revoke) Ms. Anthony at any time he deemed fit (See Section 903.20, Florida Statutes: “Surrender of Defendant”).
But probably more interesting to whomever reads this, would be the fact that I have leveled my criticism of Mr. Baez directly to him.
But probably more interesting to whomever reads this, would be the fact that I have leveled my criticism of Mr. Baez directly to him.
Take my January 14, 2009 interview with WESH-NBC reporter Amanda Ober where I provided commentary on how Mr. Baez is handling Ms. Anthony’s case. (Video: Is Casey Anthony being Properly Defended?). I had previously said the exact same things to Mr. Baez in response to an email he sent out on a Defense Attorney Listserve seeking any input or assistance in response to a lively thread on the fairness of the original $500K bond.
Being no hypocrite, I obliged and told him exactly what I thought. (See July 31, 2008 Email exchange between Jose Baez and Richard Hornsby). And yes, you are welcome to start calling me Richard “Nostradamus” Hornsby at this point.
At that brings me to the point of this post (or possibly rant) – that I am a fan of good lawyering, I am a critic of bad lawyering; but I am nobody’s hypocrite. My father had a saying: “Money Talks and Bullshit Walks,” which translates into Talk is Cheap.
And, while I am extremely critical of the manner in which Mr. Baez has handled Ms. Anthony’s case, I have nonetheless always been objective about the legal issues I am asked about: acknowledging when he does something right and (more often) when he does something wrong. Doing otherwise is simply cheap talk.
And, importantly, when criticizing Mr. Baez, I think it is important that we “not lose sight of what all of this is about, which is defending Casey Anthony on the charges of murder.”
Wait a minute, that is interesting, I think I have read that before? Oh, right – Those were Mr. Sheaffer’s exact words on May 13, 2009 (Watch WFTV Video or Read)
“It’s not a staged production. Again, let’s not lose sight of what all of this is about, which is defending Casey Anthony on the charges of murder.” – William “Bill” Sheaffer
So when someone like Mr. Shaeffer – an attorney who reeks of elitism – not only criticizes another criminal defense attorney, but hypocritically and falsely criticizes another criminal defense attorney; I think it is my duty to call him out for his cheap talk. Because he is no more credible that the person he criticizes.
And Mr. Sheaffer, in my humble legal opinion, you are both cheap and a sell-out to your profession.
HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY? – Richard Hornsby on William Sheaffer
350 responses to “In Defense of the Casey Anthony Defense.”
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
Mr. Hornsby, The problem I have with that seemingly endless response is that you are taking potshots at colleagues while proclaiming to be the one who is right. It would have been more believable had you just stated you opinion along with whatever you thought supported your stance. Instead here we go again….you lose credibility when you boast of superior understanding while denigrating all other opinions. The defense can’t possibly want these people on the stand as witnesses, they will be dissected and humiliated by the prosecution. Not only do they have extensive criminal backgrounds they also have axes of various sorts to grind.
I think you may have missed the point and the reasoning behind this latest defense strategy in your rather egotistical prattle.
Hocuspocus – I appreciate your candid response. I also agree that the “witnesses” may have serious credibility issues ( I don’t know) – but that is an issue for another day.
My problem – and real purpose of my post – is to publicly call out an attorney who continues to misstate the law to the Central Florida public with the open mike he has been provided by WFTV. When someone speaks as an expert on TV, the audience presumes they are basing their opinion on authority.
And while I agree agree my post was seemingly endless – it had to be. I approached discrediting him the same way I approach a criminal trial. I wanted to leave no stone unturned and thoroughly discredit him – so that there would be no question as to whether he was being misleading and untruthful in his legal comments.
And the reason my post is arrogant – is because it wasn’t about superior understanding, it was about exposing a bully as a fraud.
I disagree with this rambling you are doing as you seem to be the bully in your article..do some research and see the credibility to those that were associated with Baez interview as a decent would have done their homework..we all did..
I agree with every word you said, Hocuspocus. Well put! I agree that it sounds as though somebody’s missed the point. I’ll go you one better – I DON’T CARE what he says or what BS says. The bottom line for me is this:
1. Casey Anthony murdered her daughter.
2. Roy Kronk found the body.
That is IT. Beyond that I do not care. Only that the murderer be prevented from murdering again.
My opinion of the whole issue is this. Nothing has changed, there has just been more nuts added to the mix. I guess Baez didn’t check into his witnesses very well before he rushed right on over, interviewed them, and broadcast it on national news. If he had, he would have seen that this could very well blow up in his face, and help pin his client more securely to the wall. It seems that Miss Jill Kerley aka Jill Kronk, has some criminal problems in her past as well, and they just happen to be VERY closely associated with some of the charges Miss Casey Anthony is facing in the fraud case. For example:
Case Information
Court System: DISTRICT COURT FOR CHARLES COUNTY – CRIMINAL SYSTEM
Case Number: 00621968P4Tracking No:0000621968P4
Case Type: CRIMINAL
District Code: 04Location Code:02
Document Type: SUMMONSIssued Date:12/01/1993
Case Status: CLOSEDCase Disposition:TRIAL
——————————————————————————–
Defendant Information
Defendant Name: KRONK, JILL RENEE
Race: WHITE, CAUCASIAN, ASIATIC INDIAN, ARAB
Sex: FHeight:Weight:DOB:03/09/1957
Address: LKA: 3038 CHAMPIONS DRIVE
City: MARYVILLEState:TNZip Code:37801 – 0000
——————————————————————————–
Charge and Disposition Information
(Each Charge is listed separately. The disposition is listed below the Charge)
Charge No: 001Description:FORGERY-PRIV DOCUMENTS
Statute: 27.44.(a)Description:FORGERY-PRIV DOCUMENTS
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 2502MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X
Incident Date From: To: Victim Age:
Disposition Plea: OTHER PLEA
Disposition: STETDisposition Date:02/23/1994
Fine:$0.00Court Costs:$0.00CICF:$0.00
Amt Suspended: Fine:$0.00Court Costs:$0.00CICF:$0.00
PBJ EndDate: Probation End Date:Restitution Amount:$0.00
Jail Term: Yrs:Mos:Days:
Suspended Term: Yrs:Mos:Days:
Credit Time Served:
——————————————————————————–
Charge No: 002Description:UTTERING FALSE DOCUMENT
Statute: 27.44.(b)Description:UTTERING FALSE DOCUMENT
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 2513MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X
Incident Date From: To: Victim Age:
Disposition Plea: OTHER PLEA
Disposition: STETDisposition Date:02/23/1994
Fine:$0.00Court Costs:$0.00CICF:$0.00
Amt Suspended: Fine:$0.00Court Costs:$0.00CICF:$0.00
PBJ EndDate: Probation End Date:Restitution Amount:$0.00
Jail Term: Yrs:Mos:Days:
Suspended Term: Yrs:Mos:Days:
Credit Time Served:
——————————————————————————–
Charge No: 003Description:THEFT:$300 PLUS VALUE
Statute: 27.342Description:THEFT: $300 PLUS VALUE
Amended Date: CJIS Code:3 2400MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X
Incident Date From: To: Victim Age:
Disposition Plea: OTHER PLEA
Disposition: STETDisposition Date:02/23/1994
Fine:$0.00Court Costs:$0.00CICF:$0.00
Amt Suspended: Fine:$0.00Court Costs:$0.00CICF:$0.00
PBJ EndDate: Probation End Date:Restitution Amount:$0.00
Jail Term: Yrs:Mos:Days:
Suspended Term: Yrs:Mos:Days:
Credit Time Served:
——————————————————————————–
And that’s just to mention a few. Trust me, there are several more, but I haven’t independently verified them yet, and to post them without verification that they are accurate would make me no better than an Anthony. A LIAR!!
Now what does all of this mean to me?? Well, I remember a statement that Cindy made to Sgt. John Allen on his voice mail. You can listen to it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCd_SofBXrA
So was Cindy Anthony right? Did Casey have help? And if she did, could it have been Jill Kerley? Did Jill kill Caylee, then threaten Casey’s life if she didn’t help her cover it up? Is that what Casey was so afraid of? Or was it a blackmail deal gone bad? Was Jill trying to get her revenge on Roy Kronk? It would be easier to establish a link between Casey, Caylee, and Jill, than it would be to establish a link between Casey, Caylee, and Roy. You know, birds of a feather flock together. That has been proven time and time again by looking at the company that the Anthony’s keep. This latest development has done NOTHING to sway me. I still believe that Casey killed Caylee. The one thing it has done is prove to me what a despicable bunch of humans that Baez and his dream team are. Just another futile attempt to try to toss a little doubt out there, and just like all of the other times, it didn’t work. I can’t wait to see who they toss under the bus next.
Speaking of being tossed under the bus. My guess is, it will be Cindy. Here’s another little freudian slip of hers. I ran across it on another blog earlier. Take a listen. It sure makes you wonder how long Cindy knew Caylee was there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmGLTPZqBHU BEEP BEEP Cindy. Look out! They’re coming for you next. lol
@caseyisstillguilty
I agree with you that this changes nothing, my post was more aimed at exposing Mr. Sheaffer’s fraudulent legal commentary.
Also, I followed up on the information you provided regarding Ms. Kerley (Kronk’s) past. And it appears that each charge you cited was disposed of by Suspension of the Prosecution (STET). This essentially means the case was resolved without a conviction (basically Pretrial Diversion).
Thus, under Florida law, those charges would not be admissible as impeachment by prior convictions of felony conviction or crime of dishonesty conviction.
I also looked at the other case, and all charges were dismissed by Nolle Prosequi. So those charges would not be admissible as impeachment evidence either.
Also, did you know Mr. Kronk had a bad check charge in Monroe County, Florida when he lived in Key West that was dismissed around the same time? I guess they were meant for each other 🙂
Thank you for taking the time to read my post though. And please let me know when you get the other information on Ms. Kerley (ex-Kronk)
Dear Mr. Hornsby, although I am emotionally not in favour of your argument, I do appreciate the law being stated, clearly to your readers. I learned from your article, that at the time of the trial, there will be much time spent on arguments without the jury present, just like the O.J. trial. God forbid it will take that long to find a verdict in this highly charged trial of the decade. You took a lot of time to help weave us through the latest Anthony motion. I am sure you will have a lot of crack pots responding negatively to your theory, or fact finding of Kronk as a possible candidate for murder. I think that will be a stretch and even if the jury hears about some of the above findings, there is just way too much slanted against Casey to let that taint their verdict. A finding of NOT GUILTY is a stretch, to say the least. If anything we could find a mistrial, based on the Defence Team’s
lack of expected representation and the Prosecution’s zeal for the Death Penalty. I hope for justice for Caylee Anthony as do you and millions of other Anthonyites. Since Casey will never admit to any wrongdoing on her part, we will all be subjected to watching the Lawyer’s battling their egos all over the floor, and god I hate to say it, watch Casey pour on the waterworks, with dry tears. JMO
Very informative, Mr. Hornsby. Why are the experts in Florida Law saying Motions in Limine are only for exclusionary purposes? You gave Wikipedia’s definition, and if one looks at their whole definition they will see that these type of motions can be for inclusionary purposes, too. You cited a case where such a motion was recently filed. I was about to believe that Florida did not allow for the inclusionary type Motions in Limine.
On the rest, that you have shown that this was a good move by Baez, and that the Judge may very well grant it, you scare me. But that is because I think its awful to bring up someone’s distant past by disgruntled exes and children in order to discredit a witness like Kronk who found Caylee’s remains. I am glad Mr. Kronk has a good attitude about it.
As for how you put this informative article together, I would rather you had taken the high road and disputed Mr. Shaeffer’s analysis without the name calling and condescension. Otherwise, thanks for being thorough-I didn’t mind the length of your article since it was explaining the law (kinda hard to be brief on the nuances there). Have a wonderful afternoon!
Wikipedia? You cited wikipedia?? Nice try. You lose.
mr.hornsby ,
why does you slammed katie and bill,i see you are a defense lawyer, thats says all!
I agree that Casey Anthony deserves the best defense possible. Every American does. However, I don’ believe in lies and smear tactics. They are cheap, hurtful and shameful.
Without Honor, and Integrity in a court of law, what have you got? Nothing but SHAM and deceit. What makes Baez, Lyon, Inc. (Dream Team) think the American People buy the lies they are telling? Do they really believe that most Americans are STUPID, and think: If the defense says it, it MUST be so??” Give me a break! What they have done, sir, has caused irreputably damage to the defense! Now, IMO, stands an even greater chance of facing the death penalty. (or at best, LWOP)
Boo Hoo, poor Jose, Cathy Belich is PICKING on him again! I have a clue for him, she is doing HER JOB! As Harry Truman said: If the kitchen is too hot for you, STAY OUT!
Try to “remember”…a tiny, beautiful, little 21/2 was Brutally tortured, duct taped, and thrown away like putrid garbage. Only a sick sociopath could do something this horrid. Too my knowledge Roy Kronk is not a sociopath. What I’m trying to say, sir, this last stunt by the defense is going to come back and haunt them! (really bite them in the butt!!)
i am not worried,the motion will be denied,because bozo have no evidence whatsever,does kronk did this,this have to stop does innoncent people get blamed!hope kronk file a lawsuit agains everybody, who think he may have something do to with caylees murder!
Thank you for this. To tell the truth, I first thought, with my limited legal knowledge, that this was a credible motion on the part of the defense. After I read Mr. shaffers blog, it just figured i was wrong. I appreciate you clearing up some ideas i had about it. I’ve tried to do some research into laws and procedure and could only get so far without haaving to pay for it. This is an interesting case, but i wasn’t about to pay any money for info. you have provided quite a few things I was looking for.
I wonder if the state legislature is going to re-visit the sunshine laws regarding criminal cases after this case has been decided. Thanks again for the info. Personally, I think defense’s best chance for this motion is if the judge denies it so they can raise it on appeal. Can they really want to put these witnesses on the stand?
My problem with all this that baez & company are doing is the fact that casey told 3, THREE, different stories as to how Caylee disappeared.
1. She left Caylee at the bottom of the stairs at the Sawgrass Apts & watched her walk up to ZFG’s, (the invisible nanny), apt. When LE proved to her that no one had lived there for months and that the camera shows she never was there on the 16th of June, she changed her story.
2. She went to JB park and ZFG physically took Caylee from her.
3. She went to JB park & ZFG and her sister Samantha took Caylee from her while ZFG held her down.
Had Mr. Kronk taken Caylee, why didn’t casey call 911? It would seem to me that had ANYONE forcibly taken Caylee she would have called 911 immediately, but no such call was ever made by casey.
casey & company, (attys, parents, etc), have insinuated / accused/ blamed the following people of taking and / or killing Caylee up to now: ZFG, Jesse Grund, Richard Grund, Amy Huizenga, Ricardo Morales (?), and now, Mr. Kronk. I can only hope that lee, mallory, sindy & georgie will be next, then maybe the circle will be complete.
Everything found near, on, or in the trash bags Caylee was dumped in came out of the anthony home, to include that rare duct tape which was also found in the anthony home, yet baez would have everyone believe that Mr. Kronk murdered Caylee? That tape was also found on the tables the anthony’s set up in their “meet & greet” party. Do you *really* think Kronk had that same exact tape or that he had access to items at the anthony home? That’s a stretch don’t you think?
The whole world knows that once a person gets divorced its common for the “ex” to have an ax to grind. I sure hope the State can put together a very pretty picture of Mr. Kronk’s ex wives to show they are embittered old women.
georgie said he saw casey walk out the door with Caylee on June 16th. casey said she gave Caylee over to ZFG & that ZFG took her & left her with a script to follow. Never once did she say some man stole Caylee, so it looks to me like casey was in total possession of Caylee, and not Mr. Kronk.
Plus, casey addresses the decomp in her trunk as a couple of dead squirrels, so she was very aware of the stink in her trunk.
georgie drives the decomp laden car home from the tow yard instead of calling police to come investigate the smell. he also admitted he knew what the smell was to LE. But if you haven’t seen your daughter or granddaughter in 31 days and your daughter’s car reeks of the smell of death, wouldn’t you want LE to come check the car out to make sure you didn’t inadvertently mess up prints in case a crime was committed? As an officer that previously worked in the auto theft division, georgie would have KNOWN this and should have called LE immediately, but instead, he drove the car home, and he & sindy commenced to cleaning the car.
To me, that says they already KNEW what had happened & started into the coverup mode of cleaning up & washing evidence that belonged to casey because as *self proclaimed professionals*, they knew better than to tamper with evidence!
Maybe sindy killed Caylee? All the evidence points to the anthony home!
mr.hornsby,the truth,it was planned from the defense to through kronk under the bus,bozo try his trial in public,and not in the courtroom,where it belong!the next thing will be,kronk stole caseys car!
@Hadley
Hadley the problem is not that Ms. Belich is picking on Mr. Baez (That does not bother me).
The problem is Mr. Belich is a news reporter who is advancing false legal information provided by Mr. Sheaffer.
So I think it is only fair that Ms. Belich and Mr. Sheaffer are held to the same “high” standards that they hold Mr. Baez to.
And trust me, I have a child on the way and I never forget that a little girl lost her life in this case. Personally, I think Ms. Anthony is guilty of most of her charges – but I am not convinced of First Degree Murder yet.
But I do not offer moral commentary (because I would agree with you) instead I offer legal commentary – and with that I try to be objective. The same thing I expect Mr. Sheaffer to be.
@interesting
I only hope that the legislature does not revisit the sunshine laws over this one high profile case.
Because where there is no sunshine, you only have darkness.
@GinnyG
I agree with you 100% – however, this post is about one motion not the entire case.
And GinnyG, you are smart to look at this motion in context of all the evidence in the case. Sure the evidence is overwhelming – but is the defense supposed to just throw up their hands and quit if Ms. Anthony will not plea? That would make them no better than her.
While I have no idea how important this motion will have in the context of the entire trial, I nonetheless think it is a smart and well thought out motion on the part of her defense team.
Nothing more, nothing less. And thank you for your thoughts.
Can you explain the motion with the court being filed on the 18th of November when the deposition occured on the 19th?I say something is definitely wrong with this motion.It also states that Kronk was not honest in his deposition.Funny how that happened.
Mr. Hornsby I understand that the purpose of your post was to correct any statements regarding the laws of Florida by Mr. Sheaffer, that you considered incorrect or misleading. That being said, your scathing commentary disparaging Mr. Sheaffer appears to be overkill and might have been better said to his face. It came across as a very personal vendetta of sorts, rather then a legal analysis of the law.
I thought Mr. Sheaffer was expressing his outrage at the defense team releasing the unverified, one sided video footage to all of the networks and recommencing their media blitz, with the sole purpose of character assassination of a witness, not the accused.
I believe the unfair treatment of this person who found a murdered little girl’s remains will have a negative effect on future searchers. Everyone, and I mean everyone including you and me, have people who don’t like us or have done things that would be open to misinterpretation. My god, they say he’s out of touch with reality because he had head phones on while playing video games and didn’t hear his wife calling. That is psychotic? That is ludicrous.
A history of inappropriate behavior with young girls. I believe they qualified that with “could” by the way. Why did they not interview his sister to confirm that he was inappropriate with little girls. The one wife said he wasn’t allowed to have his niece sit on his knee (his sister’s daughter). That’s it??
It is frightening for us to learn that lawyers are given a free ride to go on national TV to try to ruin any person who happens to be a witness against their client. I just don’t think it’s fair what they have done here and I don’t think I’m alone. Their underhanded and sleazy strategy has backfired as far as the public goes. It remains to be seen what Judge Strickland thinks about it.
Ye Old Suspenders? This is just embarrassing!!
Well, in view of all things that point to casey & her home, i.e., evidentiary items that were traced back to the home, how can baez say there is as much circumstantial evidence linking Mr. Kronk to Caylee’s murder as there is circumstantial evidence linking casey to the murder? Isn’t that a deliberate lie, or as sindy would say, *a mistruth or half-truth*?
In my world, if it isn’t the truth, then it is a LIE.
There is a mountain of evidence, (circumstantial or otherwise), that can be traced back to casey’s home & car, but what can be traced to Mr. Kronk?
He didn’t drive casey’s car and baez said in the very beginning that casey was the only person that drove the car. That could have been a mistake, because since then, they have tried to insinuate others did.
@NosyParker
I would agree with you 100% if Mr. Shaeffer had limited his opinion to just the fact they made the allegations.
Instead he decided to eviscerate them on every aspect of their legal pleading. So I only though it fair he receive the same treatment.
Thank you for your legal commentary. I am always glad to get a second opinion and yes, I was taking Mr. Shaeffer’s pronouncements at face value because I have no legal training so imagine my surprise to find your response! If you are correct, then Mr. Shaeffer and Bellich/WFTV certainly ARE doing a disservice to their public. Perhaps you could gather or recruit a group of like-minded attorneys and write a letter to the editor or something like that as a more formal sort of response than this blog? I am not criticizing your passion for calling someone out as a hypocrite and/or for their being so self-righteous in their misinformation. Maybe I am just from an older generation where dispassionate professional communication seems more credible. Huh. Well, you have certainly added to the entertainment value with your “twisted suspenders” humor and wit.
Mr. Hornsby, you sound like a jealous guy.
Mr. Schaeffer is 100% right.
What the defense is doing is despicable.
mr hornsby,i think you are old enough,the same treatment? thats kindergarten!
can you answer this or not?
One last round of questions / comments.
I believe you implied that Mr. Kronk made up a story to coworkers about dealing with the loss of a woman to cancer and staying by her side to the end, when in fact that was the case. Mr. Kronk DID lose this woman roughly a year before he found Caylee’s remains.
With regard to Mr. Sheaffer, to call him Mr. Suspenders and make digs about his age is a bit juvenile. I find it offensive and others might too, especially if they are in the same age group. Its not about age.
Were you ever in the position of offering legal opinion / advice / counsel to casey’s defense team?
@mikka
I agree, it is very kindergarten. But I am not looking to make friends, to get new clients, or worry about Mr. Sheaffer’s feelings.
I simply wanted to vent – and I feel good after doing so.
And I would rather be known for posting something childish, than for posting a lie.
Well..
He was giving his Opinions… I do not agree with some of them, but again they are just Opinions and his Thoughts. He even said at one point regarding Baez that he ” Wondered” if he could be Libel.
I would take one’s opinions and one’s thoughts out loud, over one who is harsh, rash, rude and has an egotistical attitude anyday!
Good Job Shaeffer for being Professional, and giving your thoughts and Opinions.
Hornsby I don’t even know where to start !! You sound like you have a Personal Issue with Shaeffer.. IMO ~
fair warning when some of Bill’s followers find this blog they are going to rip you to shreds. They only want to hear how bad the defense and the Anthony’s are. Thank you for enlightening us on the fact this motion was filed right. How soon do you think it will take to get a ruling on this motion.
Wiki? Okay ……. ya goin’ w/ Wiki, then include this portion, also, Mr. Hornsby ………’ Usually it is used to shield the jury from possibly inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial evidence.’ And, THIS legal definition: motion in limine definition – legal…..
‘A motion to limit the evidence that will be submitted to the jury, by excluding matters that are not relevant, are prejudicial, or are otherwise inadmissible under applicable rules.’
So sorry, but, me thinks you are just “blowin’ smoke” to get your name “out there.”
Nice try, but, what an epic fail ……..!!
Brush-up on your “devil’s advocate” skills! Pfft!!!!
Thank you for your response. I was not aware of any false info. being given to Ms. Belich by Mr. Shaeffer. If that is the case, he is clearly wrong. It disappoints me, greatly. I thought he had higher standards. I must say, that I have never, ever, heard so many lies in my life until I got interested in this case! It amazes me that it doesn’t appear to bother people (some people) in the least. I was brought up to believe that lying is wrong, and I will always believe that.
IMO Casey Anthony is a clear danger to society, and should never be released. I think her parents are very lucky she didn’t “do away” with them! Remember, she told Amy that the house would “soon be hers.”
I really like your blog. I hope to learn more here, and I wish you continued success. I also wish you congratulations on the new little baby!! (what a great Christmas present!)
Thank you again for your response.
Hadley
@loves2shop
I do have a personal issue with Mr. Sheaffer – he has a legion of people who take his comments as gospel, and some where along the line he decided it was better to go “Jerry Springer” than to be truthful.
@Keep me anonymous, please
Like we dont know who you are PLEEEEEEEEEASE
mr hornsby,i saw you much on tv,and i like what i saw,o.k now you vent and move on!but was it not you,who said,the defense DONT know the florida law??yes it was you!
@ms judged
LOL – Well, I take it you did not get my “Google does not lie” humor.
But what really matters is the first definition that Mr. Sheaffer omitted.
Very interesting and respectable article, if a bit pompous. But with such an extensively researched rebuttal of Mr. Schaeffer’s remarks, I wonder about the necessity to resort to “googling” the definition of a “Motion in limine?” (We used to say “According to Websters’ …” when trying to support an unstable theory.) Or are you just trying to suggest that we plebes have no other research tools at hand?
Your post might have ALOT of fact or Alot of something, but darn we r not attorneys and it bored me the bully tactic was very low,, I didnt think you was like that..As for putting vidios of the guys x wifes and such was pretty darn low if I may say so. Do you think Roy should go get a few of Mr Bozo’s X wifes to talk about a possiblity of Bozo being Caylees daddy since Bozo had sex with his ex wife and thats how u make a baby……….. oh please..
mr hornsby, what you think will judge strickland do???denied???????
a
@mikka
That is precisely my point – I have criticized them when they deserved to be criticized, but I have acknowledged when they are right as well (It seems Mr. Shaffer is unwilling to do this).
So, morality aside, legally it was well put.
@loves2shop
Sounds like a baby fight to me……. and Kathy has always asked the real questions.. We love her for sure..
@mikka
I think he will grant it in part and deny it in part.
Is this merely two attorneys interpreting the law in two different ways? Or is the “law” strictly black and white with no gray areas? I have no legal background and depend on experts for legal analysis of the motions, laws, etc. It would be interesting to hear the difference between a defense attorney and a prosecutor’s analysis of the same information. Anyways, thanks for offering your legal knowledge and expertise to us. It is appreciated.
OT but time permitting could you explain the Sunshine laws at some point. A while ago someone provided a link that explained it very nicely in layman’s terms, but I didn’t save it. I thought it said that any evidence deemed too prejudicial would be held from release to the public until trial. Who decides exactly what is released and what is held? TIA.
@Oh Please
I have no problem with her asking “real questions” but when she uses Mr. Sheaffer as a conduit to falsely report how the law applies, there is a real problem.
Please understand, Mr. Sheaffer’s comments were not stylistic legal commentary – rather he was basically saying the defense motion was completely without merit – which was dead wrong.
mr.hornsby ,o.k thanks,the only who stay cool in this case is judge strickland!
@loves2shop
I do have a personal issue with Mr. Sheaffer – he has a legion of people who take his comments as gospel, and some where along the line he decided it was better to go “Jerry Springer” than to be truthful..
///////////////
Mr. Hornsby, Please explain to me how Mr Shaeffer was not being truthful. I thought he gave his Opinion.. Although I did not agree with his thoughts and Opinion, I did not see how he said anything Untruthful. Please explain that to me.
Also, When I read both Opinions, yours and Mr. Shaeffers, I see yours as leading to the “Jerry Springer” category. With such comments as: Yawn.. Double Yawn.. Asking him when he last opened his Law books, saying his comments we’re Cheap and False. that is more Jerry Springer if you will then anything he wrote..
I guess I view them as his Opinions, I again do not agree with them but they are his Opinions. I don’t need to cheapen his Opinions just because I don’t agree with them,etc.
mr hornsby, can mr. kronk sue the defense now??
Mr. Hornsby,
I have a question for you Sir, do you really think that by ruining an innocent’s life is worth to the defense knowingly their client Casey had the opportunity and motive to kill Caylee??? So, you are saying that all of the defense lawyers should point the finger to the person who helped Le to bring this little girl’s body to their grandparents? Soon, no one will help LE to search for missing people because these allegations are hearsay. Anybody could make up a story like this. What about if it had happened to one of your family???
I have to remind you that this same defense was on National TV disputing that there was no duct tape around Caylee’s mouth, this is the link so you can watch it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-revelations-in-caylee-anthony-murder/
I am sorry I strongly believe the defense has lied through their teeth, they have no credibility even if it is their job.
I have two words for the defense “COFFIN FLIES”… can you dispute that???
Thanks Mr. Hornsby.
My congratulations to you on your little one to come!
I must confess, I did chuckle at the “Mr. Suspenders” name. I’m sure you did your level best to keep it clean. Now I understand why you are not so happy with Mr. Shaeffer. I do hope you feel better, but still, you are better than that, OK?
I have bookmarked your site and I am looking forward to reading more of your articles on this case.
Now, have a good evening since it may prove interesting in the comment line tonight!
Hi Richard~~I am one of those who has Bill S high on a pedestal. In fact, a post in my blog is ‘Alot of BS’ and devoted to him. I am sort of in limbo now because I took what Mr Sheaffer said as gospel. Now you feel that Bill has his facts all wrong pert to the Motion in Limine. Judging from your words, you certainly didn’t like his last blog post re the Memo. Are there other facts that Bill has stated that you found were wrong? Is it his attitude, in general, that seems to get you a bit hot under the collar. I hope I am not coming across as sarcastic as it is certainly not my intention. Thank you in advance if you feel my questions are worthy of a response.
Mr. Hornsby I came here this evening thinking I was getting another legal viewpoint on this latest defense motion. I like to hear opposing views and then make up my own mind. Sorry to say that your legal analysis (which may be the correct one) was lost on me. Instead of being educated in Florida law, all I heard was silly high school name calling of the guy with the opposite point of view, while citing an abundance of your own professional abilities . Debate 101: personal attacks do not score you any points. You could have just stated your point of view, stated that it was in opposition to a fellow colleague, Mr. Shaeffer, cited Florida law, and left everything else out. Instead of forwarding a different point of view for consideration it reads as a very personal and petty attack. Disappointing.
Deny in part or grant? Would this be a Frye Hearing? If so, Judge S. Allows 1/2 so your opinion, which 1/2? The part that disparages Kronk, and praises his critics? Thought it was all or nuttin!
While the defense moved on YET another victim to hang their hat, ALL the prosecution needs to do is punch holes in the ALIBI of Casey A. (IMO affirmative) You can site all the legal statues, laws of Florida~ the point being more have been convicted on less. Oh yeah we are talking about another little problem too~ economic crimes.
Mr Hornsby, the overall composition is rather verbose, but I surmise, that’s what Attorneys do~smile. Your talking points would have been better served/received had you omitted the direct insult. This is your colleague and academic brethren, you should at the very least show some respect.
Frankly, many will and have seen through this “Scream Team” agenda’s, would you at least agree a Jury of Casey’s Peers will as well?
Orlando Tea Party…
wrote:
snipped..
I sincerely believe as a US Citizen that Roy Kronk did it, just based on deductive reasoning.
/////////////////
What?? Well first of all the Tea Party was in Boston.. Just saying…
orlando,you believe kronk did this???oh lordy,dont forget it was a body in the trunk!
orlando hahahaha no evidence,you must be kidding,you sounds like cindy!
@Richard Hornsby
and yet, you are the first attorney I have seen who says this. If Judge Strickland rules against the motion, will he then be wrong also?
All the blah blah blah and then I see this:
If Roy Kronk was on trial for Caylee Anthony’s murder, would evidence that he has used strikingly similar duct tape to subdue a women be admissible against him as similar fact evidence?
Mr. Hornsby, Mr. Kronk is NOT on trial for Caylee Anthony’s murder.
I would have respected your opinion a bit more if I didn’t keep reading “Mr. Suspenders”. Is this how you were taught to debate? I’m sorry but your article reeks of jealousy.
I think we all are interested in how this turns out and I was truly interested in your opinion but I’ll think of this diatribe every time I hear you speak from now on.
@loves2shop
It would be a waste of our time for me to try and justify my actions, because some of my comments – while truthful – were nonetheless childish.
But as I said, if you are asked to give your “expert” legal opinion – shouldn’t it at least be accurate?
That is my only point – no matter how childishly I made it.
Orlando Tea Party…
There could be pictures of Casey committing the crime released in discovery and you would still go on blogs saying that there is no proof.
If Casey is so innocent, please explain the coffin flies, the fact that she never notified law enforcement that Caylee was “missing” (you…oops…I mean Cindy did that), partying at Fusion while Caylee was “missing”, the lies to law enforcement, the items that are related to the Anthony household found with Caylee’s body, and the computer searches. If you or Mr. Hornsby can explain those things and how the heck that was Kronk’s doing, maybe I’ll think that Baez isn’t completely out of line. Until then….
@Richard Hornsby
Oh, Richard ……… puhleeze.
First year law students learn THIS is a MOTION to EXCLUDE (as it relates to the rules of evidence), and is made ‘at the threshold’ of the trial.
Touche! BC
mr,hornsby,good luck for you and your family ,bye!
Looks like the Lawyers have found the Blog!
Sounds to me Mr. Bozo has paid you to say this. All I see is Mr. Bozo pointing the finger at someone who did not do this to Caylee. The person who did this is sitting right behind bars,where she belongs. Mr. Bozo needs to stop telling his clinet he will get her send free. As for Lyons she needs to go back to where she came from! Casey deserves the DP,she took the life of her daughter,cause she was getting to talk and affraid she would have told granny to what was going on during the days. I want to see the Anthony’s punished for their coverup and lies,specially Cindy!!!
@loves2shop
But isn’t Mr. Sheaffer Jose Baez’s colleague?
I am just giving Mr. Sheaffer a piece of his own medicine – nothing more.
‘because some of my comments – while truthful – were nonetheless childish.’ (snipped from Mr. Hornsby’s post)
And, you are a professional?
I rest my case ……
At first I was excited to read Bill’s blog, thinking now we will get some law facts. Then he got emotionally involved in what the defense did and BLEW HIS CREDIBILITY of being objective. Getting kind of tired of people’s opinions of the case and peoples’ heresay comments. Time for facts and only facts. Who can do this for us? Is there anyone besides God out there who can inform us of facts and leave opinion out.
My favorite quote: tell a rabbit your problems, then shoot it.
Hey Tea party….REALLY? Are you KIDDING ME?
What case are you following? Even Mr. Hornsby agrees 100% that the evidence is overwhelming against casey. Do you realize what that means? It means there is reasonable evidence to show casey did this.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to even remoted tie Mr. Kronk to this case at all!
Did you miss Mr. Hornsby’s post that without the Sunshine Law there would be nothing left but darkness? Evidently he does not agree the Sunshine Law should be revised.
*sigh* oh well, there is no accounting for those who have a comprehension problem.
Mr. Hornsby, if this is only about the motion, why have you taken a swipe at KB?
And baez & co at one point said that they had a witness in the area where Caylee was found. There is reason to believe that his witness happens to be a person who has been Baker Acted several times.
Should baez be divulging that information to Judge Strickland or does the Prosecution need to file a motion against this person, similar to the one that baez filed against Kronk?
You DO realize that baez drew up that motion the day before he even deposed Mr. Kronk, right?
Orlando Tea Party..
Casey admits to leaving abandoning her car, where they found it and towed it.. No one else drove around her car.. If she was smart, she would of said it was stolen, or she was high jacked.. and Remember she is the one that pointed out to Law Enforcement that the Nanny took her, and that Nanny does not even exsist. She has a lot of explaining to do as to why she was partying and playing around, buying beer and not trying to find her child that she said was kidnapped.
Do you remember when Casey got really angry and frustrated in her Jail phone call with her parents there??
Well that was anger.. I never saw any anger when Casey finally told the Police her story.. She didn’t have any anger that someone took her daughter, she didn’t get desperate and plea for anyone’s help..The story was out there, she told it.. but she didn’t even get upset when talking about her daughter being gone, taken, kidnapped..When she went back to Jail the second time, we saw her adjust her clothing, her hair, ask about the video camera, talk about how unfair it was that information was getting out, and we saw her giggle.
Where was her anger, despair as a mother?? She didn’t have any..
but your conclude that Kronk did it and base it on deductive reasoning? Why because an Ex wife got interviewed by the Defense and said that he had Duct Taped her before??
Did you not notice that she changed her story in that interview??
She stated:that Roy had used Duct Tape on her once..Then later after the Interviewer bring up the Duct Tape incident again, she now states it happen two times.. She changed her story.. She also made it clear that her own mother stated: That she was imagining things, When she thought she had seen Roy close by.. Then the Interviewer tell her..you know we we’re told you we’re deceased. The Ex wife then states: She felt he would of done it if he could of..
They we’re married.. if he wanted to do it, he would of.. she makes no sense..
There may be something with the past abuse, but I do not know if true.. but she isn’t telling the truth about he past Duct Tape..When she changes her story from one time , too two times. she is searching around, shifting her eyes..
Her words will not hold up in court as being a a valuable reliable witness..
I
all the above is in my opinion
mr.hornsby ,quick question
can mr.kronk sue the defense now? thanks
@loves2shop
But isn’t Mr. Sheaffer Jose Baez’s colleague?
I am just giving Mr. Sheaffer a piece of his own medicine – nothing more.
////////////
wow..Someone cut me off on the Freeway..Should I go and speed up and do the same???
If Baez truly believed Mr. Kronk was a suspect he would have turned it over in discovery not by filing a motion and releasing the videos in this way. In the motion he filed the case’s he references are regarding people that have direct links to the crime scenes and victims. None of the case’s refer to a random person from 6 months after the murder found the body. And I might add no DNA, no fingerprints, no personal objects that belong to Mr. Kronk were found at the crime scene. No prior contact with the Anthony’s. Mr. Kronk would be one ugly nanny!
Why would testimony from an exwife who he has been divorced from for 17 YEARS. Now if Mr. Kronk was convicted of kidnapping and binding her OK….. show me the proof.
(((((Gavel Banging)))))) ms judged. Dose of Meds indeed Mr. Hornsby.
LOL! Dose of meds indeed 🙂
Hornsby, no Mr. here. Your blog entry was way beyond what a respectable attorney would write online. Are you trying to blow your reputation around O-town on purpose? How old are you?
“The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries.” – Clarence Darrow
So with all due respect, the only reputation that matters to me is what my clients say. And I think my trial record should adequately express what they think. https://www.richardhornsby.com/about/results/trials.html
And the more I think about it, the more I think that my blog posting was no worse than Mr. Shaeffer.
I think TeA pArTy has had a few too many long island teas. Comments are a bit incoherent
@loves2shop
I got a better idea…. lets see if Mr. Hornsby has an exwife….. he is just as likely to be considered a suspect in the murder of Caylee Anthony. Or maybe as a child he used ducttape to fix a toy. Or maybe he was a reported for driving past the crime scene in November after D. Casey searched.
@loves2shop
It would be a waste of our time for me to try and justify my actions, because some of my comments – while truthful – were nonetheless childish.
But as I said, if you are asked to give your “expert” legal opinion – shouldn’t it at least be accurate?
That is my only point – no matter how childishly I made it.
////////////
I will say, it takes a lot to come back and say you we’re childish. I give you a lot of credit for that, that is a good quality.
I do understand what your saying about one giving their “expert legal opinion”, but just because one’s opinion is off the mark.. in your opinion and mine.. it does not mean they we’re lying..
Sorry, I missed the point of your blog. I got mired down in the myriad of personal attacks, snide remarks, self-aggrandizing statements, and your pro-defense panderings to Jose Baez.
Psst…. You have a bit of brown something on your nose.
orlando,you are so wrong,all points to casey,its a shame does you accuse an innoncent man,shame on you!
My Paps adage: Law is a Jealous Mistress, and Ethics define the Law.
@Richard Hornsby
‘And the more I think about it, the more I think that my blog posting was no worse than Mr. Shaeffer.’
In addition, you FINALLY got some feedback (comments), which you have NEVER gotten relative to ANY of your past blogs.
So pat yourself on the back, go on into the nursery, wind-up the mobile, watch it twirl, and reflect on your GRAND achievement today!!!!
So I take it you can’t or won’t answer this question..at least have the curtousy to say that instead of ignoring this question.I believe its important .Can anyone here help me with this?
Orlando tea party (or Cindy Anthony)
Are you kidding? You are way off base to believe anyone besides Casy Anthony killed Caylee. She was so obvious. How do you explain her not reporting her daughter missing? How do you explain the coffin flies and the decomp. in her trunk? The lies about her job, the lies about her wherabouts? The lies about her parents giving her the house? I could go on but I won’t, because it’s fruitless when someone is just trying to get a rise out of people instead of just looking at the hard evidence.
“The problem is Mr. Belich is a news reporter who is advancing false legal information provided by Mr. Sheaffer.”
Who’s MR Belich?
@kate
‘(((((Gavel Banging)))))) ms judged. Dose of Meds indeed Mr. Hornsby.’
Pssst, kate – he didn’t get it, flew right over his hair ………. lol!
Good Evening Mr. Hornsby,
Wish you success, the natives are restless!
Mr.Hornsby
Am i understanding that in your above referenced e-mail, that Mr.Baez was asking the legal community for help in regards to a Judges order? If that was the case you provided more assistance than was needed, and we all know today that your advice was not heeded.I am curious if Mr.Baez still access’s this legal site, or if his inexperience is now covered up by Ms. Lyons…..
@ms judged
ms judged, he gets it! meds and ALL
Mr.Hornsby, I would of respected your disagreements with Mr.Sheaffer and Kathi Belish a lot more if you hadn’t sunk to name calling. Not very professional no matter who’s right or wrong.imo
Why are you spinning for the defense? Why don’t you tell us what’s really going on, Mr. Hornsby? Come on, spit it out ~ what are you up to? You would be mistaken to think that we are that gullible. We’re tired of the games and the name calling, so to start with why don’t you grow up now?
It would be normal for the Defense to question the one who found Caylee. That is a normal Defensive move.. Wether we like it or not, or think it is unfair, it is the way these things go in court. Baez has filed a lot of frivolous motions, but this is the individual that found Caylee.
In court, it is one of the people the defense will try to discredit, that is normal and will continue to happen even when this case is over.
It seems harsh, and unfair to any that come across any evidence in a case, but that is how is works..
The laws are not always just about right and wrong..
imo
Joe Blow
I to would like to see that question answered.I believe MR.Hornsby is verifying that information as we speak…..
@ms judged
ROTFLMAO! One more before I exit…Politics..Politics…Politics.. It’s Good to Be the King!!
Like your Style, ms judged.
WOW it’s like a big commercial for Hernsby now.
I’m out of here.
HUGE waste of my time.
@kate
Have a wonderful evening!
Oh, and I’d prolly add S E X and $$$ to your “Politics..Politics..Politics” ……. makes the world go ’round.
Makes me nauseous!
And, yes, It Is Good To Be The King, or “Kingfish,” as Huey Long could attest ………
Well I hope Mr. Kronk can file a law suit at the dream team! How dare they point their fingers are him. Why don’t they point their fingers at Mr. Casey,why was he even out there. Because he was told by someone in the defense or Cindy that Caylee was out there. He was going to do damage to the body,and hoping it would never be found! How pathic all these people are!!! I want to see Casey Anthony get the needle!!!!
Mr. Hornsby, it seems as though you are jealous. Why? Maybe if you behaved a little bit better you will come to have the respect that Mr. Sheaffer receives. But you won’t get it this way that’s for sure. Where do you even come from? Are you a friend of Mr. Baez’s?
I see you are not letting certain comments go through. Why?
This is a fun forum or blog or whatever it’s called. Much more interesting than Bills. Sorry Bill…smooch!
Love you Hornsby!!!!!!
some blogs are so peaceful and everyone gets along and then there’s one and we all know whos where there’s a fight every week and theres something critically wrong with that place. I think the moderator encourages it so he can get a lot of hits. hornsby you’re playing for the dark side. wont you come into the lightt?
Hmmmm…
Well, I personally think it is ethically very questionable that Baez went public with this stuff BEFORE he filed motions…
and I found it typical of the Anthonys that they loudly expressed “support” for Kronk – the day before they all stabbed him in the back!
Also, apparently none of these “depositions” are under oath…nor did any of these sketchy people accusing Kronk EVER contact LE.
I fee quite sure that LE investigated ( and perhaps the FBI, as well) Mr. Kronk thoroughly…especially since an LE officer was dismissed for not following up on Kronk’s information.
Also ( thanks, CecyB), it seems as though WESH protesteth a bit too much…especially since they are a ABC ( Casey Documentary) affiliate…and that there is some kind of a book deal brewing with Simon and Schuster…another affiliate!!
Awe Shaeffer is an elitist? Shocking! Shocking I say!! Naughty Mr. Shaeffer. He must go to bed without pudding.
Orlando Tea Party. You think Kronk did it? Bwahahahaah! Were you born without a logic gene?
Hornsby you are simply jealous of Sheaffer. He was getting lots of attention and you resented it. That simple. If it was just a legal disagreement you would not have gotten personal and snide and acted like a jealous old biddy.
It disgusts me to see Casey’s lawers use Kronk as a scapegoat. How do they sleep at night?
Well it looks as though jealousy keeps rearing it’s ugly head against Mr. Sheaffer & Kathi Belich. Mr. Sheaffer & Kathi Belich are among the few legal & media professionals brave enough to ask the tough questions & seek the truth in getting justice for Caylee.
************************************************
ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL
Interview With Casey Anthony`s Attorney
Aired November 20, 2009 – 19:00:00 ET
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Judge Karen Mills Francis, you`re the judge. Do you think the judge in this case will let this evidence, this evidence that the defense says it has collected, in involving Roy Kronk?
JUDGE KAREN MILLS FRANCIS, HOST, “JUDGE KAREN SHOW”: Well, you know, I`ve been pretty hard on Mr. Baez throughout this whole process. I was a criminal defense attorney for 13 years before I was a judge. I looked at his motion. It`s called a motion in limine. In Florida, a motion in limine is to exclude evidence but his motion is asking the court to allow evidence. There is no such motion in Florida.
Additionally, he`s asking the court to allow evidence of what`s known as prior bad acts. In Florida, it`s called the Williams rule. That`s a prosecution motion. The prosecution can bring in evidence of the defendant`s prior bad acts to show motive, intent, lack of mistake.
I have never heard of a defense attorney filing a Williams rule motion to show prior bad acts of a witness. But let`s say for the sake of argument it`s a legitimate motion. Under the Williams rule, he has to be able to show that there`s sufficient elements in the prior bad acts that fit with the elements in this case, and I don`t think he has that here.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/20/ijvm.01.html
Now, before you respond, I would like you to think about the following answer I am about to give.
Judge Karen Williams was a county court judge, meaning she only handled misdemeanor cases. And she says that in her 13 years, she has never heard of a defense attorney filing Williams rule evidence.
However, I cited four separate Florida Supreme Court Decisions that authorize the defense to introduce Williams Rule Evidence? See Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1990). See White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002). See State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990). and Simpson v. State, 3 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 2009)
So if those will not persuade you that just possibly Judge Karen Mills is wrong, I do not know what could.
I asked this question back earlier and was skipped over two or three times..Maybe BS can answer it as I don’t think RH can..the reason I ask is things were done backwards and he knows it..
ROTFLMAO!
Joe Blow i saw that.I was waiting for a response…..how can the defense write a motion claiming he(Kronk) was less than truthful in his deposition if he hadnt even given it yet?That was a definite set up and i hope the Judgesee’s this.
Evangeline
Thanks for the link.
Sorry Mr. Hornsby. I have to tell you that my loyalties lie with Mr. Sheaffer. There is nothing you could ever say to change my mind on that. I have been listening to him and respecting him for over one year now. Maybe a year from now you will have such loyal fans yourself but until then my heart belongs to Mr. Sheaffer. Sorry ’bout that.
mymommad you are right I forgot about that nasty gavel business. I hope people are forwarding these weird remarks to the people that he’s talking about. Did anyone send that remark to the judge? How about Mr. Sheaffer? Has anyone warned him as to what this goof is saying about them? Maybe I will just to make sure.
Oh boy lol. Here we go…
not me. the only place i’m going is to bed.
Don’t let the bed bugs bite
Does anyone remember Caylee? You know, the little defensless baby who was murdered? Egos should be checked at the door before discussing this case, out of respect for Caylee Marie Anthony. This case is about her and the person who killed her. It’s not about if we like what someone has said or not. Sticking to the facts leads to the truth and in the end, justice for Caylee.
I guess we’ll now soon enough how valid or faulty Baez’s motion is … what bothers me more than anything is video of ex-wives and girlfriends making statements and not testifying … their claims haven’t been substantiated period … Baez will have to back this up … I find it totally underhanded to put this out over National TV before substantiating ANYTHING that he was told … and my biggest question is WHY NOW ?? Cindy and Dominic have been communicating with Crystal since January … they’ve worked together to dig up dirt on Roy so why wait until now ?? where are the police records, restraining orders, investigations (by law enforcement, not Cindy and Dominic) and why wasn’t this brought to law enforcement’s attention sooner ?? It makes people skeptical and that’s why people say this doesn’t make sense …
Like I said we’ll Know soon enough .. my predication (and many other’s) is that this will never make it into the trial and was done as a diversion to the truth of the case … Baez can’t just allege and accuse these bad acts without proof … his “witnesses” made a lot of accusations that they can’t back up … and that’s just plain wrong to do to anybody !! IMO
@Richard Hornsby
Congrats on the child on the way…sure hope (s)he doesn’t ever do anything to deserve your sarcastic tongue lashing. Maybe by then you will learn to temper your uh, temper.
Your informative article could have been a bit shorter and easier to wade through w/o the jabs, insults and condescending tone. You will be “antiquated” one day, too, ya know.
@Shut Up Baez I totally agree with you
I find it interesting that Mr. Hornsby has to bash people in order to get attention. This is why I like Bill so much better. He knows the law and knows it well, and doesn’t need to make other people’s dating life part of it. HMMM This was almost comparable to the interviews with Kronk’s bitter ex. The young lady looks like she has been smoking meth for quite awhile. She could hardly keep her smile contained, showing off meth mouth and how serious she was. (real credible)
Thanks! not only can you show us you are a tad bitter, but jealous of some kind of rivalry perhaps>? I think I will stick with Bill’s blog:)
I bashed Mr. Sheaffer because I wanted to vent on him basically passing off incorrect legal opinions to pander to his followers. You should ask yourself how you actually know he knows the law, I mean other than what he says, what has he ever provided to support his position?
Stephanie thats right. Mr. Hornsby has lowered himself into the position of name-calling which is very hard to respect. Once he reaches Bill’s age he might be above the name-calling and may garner some respect for himself.
If you really review Mr. Shaeffer’s recent commentary – you will see that I really just sank to his level. Nothing more, nothing less.
There’s nothing like free publicity and avertising!
oops….advertising.
@Karen Janisse
Karen, why do you think I am spinning for the defense. Is it because I not only disagree with Mr. Schaeffer, but go to great lengths to show that his commentary has not just been biased, but incorrect.
Understand, personally I think the State has a very strong case. But on this particular issue, I think the defense has made a good argument and I think the law was in their favor.
However, Mr. Sheaffer did not tell you that – rather, he told you what you wanted to hear. In my book that is called pandering.
Would you rather I tell you what you want to hear (i.e. Glen Beck) or tell you the truth?
Do you think Judge Strickland should have a gag order in place?
Absolutely, 100% yes.
But then again, what would everyone have to talk about?
@Richard Hornsby
‘Karen, why do you think I am spinning for the defense.’
Ummm, ’cause you were emailing him (Baez) advice as early as 7/31/08!!??!!
Mr Hornsby, thank you for being a honest reporter. I truly thought good journalism was gone for good. YOU have restored my faith. Shaeffer and Belich have no idea what a good journalist is supposed to do. It seems that they are on a personal crusade to convict Casey Anthony and her family. I haven’t seen a single piece of information come from WFTV that didn’t have a slant to it. I crave an unbaised opinion and you gave that to us. Thank you.
mymom,i agree ,you see bozo dont know how to make his job,to ask another lawyer,what to do!
mr.hornsby,my favorite answer from you to bozo,tell the grandmother to sh.. up!right on!!
@ms judged
Karen – The listserve I was on belongs to the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers – the largest lawyers association in the State of Florida after the Florida Bar.
Why should I not participate in such a listserve?
HI Richard..
Do you think Kronk could go after Ex wife for defaming ? That is where I think the anger should be. if she is not telling the full truth, I think she is the one that is responsilbe for defaming..
imo
I doubt it, because it appears that a Grand Jury at least convened. So that means there was at least something there. As the old saying goes, where there is smoke there is fire.
Now you’re insulting Glen Beck too? Where does it end, Richard? Where?
LOL
Also.
Did you see the ex wife’s interview?? Did you notice her inconsistencies?
i must say ,i am not impressed with the “dreamteam” ,the better name for them is “clownteam” .bozo createt this circus,better we send him back to lawschool again!
It would appear that you gave unsolicited advice. Baez only asked about the bond….right???
Well, if you haven’t noticed, I am very opinionated and I was being extremely sarcastic. If most of you would actually absorb what I said you would realize three things (1) I have been critical of Mr. Baez for the most party, (2) I have always commented correctly about the legal issues I am asked, and (3) my only gripe is that Mr. Sheaffer went out of his way to say this Motion was frivolous, when in fact there is legal support for it.
Guilty as charged.
…And what do you say, exactly, Mr. Hornsby of all the other lawyers and judge commentators, on the national networks who also agree with Mr. Sheaffer that what Mr. Baez has done by filing a Motion in Limine to Introduce Prior Bad Acts and Other Circumstantial Evidence Pertaining to Roy M. Kronk that they haven’t opened up a law book for a long time either? I’m thinking that you and Baez may be the ones needing refresher courses. You say you are ‘flabbergasted”….I’m actually the one flabbergasted and I am willing to bet that other reputable attorneys are also flabbergasted that you, concur with Baez’s decision to throw Kronk under the bus, so to speak. Now, I understand why so many people have so much disrespect for lawyers. This is wrong on so many levels, most importantly though, in filing his ‘smoke screen’ Baez has singlehandedly stopped any well-intended person from informing the police of any evidence (body, drugs, etc) they find, in the future. I know, I wouldn’t, for fear of being implicated; a classic case of shooting the messenger, if I’ve ever seen one. Baez has some ‘prior bad acts” in his life as well. Does that mean he is a chronic offender and that in the future we should expect him to avoid paying child support, as he has allegedly done? This is exactly why Baez is not qualified to try death penalty cases. I don’t care who his support team is. While it is a matter of interpretation, the law still is the law and they cannot reinvent the law as they go along.
On a different note, however, I will sit and wait to see Baez’s explanation of how every iota of the prosecution’s evidence against Casey have either been contaminated or fabricated. I’m watching to hear the defense team ‘reasonably’ explain how Kronk managed to get Caylee from Zanny the Nanny. I have an LL.B (not bar certified) simply because my conscience would not permit me to defend those who are not worthy of defending even though ‘everyone is entitled to their day in court,’ or helping to put away someone who might be potentially innocent. Even without British bar certification, though, I believe myself to be reasonably good at reading the law. I believe there has to be ‘reasonable’ doubt for Casey to win her case. This means that not just any excuse would suffice, the excuse or explanation must make sense; must be logical, at least. Juries are not stupid. So, Baez had better be able to ‘logically’ explain how Kronk got Caylee from Zanny, because I don’t know if you’ve been watching or listening, but Casey said Zanny had Caylee. She actually said, she saw Caylee with Zanny and that Zanny gave her a script. In addition, lest we forget, Casey also said Caylee called her and told her that she was with Zanny. Unless Kronk had access to Casey’s laptop, her car trunk, and a coffin fly farm, where he could take a few of them and plant them in Casey’s car, Baez has a whole lot of spinning to do.
You said what Baez did by filing a Motion in Limine to Introduce Prior Bad Acts and Other Circumstantial Evidence Pertaining to Roy M. Kronk was “sound, smart and strategic.” The only way filing that motion is sound, smart and strategic is because it is one in a series of many incompetent moves Baez has made that Casey can use to support her appeal on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. I realize that Baez has to grasp at straws right now, but he is boxing Casey into another corner by pointing the finger at someone else. He can’t use the accident argument, he knows the Zanny argument holds as much water as a used sponge, he hinted at implicating a couple of the grieving mother’s boyfriends, that didn’t work, so now he’s thanking Kronk for finding her child by implicating him. When Baez explains that his investigators uncovered Kronk’s shady background, he also needs to explain why the same investigators, under his team’s direction, didn’t try to locate Zanny, after all, Zanny can clear up this whole mess, don’t you think?
THANK YOU, EVANGELINE!
ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL
Interview With Casey Anthony`s Attorney
Aired November 20, 2009 – 19:00:00 ET
I, too, watched the show. Thank you for quoting. Hope everyone read your post.
DO YOU GET “PAID” FOR WRITING THIS GARBAGE, Hornsby?
I don’t know if this will go through, my last comment didn’t, but if you look here –
https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/32801-fl-richard-hornsby-1293369.html
One of Hornby’s “endorsements” is Diana Tennis. Isn’t she Dominic Casey’s attorney?
You are quite the detective. You might be interested to know that Judge Strickland went to Law School with Nancy Grace… What could that possibly mean? That they know each other? Just like I know Diana. Did you also know that Amy Huizenga’s lawyers are the Isleworth Millionaire Bob Ward’s attorneys? 2012, here we come.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oGQ1-otlD0&feature=player_embedded
Brad Conway on Geraldo
more dirt thrown on Roy Kronk
@I “heart” Bill Sheaffer!
That is fine, just make sure he is honest in his legal commentary – and not just telling you what you want to hear.
@I See You
I was at dinner, sorry 🙁
@Richard Hornsby
‘Why should I not participate in such a listserve?’
For the same reasons other Professional/Ethical attorneys didn’t!
I understand you are very obviously “wet behind the ears,” but, dear, this is NOT the case on which to MAKE your mark, trust me ……… fade out …….. pay your dues, bide your time and somewhere, perhaps, down the line, you MAY be taken seriously.
Good Luck!
Wow!!! Too bad you didn’t see fit to become a licensed lawyer! Could you sit next to the prosecuters come time for trial?
Well, if you read my blog, you will see that the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged Reverse Williams Rules (i.e. that similar fact evidence can be introduced by the state). So if you still believe the people you see on television over a Florida Supreme Court decision, there is no way I could ever convince you they were wrong. Did it ever occur that maybe they just say what will get the most mileage. I mean, everyone is blasting me for going out of my way to substantiate my position with legal decisions, but very few have questioned the basis of authority for Mr. Shaeffer’s opinion.
@BC
‘One of Hornby’s “endorsements” is Diana Tennis. Isn’t she Dominic Casey’s attorney?’
*thud*
Nothing shocks me any longer relative to the entire cast of characters in this circus.
Mr. Hornsby, chill-out and calmly await the birth of your baby ….. get outta this web of scumbags………. K?
Go too far in and you’ll never be able to extricate yourself, just sayin’ …….. is it worth it?
@Richard Hornsby
‘You are quite the detective. You might be interested to know that Judge Strickland went to Law School with Nancy Grace… What could that possibly mean? That they know each other? Just like I know Diana. Did you also know that Amy Huizenga’s lawyers are the Isleworth Millionaire Bob Ward’s attorneys? 2012, here we come.’
Oh, sweetie, just stop it! You just do not have “it,” yet, therefore, just stop!
IF you are an attorney, you, at least, should know better than to “spew” the way you are. Go outside, suck in some fresh air ………. stop this foolishness.
Richard..Sorry.. and thanks from Levi’s page..I don’t know how my message page froze up?? I hit something and couldn’t send my response back again.. ( sorry ) And again thank you.. Cathy~
@Richard Hornsby
I can’t believe you said that about a colleague. Now I know why most people believe lawyers are scumbags! Some really are! Remind me never to disagree with anything you say, Mi Lord! Are you familiar with professional courtesy? Dude! Retract your teeth…no need to bare them! Oh and if I had the time, I’ll go through your ‘argument’ and locate a litany of flaws in your inaccurate interpretation of the law, but I don’t have the time, nor the inclination to do so. You have tried to impress the public yourself by throwing a few Florida State Statutes in your unsolicited critique of Mr. Sheaffer that do not apply. I can argue that the Motion filed by Mr. Baez is not worth the paper it is written on. Such Motions are not filed in matters like the one in question, in the great Republic of Florida.
Here’s what I think…I think you, sir, are crossing your fingers hoping that Baez would read your blog, see that you are one of the five people on the planet who believe there is a doubt that Casey might possibly be innocent and perhaps, he might make you a part of his dream team. I know the economy is horrible right now, and you have bills to pay, and defendants are not knocking on lawyers doors as they once did when money grew on trees, but don’t sell your intelligence and sacrifice your career. Dude, don’t do it. Do what I do, go complete your PhD. Your asinine statements are going to come back to haunt you when the economy does pick back up. People are not going to think you’re a good lawyer. Trust me! They’re not. Baez won’t be able to eat, after he loses Casey’s case. He’s going to have to go back into the bikini business!
Oh, and the only thing ‘dream’ about Casey’s dream team, is that they’re filled with fantasies and dreams that the Florida community (of which the jury will be selected) are such imbeciles that they can’t tell the differences between fact and fiction. Give Baez this message for me, please. Tell him, Casey is toast! Tell him that Zanny and Kronk are first cousins…and while you’re on your fantasy induced tirade against Mr. Sheaffer, explain that rather than wasting his resources digging into Kronk’s background, to have his investigators locate Zanny. If he truly wants to save Casey from old ‘sparky’, instead of digging up ex-wives with axes to grind…find Zanny… and just to think (since we’re personally attacking one another, hence your personal attacks against Mr. Sheaffer) that I thought you were handsome! I’m taking all that back now…wrong person…wrong personality, wrong lawyer…wrong analysis of Sheaffer’s comment. Wrong…all wrong!
Zanny! Oh Zanny! If you’re out there please get in touch with Baez and his ‘mouthpiece’ Hornsby – Casey’s life depends on it. They might be able to convince the Prosecution to plea deal to a lesser charge than kidnapping. So call…ok?
The only opinion he respects is his own.
@Richard Hornsby
‘I doubt it, because it appears that a Grand Jury at least convened. So that means there was at least something there. As the old saying goes, where there is smoke there is fire.’
AT LAST!
Showing some nice gray matter, there – there is still hope for ya, my boy …. *high 5*
Very DISRESPECTFUL…, very sad that you, can launch a personal attack on someone, for no apparent reason..especially someone like Mr Sheaffer….
If Baez truly believed Mr. Kronk was a suspect he would have turned it over in discovery, as he know he has a right to do. There is time limit. If he truly found this information out in the last 15 days and there was anything to back up this claim, he could have reported it. As he has reasonable knowledge that this release of past acts would taint the jury pool as part of premedia press release – do you not find it an unethical way to defend his client? By filing a motion and releasing the videos in this way.
In the motion he filed – the case’s he references are regarding people that have direct links to the crime scenes and victims.
Will you sir – do per bono work for the volunteers that Baez will (imo) throw under the bus next? It really feels like Baez is just picking a victim of the week.
I must admit, a funny AND “guess you know your stuff” article. I particularly enjoyed the email to Mr. Baez, that was classic. Too bad he did not and STILL does not take heed in your advice. If you don’t intend on taking someone’s advice – Why ask for it in the first place?
I look forward to “someone” paying the piper for the murder of Caylee. I must say Mr. Hornsby, I am grateful the crackheads were not passing your name around the jailhouse that day.
If I may be so bold as to ask a couple of questions, your opinion of course. Do you think this case will ever go to trial? Or will there be a plea? It would be nice to hear what you think about things as they unfold. Hope to see another article in the future.
Sincerely, Sheri
Right or wrong I at least am thankful that Mr. Hornsby is standing for something. What I see is a whole state of lawyers sitting on their thumbs allowing Baez to make a fool out of the whole lot of them, every one of them afraid of Baez and his new found power. Although I do not agree with the stance he is taking at least he is speaking out. Its a tiny step….
@Richard Hornsby
Mr. Hornsby, I appreciate various opinions on this case, whether they lean to the prosecution or to the defense, as I am on Caylee’s side, no one else’s. What I do not appreciate are you immature and unprofessional comments to fellow lawyers and to the posters here. You yourself used the word “bashed”. The defense filing that motion and following it up so quickly with a media tour was a blatent ploy to “pretty up” Casey Anthony and her family. That is my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. On other points of this case, the defense has been “one up” on the prosecution. That’s why we have trials, Mr. Hornsby, to sort it all out in one place so that a jury of the defendant’s peers may come to a reasonable conclusion. Mr. Shaeffer voiced his opinion and interpretation. Nothing more, nothing less. You are posting like a petulant child. I was hoping to have a strong legal mind play Devil’s Advocate to the prosecution in this case. Mr. Baez and his team have so far failed in that respect. And I fear that you will, also.
This case is about a 2 year old little girl who was murdered. George and Cindy Anthony want it to be about themselves. Jose Baez wants it to be all about Mr. Kronk. Casey wants it to be about Casey. And apparently, you want it to be about Bill Shaeffer. Are you concerned that Judge Strickland won’t hear the motion because he believes Mr. Shaeffer has already denied it? Please, don’t worry about that. Judges know that only they can decide on motions, not lawyers, but I’m sure Judge Strickland appreciates your imput on this matter.
@ms judged
LOL – You should look at the membership of FACDL – it is a Who is Who of Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys.
You should be interested to know that Mr. Sheaffer is a member of FACDL as well. So what does that make him?
LOL Brad Conway OMG……………..this gets better and better.
@Grown Up
Make no mistake – I disagree with their media tour, although I understand the tactical reason they did. So morally it was wrong, but from a defense perspective it was a good move.
And again, my gripe is simply one with a “fellow” defense attorney who didn’t even provide informed opinion – instead he completely ignored the law to tell his listeners what they want to hear.
@mymommademedoit
I don’t think all defense attorney are sitting on their thumbs – frankly, there is nothing they can do.
If you are frustrated with the speed of the case, you should fault the State Attorney. They have filed very few motions to force the Defense team’s hands.
@Richard Hornsby
Opinions and sarcasms do not win cases, Mr. Hornsby. Facts and logic win cases. While I respect and appreciate that your blog does have a place, you, sir were over critical of Mr. Sheaffer. A simple constructive criticism of Mr. Sheaffer’s comment would have sufficed.
While I have nothing against Mr. Baez, personally, the only legal support for the Motion Baez filed is that Casey will have proof to show why her appeal has valid grounds. Baez is filing the right Motion, but in the wrong State, sir! You’re making me wish I have the time or inclination to go to law school, in the United States.
The dream team is slowing losing its luster. Baez better have a big nest egg somewhere because after the hit this case is going to take on his career, he’s going to have to sew bathing suits himself. Not that there is anything wrong with sewing. I do it and I do it well. But let me just say this, if Baez was my attorney, I would fire him the day he filed that Motion. For me, that would have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. I realize that a ‘drowning person would catch at a straw,’ but damn…by filing that Motion, he is essentially grasping at air…He would have accomplish more if he had insinuated the insanity defense. Well, dude should have negotiated a plea deal. Now that he couldn’t do that…he would have made more sense to say she was insane and use the stolen checks, the carousing and sluttish behavior, just after her baby went missing, to show that she was behaving irrationally. The photographs might have cancelled the chloroform searches…I don’t know…she did it so it’s actually a good that my three year old would make a better defense attorney than Baez. But no!!! Wise guy goes and let his magicians convinced him to pull a rabbit out of a damn hat. Ouch!
Nah…if I were a betting woman, I’ll bet you the millions that I don’t have that in chambers, that Motion is going to start up some lucky person’s barbecue grill, after the judge tosses it outside his chambers. Enough of my yakking for one night…I must get back to my dissertation. After-all, wouldn’t want Baez to file a Motion to say I had something to do with Caylee. With Baez, one never knows. With him even you, Mr. Hornsby are not safe!
@mymommademedoit
I think the motion he filed and supporting documents is his “discovery response.”
Everyone of the cases you list “the witness” is either related to or have convictions for crimes that relate to the case. There are no convictions for murder, sexual abuse, or ducttaping/kidnapping on Mr. Kronk’s record.
@Richard Hornsby
‘LOL – You should look at the membership of FACDL – it is a Who is Who of Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys.
You should be interested to know that Mr. Sheaffer is a member of FACDL as well. So what does that make him?’
Being a “member” was never in the equation ………. Giving “advice” to Baez was the crux of my post.
@Sheri
@ Mr. Hornsby. Please don’t only answer attacks. Thanks, Sheri
I suck at this!
Mr. Hornsby.. Please don’t answer attacks only. I would love to hear back from you.. Thanks. Sheri
@Sheri
Do I think it will go to trial? – Based on recent defense comments, I think Jose Baez is angling to get a plea from the State that Casey will take. However, if Casey will not accept the plea, there has to be a trial.
No Justice takes time. And yes there is something that you could do. You yourself could file a state bar complaint against Baez for tainting the jury pool. His ethics are questionable. Can you not take a few hours of your time and stand up against another lawyer who is making a mocery of your profession.
Baez has reasonable knowledge that by national media blitzs he is tainting the jury pool. He has reasonable knowledge that the national media blitz will be shown in the whole state of Florida. Where in the Florida codes does it state that pretrial media releases stops at the State line?
Jesus, I really AM horrible at this.
MR. HORNSBY… I HOPE TO HEAR BACK.. I SUCK AT YOUR BLOG.. PLEASE DON’T ANSWER ATTACKS ONLY.. THANKS SHERI (not sure if using caps will get mr. hornsby attention.. anyone out there.. can ya help.. trying to get mr. hornsbys attention, thanks)
HI Richard,
Hi again.. So what is your Opinion of Roy’s Ex Wife’s Interview? I really do want to hear your opinion..TIA
Then the discovery and videos would have been released under florida Sunshine law not by the defense team to the media.
@Richard Hornsby
But was it a good move? Forget the motion and focus on the media tour. Did it work? Or was it pouring kerosene on a fire? I would argue that they took a bad situation and made it worse. The smartest thing they can do at this point is to let George and Cindy keep having the spotlight, because the more the public sees of their behavior, the more sympathy is felt for Casey. The defense should lay low and work on the case. There was no need to argue their motion in the media. Plus, filing the motion and then saying NOTHING to the media would not have created the “rally” around Mr. Kronk that I am seeing on various boards and blogs. But, alas, when lawyers take on a case for the publicity value, they focus more on the publicity than the case itself. And there’s no such thing as bad publicity, so they say.
@mymommademedoit
Exactly – Kidnapping Caylee and using duct tape to subdue her is very parallel to kidnapping and duct taping his ex wife.
There is no requirement it be exactly alike, only similar.
@Richard Hornsby
LMAO.. thanks.. again I suck at this. I have heard from several people who know the law say this will not go to trail… you’re the first person from florida i’ve heard say it. thanks and sorry about the yelling and trying to get your attention so hard.. lol. thanks for the answer, I’ll go now. (hiding my red embarrassed face behind my hands)
But is it provable? Was Kronk convicted of this offense? Is there even a police Report. There is nothing in this motion that go to proof. Just an exwife from 17 years ago. Without evidence it is just hearsay.
@Grown Up
I agree with you – that has been my primary problem with the Anthony Defense team from day 1.
Defending child murderers and unethical attorneys…great way to spend your time mr. hornsby. Keep quioting your lawbooks I’m sure we all love to be talked down to, but you can’t explain the 31 days, zanaida fernandez gonzalez, the perfect 10 nanny who works for free, and real down to earth people have had it with this technicality and mumbo jumbo being used to set murderers free. “People” like you are what is wrong with the world and especially the legal profession. Get a job sir. Get a real job, you may discover your humanity yet.
This case is so low, they r going to make people scared to search for dead children, or adults, these dirty tactics would cause me to fear saying I found a body if the defense of the accussed killer has a right to go into my past and dig up any made up dirt they want and make me look bad no less look like a killer, on national tv, without prior convictions,, and possible need a attorny to clear my name.. These tactics r wrong.. Just wrong……..
@Richard Hornsby
Sir, not only do I have a British Law Degree with Honors, but I also hold a Masters Degree in Law and will graduate with my Doctoral Degree this summer, upon my graduation, I will work on my SJD (doctoral degree in Juris Prudence) degree at Deakin University in Australia. May I hear an apology? Naw…forget it! A simple search of Nexus and a few strokes of my computer keys and about an hour of wasting precious time, I can shut your argument down, with one fell swoop. You continue to hold onto your argument but a big part of arguing is to anticipate the other person’s argument even before they voice them; Law 101. What do I mean by that? Do your research, rather than kill the messenger, review the basis for Mr. Sheaffer’s logic. Review all the empirical evidence you can find and then reach a conclusion based on your findings. Correlate them with your own and then intelligently, in a non-critical matter, argue your points. You have good points, but they are misplaced. They are! In the meantime, if there is a God in Heaven, and I believe there is – Casey will become beef jerky for the same coffin flies she was lugging around in her car trunk. On a different note, I know everybody is entitled to their day in court, but even as broke as I am, I couldn’t defend someone who killed a child. I mean where do we draw the line? Sure, I want a Mercedes as well, and I wouldn’t mind a house, next to the one Tiger Woods owned in Orlando, but at what expense? This is why I never, ever felt the need to practice law. I guess, I am too much of a humanitarian. My life’s work is to advocate for children and victims of crimes.
mr.hornsby,can the prosecution or judge strickland file a complaint with the bar,for bozo tainting the jury pool??????
@mymommademedoit
You prove up a crime by witnesses, and there is no need that you have a conviction under Florida’s William’s Rule – just a person willing to testify to first hand information. He has that and there is no need that she be a “credible witness.”
I mean the State relies on jail house snitches every day – and we would all agree that they are extremely unreliable.
I am sorry if I kept you up late Mr Hornsby but I do thank you for taking your time with us.
It does mean alot. I agree to disagree with you any day of the week. You are a gentleman.
I will not be offended if you do not answer my questions. You do have a life. And a baby on the way. Children are the reason we stay young…. we can live though their eyes!
A quick question – I know you cited those cases earlier to prove there is precedent for baez to file the motion. It’s late, and I haven’t read them all, but doesn’t the ruling in Savino hurt the defenses chances of getting this motion granted?
@mikka
Not for going onto television, no. It would have to be something more direct, like going directly to homes of potential jurors after the jury pool has been determined.
That young toothless woman in the video was lying, imo. I was abused as a young girl and NEVER did I ONCE smile about it. She said Roy and her mother split up when she was in the 5th grade. What 5th grader YOU know has ever spoken the words “I’m tired of Men”.. none! I think the state would “rip her a new one” under cross. (I personally don’t think there will ever be a trail)
@loves2shop
Who gave Bozo the idea to go this low, and spead this to the public without it going threw the courts..
Was it your idea. Did u help him with this.. Just asking
Loves you have a great point,,
@ms judged
Well, I am guilty as charged. And I would give my advice to ANY criminal defense attorney that asked. For every person that guilt is overwhelming, there are dozens of people who are wrongfully convicted.
You might want to look at this book: http://www.amazon.com/Innocents-Taryn-Simon/dp/1884167187
regarding credible witness’s .. I saw the ex wife’s Interview, and she changed her story, regarding the Duct Tape. She first said it only happened once, then later after Interviewer brought it up again, she then added it happened a second time. That plus her own mother stating she was imagining things, (later in her interview regarding seeing Roy) don;t you think that will come into play with her being a credible witness?
@mikka
@Richard Hornsby
So r u talking about in a court of law,, or in the public before the paperwork hits the judges desk… this was so low,, so low…
of course in cour of law!nothing low with this!
But if there is no crime reported how can it be reliable? There is no evidence of a crime in this instance and ducttaping an adult 17 years ago with no police report is not the same as the cases you site. Everyone of them had direct links within the time frame. Not 17 years apart.
@mikka
WE all should do that…….
@Richard Hornsby
A good move? The public does not forget as easily as one may think. Baez blasted the prosecution for discussing the case, now he and his dream team have passed the prosecution in appearances. Baez is not helping matters, after all, his responses have been restricted to such idiotic sentences as, “you know I can’t respond to that,” “I can’t say what my client told me,” well, why in the H E double hockey sticks are you on television then, duh!
He is actually coming across as desperate. He wants the case moved to another jurisdiction, yet he is out there making sure the entire jurisdiction of Florida knows about Casey and how she has been treated unreasonably? If I remember correctly, he said that the case will be fought in court…yeah…OK…
mr hornsby,o.k thank,good night everybody!
@interesting
Yes and no. The Savino case did not discuss Williams Rule in detail. But general similarities are not enough to be admissible as similar fact evidence – there needs to be something unique. I think that the use of duct tape satisfies that requirement to get past Savino.
oh please..
I agree.. He stoops low. and I don’t like Baez..but he does have the right to question anyone that found Caylee.. It awful and cruel as these people will never be the same, or want to help out in the future.. Because you do get dragged through the mud, but not usually by the Defense on a talk show..
oh please,oh well ,i believe bozo will get in the future more bar complaints!
@Richard Hornsby Were Caylee’s hands bound?
The exwife did not say the ducttape was used on her mouth. Now if Baez had evidence or statements from women that said he ducttaped their mouths I would say it is is similar.
@mymommademedoit
I agree with you – and the question of whether the similarity is close enough to be admissible as William’s Rule Evidence is what Judge Strickland will have to decide.
My opinion though is that he has a decent shot at persuading the judge to do so.
I think she made that part up.. I really do.. Her story changed from it happened one time to two times, and the second time she talks about it. she gets shifty.. her eyes get shifty.. she is looking around not focused.. I think that part in her story is not the truth..
imo
@mymommademedoit
Actually, based on Mr. Kronk’s statement to Local 6 – it appear that not only was the crime reported and Mr. Kronk arrested, but a Grand Jury was convened.
Again, where there is smoke, there is fire.
I think it’s horrible some of the things you people are saying to him. Those of you throwing around insults, you’re as bad as Baez!!
But Baez did not wait for the judge to decide. He released the videos to the media himself.
@mymommademedoit
Well, technically there is prohibition on him doing so.
@Sheri
If you live in a glass house, Madam, don’t throw stones! He started the mudslinging. He let the chickens are out of the barn.
And they could find no bases for the charges?
@LL.B&PhD2B
This is HIS site.. is it not? 2 wrongs don’t make a right.. I’m sure your mother taught you that
@Richard Hornsby
I guess what really matters is what judge strickland thinks. Thanks for the answer.
Congrats on the baby. Good night.
ROY KRONKS EX WIFE INTERVIEW FROM 13 NEWS
She already has MAJOR holes in her story.
BUT I don’t think if this case makes it to court that she will hold up in court regarding her part of the Story, about use of Duct Tape on her body by Roy Kronk.
Here’s Why:
On the interview that channel 13 news has of her,
Key point
She states: at 98.07 in the Interview that Roy Kronk used Duct Tape on her “ONE” time and that was in key west.Later in the Interview after the Interviewer brings up the Duct Tape again and asks how many times Roy duct Taped her, she now says 2 times, she later states that he Duct Taped her 2 Times and both of those times we’re in Key west.
When she now changes her story too 2 times instead of 1 time, she is searching with her eyes looking around, she is different now.. The Interviewer doesn’t even ask her about the “second” time of her being Duct Taped.
Interviewers/Investigators are smart.. He is for Defense, he didn’t want to ask more detail about alledged 2 time now.. Why? Because he knew she added it to her story?Because she was going to say he put it over her mouth now too?? We’ll find out later.. I am sure of it..
Also Key point is at 352.88
In her Interview she states:she thought she saw him ( Roy) in Knoxville..
Then her Mother said:Your “Imagining Things”
he was 2 hours away..
*********************************’
Richard do you think the State is going to Rip this Woman apart..Gently.. but they will Rip her story apart as she has now become involved in this case.
Won’t the States attys use the fact that her own mother has stated she has “”Imagined Things” .And How she said in this Interview she was Duct Taped one Time, and describes it then later adds a ‘Second Incident” only…after being lead by the Interviewer..
TIA
@Richard Hornsby
The State will not offer Casey a plea deal at this point. I’m willing to bet. No way will that happen! They have too much circumstantial evidence against her. At least, that is my opinion. The prosecution are known to have won cases based on circumstantial evidences.
Thank you Mr. Hornsby for your time and answers. I will visit again when the mood has calmed. (I’ve got teenagers if I want drama)
@Richard Hornsby
Yikes, I bet your clients don’t want you saying that in court!
that was meant for the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” comment
@loves2shop
Oh, I only pray the Kronk’s ex wives end up being cross-examined. Please Lord!! I want to see how minced meat is made. I’ve always wanted to see. Don’t deny me this one guilty pleasure…Lord!
///////////
ya..She got herself into this one.. She’s sick too.. Health wise.. She will be taken down and apart.. I truly beleive after watching her interview that she made that part up, re: the “duct tape”. She is not believable ..
I do think he has had problems with abuse in his past, and that is shameful and no excuse, but I think she added some things to her story that did not actually happen..
It won’t be pretty in court for her, if this case goes to trial..
in my opinion.. : 0
lol
@loves2shop
I don’t know how she would hold up in trial. I am willing to bet that after this recent firestorm her story will start changing every day.
The more I think about it, the more I think that he should not have distributed her video to the media. Because now – just like Casey Anthony – every time she goes on tv, she sets herself up for being impeached with an inconsistent statement.
@interesting
Well – I post ALL of my results on the front page of my website. You are welcome to come to your own conclusions as to how satisfied my clients are about my services 🙂
@Richard Hornsby
You remind me of the neighbor’s poodle behind the fence, barking loud; flexing his muscle in an attempt to egg on the Rottweiler. You want to start a fight, don’t you? Free publicity if you have the media come to the battle and then every prisoner with blood on their hands would be sending messenger pigeons to your window. That’s fine. To each his own; but Mr. Sheaffer is too much of a professional to accept your challenge. At best, you can work on this blog and with enough traffic; you’ll be able to make just as much money from it as you would from your exposure on local television.
By the way! Who was it that said something about the pot calling the kittle black? Your words are:
So when someone like Mr. Shaeffer – an attorney who reeks of elitism – not only criticizes another criminal defense attorney, but hypocritically and falsely criticizes another criminal defense attorney; I think it is my duty to call him out for his cheap talk. Because he is no more credible that the person he criticizes.
And Mr. Sheaffer, in my humble legal opinion, you are both cheap and a sell-out to your profession.
@LL.B&PhD2B
I am glad he is to much of a professional to respond, just like he was to much of a professional to provide you with a correct legal opinion instead of sensationalized comment that was unsupported by law.
ya.. I think the same thing.. The more said and exposed early, the more that can come back and bite ya later..
I am glad that Casey doesn’t have you for her Atty.. ( Meant as a compliment). : )
I didn’t say anything about how satisfied your clients are, but do you really think any of them would want you to say that in court? Good for the goose, and all that.
It’s late. Get some sleep! I think your blog did a good thing with regard to correcting bill shaeffer. Could have done it without all the name-calling, but I could see how his last blog could get you, or any defense atty, all riled up.
@LL.B&PhD2B
Gotta give ya an “atta boy!!”
I admire your stance ………………
Well, Mr. Hornsby, I knew you would have quite a night with commentors and you have been more than up to the task. Ofcourse you have been, you are no stranger to debate (doh, you are a lawyer!lol). Nothing was lost on me in your article and I understand why you wrote your article as you did. I’ve only heard of you a few times throughout this case and now that your site is bookmarked I have some catching up to do on your legal analysis. I respect both you and Bill Shaeffer for giving your legal opinions on this motion. Once again, thank you for explaining it so nicely. I may not like it, but I want to know what is what and why.
@Richard Hornsby
‘Well, I am guilty as charged. And I would give my advice to ANY criminal defense attorney that asked. For every person that guilt is overwhelming, there are dozens of people who are wrongfully convicted.
You might want to look at this book: http://www.amazon.com/Innocents-Taryn-Simon/dp/1884167187‘
I’ve read it. And, understand the realities as laid out, therein.
So, as early as 7/08, you were concerned relative to Casey Anthony possibly being wrongfully convicted?
Now, after having read (I assume) ALL of the documents released thus far under the Sunshine Laws of the State of FL., do you continue to think along those same lines as it relates to THIS case?
We can’t really take you seriously though can we? It is unethical for attorneys to advertise, and your Website does everything but ask for a credit card number. Shame shame shame.
@Richard Hornsby
‘ but a Grand Jury was convened.
Again, where there is smoke, there is fire.’
~~
Is that fire gonna roast the ham for my sandwich?
I read that the grand jury convened but found the evidence was not there. Therefore he was vindicated.
To clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof:
Hornsby, you are being hypocritical & juvenile – if you want to offer legal analysis on this case you can do so without flogging another attorney in order for YOU to get the spotlight of attention in the process, in other words your motive is extremely transparent. If you really wanted to prove a point you would write on the law & the facts of this case without the venom & taking stabs at individuals you more than obviously pointed out as competitors versus colleagues. Put your ego in the trash because the moment you got your “briefs” in a bunch over another attorney’s opinion in this case that is what your ego’s worth became, garbage.
One glaring omission regarding the witnesses against Kronk, just because they make accusations doesnt make any of it factual – they have offered no proof & all they have indicated is that they have discussed what they would say amongst each other, their motive being very obvious even for the most naive, of which I am far from. PS you really should have looked into these individuals criminal records, yea they have them & they will be discredited as witnesses. Baez can attempt to get the recovery crime scene evidence thrown out by attacking Kronk but he will not succeed because the chain of events began at the Anthony home & traced to Casey’s computer, cell phone & Casey Anthony’s car of which Casey herself told others the car smelled of squirrel road kill to make an accuse as to why her car smelt of death BEFORE her arrest – the items found at the crime scene came from her home & were in her possession. If Baez expects to get evidence thrown out with this attempt at crying “tampering,” the same can be said as to why with his & the Anthonys knowledge Dominic Casey was digging & probing in those woods in November 2008 PRIOR to Caylee’s remains being discovered. If any of these revelations Casey’s defense team orchestrated had any merit or would have exonerated their client they would have been shouting it from the court house rooftop well over a year ago, while I agree it is their duty to offer Casey the best defense, their tactics & desperation extremely obvious, this too shall backfire on them & help convict their client.
Geraldo blatantly said on his show tonight that the defense is wondering if Kronk murdered Caylee not Casey — I do believe the lines have been crossed & repercussions will be felt.
You are welcome! I like the way Judge Mills explained the motion in limine & why it will fail. She’s smart & put the inept attorney Baez in his place. @eyespy
And in the case of the exwife if she truly felt that Mr. Kronk murdered Caylee she is bitter enough to go to the LE. She would not wait 7 months and only tell a defense lawyer. She would have been on every national TV show and in every tabloid.
@Crazy Dr. Ree
‘We can’t really take you seriously though can we? It is unethical for attorneys to advertise, and your Website does everything but ask for a credit card number. Shame shame shame.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*snort* (does he have a paypal button?)
All of the brilliant, ethical attorneys I know, DO NOT advertise their “wares.” They do not have to. Their impeccable reputations speak for themselves.
Of course, I am speaking of “high caliber,” intelligent attorneys ……….. Mr. Hornsby, obviously isn’t in THAT league!
@mymommademedoit
‘I read that the grand jury convened but found the evidence was not there. Therefore he was vindicated.
To clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof:’
~~~~~~~~
My point, exactly ………. everyone knows the State’s Attorney (prosecution) can get a ham sandwich indicted, if they are so inclined ……….. therefore, the State’s Attorney’s Office had no inclination to pursue the matter (due to a TOTAL lack of evidence)! 🙂
@Frosty
Well, there ya go.
Thanks, Frosty for the “slap back into reality!”
@Frosty
Frosty, thank you for such a professional response. Hopefully I too will keep my commentary on such a professional level from here on out.
As for your questions, here goes:
I would not get wrapped up in the nuance of how Mr. Baez titled his motion. As he technically is not even required to seek a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of his evidence – he could have just called the witnesses during trial.
As for the appropriateness of the terminilogy Motion in Limine, he could have just as well called in a Reverse Williams Rule Notice. The key issue is simply that he wants the judge to make a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence. In this case a specific type of evidence.
As for whether Mr. Kronk could sue Mr. Baez, my answer before today was no. But now that it has come out Mr. Kronk had actually been investigated for the kidnapping, my answer is absolutely not.
Now, as for you citation to the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, the key phrase there is: “have no substantial purpose.” While you may be of the moral position that the could of suspicion that Mr. Baez has cast on Mr. Kronk is without merit and meant to harass him; the law asks the question from the viewpoint of whether he is defending his client to the best of his ability.
And I think you would be hard pressed to argue from a legal standpoint that Mr. Baez’s investigation of Mr. Kronk is without “substantial purpose” as it relates to defending Casey Anthony.
Well, I am tired. Good night.
@Cappuccino
Mr. Baez will not be able to get any “crime scene” evidence thrown out.
But as for your proof question – he did offer proof, he offered videos of people who articulated what they would testify to. Contrary to Mr. Shaeffer’s implication – there is no requirement that evidence be sworn to prior to being alleged in motions. Only a good faith basis that it exists.
I covered this fairly in depth in my post.
Good night.
Your attack on Sheaffer says that this is more about one blog he has chosen to post.
Wow the vitreol comes across in almost every sentence.
Regardless of whether the limine motion was used correctly or not Baez and Co do not show adequate linkage to Casey or Caylee Anthony. There use of the Williams rule does not even come close. They are villifying a man and trashing him all over USA with a media blitz that had to have been planned before the ink dried on the motion. For goodness sake one of the witnesses has a criminal record for crimes of dishonesty ……and pretty serious crimes at that…..all subject to public record. Baez may actually get burned here.
Ethics and decency do matter . But obvoiusly Kronk is just a merely casualty to you. His life is meaningless. All part of a winning strategy. Well volunteers and citizens all over will be thinking twice about getting inolved in any way shape or form in murder cases thanks to Baez and Co who are reduced to these tactics as they have no credible defence of their client.
Maybe this cavalier attitude……….that its all about the winning and everyone is fair game has to change. Your attitude only encourages poor ethics and no integrity just as long as the winning gate is in sight and someone else is sacrificed so that the defendant goes free.
No matter how you dress it up Baez is trying to have this man deemed Suspect No 1
but the substance of his motion does NOT come anywhere near to linking his past bad acts to a missing child who was last seen alive in the care of her mother and whom said mother passed her on to a babysitter. If the defence could make any tiny link peope would view the motion with less emotion and actually having some strategic value.
Not only do you seem to be especially personal about Sheaffer but one had to question your motives when this article is peppered with advertisements all about YOU.
@Scotswoman
You are absolutely correct. As I stated, this is the third time he has provided legal commentary that was false. While you view my rant on him as spewing poison, I viewed his unfounded legal commentary the same way.
You’re welcome Michellena! A lot of people have been thanking me for the link & I appreciate it because I thought Judge Mills explained it in a way a lay person could understand. Also she pointed out again how inept Baez is as she has been very critical of him in the past. I believe her when she says the motion against Roy Kronk will be denied.
I watched the interview too, for me it’s always painful to watch Baez without wanting to throw something at him through the TV. But I think he came off looking unprofessional & unethical & this latest publicity tour will backfire like all the rest. Remeber the ‘ugly coping’ tour with Baez & Linda K Baden. Well this one will make us despise the defense, Casey & the Anthonys even more for framing another innocent person who was just being a good citizen.
@~Michellena
Mr Hornsby you could have made your points just as well without resorting to references about suspenders and giraffes.
And could you explain just where the motion sufficiently LINKS Kronk’s alledged bad acts to the circumstances that surround the disappearance and death of Caylee Anthony who was not reported missing by her mother and was alledgedly left at the apartment of a babysitter , a baby sitter who had a sister and roomates that apparetnly lived in a vaacum.
And should this motion preclude the evidence from the trunk of the car, the stench and the air samples, a hair consistent with Caylee with post mortem banding and Neil Haskel’s report about grave wax and coffin flies.
Please dont use the junk science argument as you will be aware that a Frye hearing will be held re the admissalitliy of certain evidence that is brought in the State. Lyon makes use of the circumstantil evidence in support of the motion.
She actually states that the circumstantial evidence against Casey Anthony is NO stronger than the circumstantial evidence against Kronk. What say you to that particular claim in the motion.
I suspect Judge Strickland will look very closely at how the Williams Rule has been applied here. The fact that a grand jury chose to give no weight to the ex wives’s claim of kindnapping and that Kronk’s record was expunged may also influence the Judge.
And no doubt Lyon’s claim re the circumstantial evidence being equal may indeed give him a good laugh.
“There’s no smoke without fire” Jeez
Isn’t that comment a contraditction in terms? and from a defence lawyer of all people……..who normally would be a fierce proponent of “presumed innocent until proven guilty.
What you omit to say is that the grand jury saw no merit in the allegations. The record has since been expunged.
Roy Kronk may be no choirboy but to make the leap that this motion is trying to ,based on highly empeachable evidence and absolutely NO demonstrated connection to the circumstances surrounding Caylee’s disappearance makes this tactic nothing more than pathetic.
Witnesses everywhere should now be worried that defence lawyers could attempt to change their status from witness to perpetrator on scant and unproven accusations.alone.
The motion totally IGNORES the overhwelming circumstantial evidence that lead to Casey Anthony being endicted for this crime. The merits of the motion simply do not exist and that’s why we should all be concerned about the judicial system in the USA.
You obviously think the end justifies the means , ethics and decency don’t come into it?. Its all about creating a smokescreen to help defend the accused and the substance of the motion doesnt really matter. Its a pat on the back for the dream team for employing dirty tricks but that ok …..fair means or foul as long as you give your client a vigourous defence. And if innocent people are destroyed in the process that’s ok too. That’s effectively how I see your stance here Mr Hornsby.
And what of Roy Kronk, who is being used as a patsy in this high profile case but who has never been shown to have any connection whatsover to Caylee or her fate, other than he was once accused and cleared in the eyes of the law of of using a widely used household item , duct tape, to alledgedly restrain his then spouse. A grand jury chose to believe Kronk as opposed to his accuser.
And since the duct tape is the element you clearly believe supports this motion, lets look a little closer at it. The duct tape in this case as no doubt the prosecution will emphasise to the Judge is of a rare industrial fire resistant type that has not been manufactured in years and guess what, the same brand of tape was found on George Anthony’s gas can.
Now by the same argument that the duct tape is the link here ….is not there EQUALLY sufficient linkage that George Anthony could have killed Caylee and dumped her in the woods. Duct tape found at his, Caylee’s home is the same rare brand that was found around Caylee’s mouth. I’m sure he has bad acts that could be fully exploited to file a baseless motion. And George can certainly be linked more closely with Caylee and Casey than Kronk.
But it would be ridiculous to accuse George, we all agree with that , yet with even zero of an association to Caylee compared to her grandfather, its ok to implicate Kronk. His alledged use of duct tape 17 years ago is suddenly more sinister than George’s ergo he should be considered a suspect.
Should not the Williams Rule have to consider the TOTALITY of the evidence in a case and not just cherrypick the bits that seem to fit.
And finally, would you not least concede that it would have been somewhat ethical to have at least COMPLETED Kronk’s deposition and waited on the Judge’s ruling before flying to New York and announcing on national television that this man should have been investigated as a suspect in the murder of a 34month old baby girl.
This motion is imo extremely weak on substance and that WEAKNESS is what makes it’s filing and the resulting MEDIA blitz utterly contemptable. the notion that a defence attorney can use any means if it is in pursuit of his client’s defence is no longer acceptable. The judicial system has to improve and constantly evolve. It should protect the interests of ALL, the accused, the victim and witness in equal measure.
I therefore have to agree with Sheaffer’s analysis.
well I asked a question way back and still no response from you on this.HOW DID A MOTION GET FILED STATING KRONK LIED OR REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER WHEN HE WAS DEPOSED ON THE 19TH?DO YOU NOT KNOW THE ANSWER?I SUSPECT YOU DON’T .I GUESS ITS BECAUSE IT IS WRONG AND THAT IN ITSELF WILL BE QUESTIONED BYTHE HONORABLE STAN STRICKLAND.I
well I asked a question way back and still no response from you on this.HOW DID A MOTION GET FILED STATING KRONK LIED OR REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER WHEN HE WAS DEPOSED ON THE 19TH?DO YOU NOT KNOW THE ANSWER?I SUSPECT YOU DON’T .I GUESS ITS BECAUSE IT IS WRONG AND THAT IN ITSELF WILL BE QUESTIONED BYTHE HONORABLE STAN STRICKLAND.I really think you ar looking for attention or to be a part of the defense team.I will say that the only one that matters in all this is a murdered child named Caylee and justice for her.Casey Anthony is responsible and not the meter man.
Sorry for the double post.this is confusingwithout a few cups of coffee.
Joe, I have read this entire blog and have been waiting, with others I’m sure, for the answer to your very good question.
The other, most insane and absurd feature of this motion, is that it Implies that a Child Murderer (who if it were Roy Kronk was TOTALLY off the radar and scott-free), would actually call LE over and over until he showed them his duct-taped Child Murdering success.
In a Death Penalty State even!
Watch for a new coined term to come forth… “Suicide by Child Murder”.
Simply Ignorant.
Richard when you get back on, please address Joe Blow’s (lol) Question.
Ex-wives have bad things to say????? Are you kidding me.
My ex-wife is SURE that I’m Satan. Or Elvis. Bring the Cameras.
Scottswoman:
“Ethics and decency do matter . But obvoiusly Kronk is just a merely casualty to you. His life is meaningless. All part of a winning strategy. Well volunteers and citizens all over will be thinking twice about getting inolved in any way shape or form in murder cases thanks to Baez and Co who are reduced to these tactics as they have no credible defence of their client.”
———————————————-
STAMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@interesting
Exactly my thought when I read that! Don’t want to repeat that to a jury.
I hope your not charging for this Moderation…. if it’s anything like a dang Mediation I can’t afford this. LOL!
I have a question Mr. Hornsby, did Baez file this for pretrial admissability as opposed to just calling the witness at trial in order to be allowed access to Kronks cell, computer records etc., if the judge accepts the pretrial evidence?
Also, I will wait patiently for your answer to “joe blow’s” question. Yes, I did notice that you posted it a number of times and what……no response.
i did not read your whole entire article, but in plain english,:JUDGE KAREN MILLS FRANCIS, HOST, “JUDGE KAREN SHOW”: Well, you know, I`ve been pretty hard on Mr. Baez throughout this whole process. I was a criminal defense attorney for 13 years before I was a judge. I looked at his motion. It`s called a motion in limine. In Florida, a motion in limine is to exclude evidence but his motion is asking the court to allow evidence. There is no such motion in Florida.
Additionally, he`s asking the court to allow evidence of what`s known as prior bad acts. In Florida, it`s called the Williams rule. That`s a prosecution motion. The prosecution can bring in evidence of the defendant`s prior bad acts to show motive, intent, lack of mistake.
I have never heard of a defense attorney filing a Williams rule motion to show prior bad acts of a witness. But let`s say for the sake of argument it`s a legitimate motion. Under the Williams rule, he has to be able to show that there`s sufficient elements in the prior bad acts that fit with the elements in this case, and I don`t think he has that here.
If you haven’t already can you explain how these evidence codes do or do not apply to Mr. Kronk.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/Sec608.HTM
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/Sec609.HTM
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/Sec610.HTM
Also can the state depose the “witnesses” Mr. Baez claims will impeach Mr. Kronks testimony, and charactor to compare the statements under oath?
Also, in an official deposition, both the prosecution and the defense have the opportunity to ask the witness questions, and the witness answers under oath. This is to allow both sides the opportunity to understand how the line of questioning will go in court, and it may be used for inconsistant statements made by the witness. (much like Mr.A’s grand jury testimony vs deposition statements)
The prosecution was not afforded the opportunity to submit questions to the witness, will Judge Strickland take this into account?
Thank you.
Mr Hornsby, when reading, I am thinking that red flags were not waving in the deposition. The motion was written and signed before the depo. And they were jetting off to tv land immediately after. They had this planned. I believe that nothing was in the depo, if it had been they would have let it out! jmo
Cindy would have been a much easier and more likely target for the defense team. She had access to the car, access to Caylee, Access to the computer, a background of fighting over Caylee, background of her daughter stealing from her, and all her family, Lying, not graduating, people testifying left and right about their relationship problems….
ALL ALREADY ADMISSABLE!!!!
Sir,
would the prosecution argue the motion in the same manner that Mr. sheaffer has?
Are we not seeing here what we might expect to see at the motion hearing?
Won’t the state respond with case law contrary to that which Mr Baez has submitted?
Won’t Judge Stickland rule on the motion validity using the case law references and applying the higher courts intent?
Thanks-
So, you say: “So when someone like Mr. Shaeffer – an attorney who reeks of elitism – not only criticizes another criminal defense attorney, but hypocritically and falsely criticizes another criminal defense attorney; I think it is my duty to call him out for his cheap talk. Because he is no more credible that the person he criticizes”.
Uh, the minute you called out Bill Scheaffer “Suspender’s”, ya sure lost credibility. What’s the matter, is Bill saying what we all think of you “Defense” lawyer’s when you all cry REASONABLE DOUBT? You defend obviously guilty people and hide behind…”everyone deserves a defense” wehn, in fact, you know your client is guilty. Tell me, Mr. Hornsby, you think Casey is innocent? I thought you lawyer’s were smart? Maybe you are jealous that Scheaffer has a spot on TV and you don’t.
Based on what Judge Karen says, Baez is totally off the mark. Based on the fact she has been a criminal attorney and now a judge with obviously many more years experience in the profession than Baez, I tend to put a little more faith in her opinion. No matter how you look at it – his motion was dirty and underhanded and he is a slime to do it. He no more concluded a deposition when he trolls over to the court to file the motion and you know that the motion was written long before he did the deposition. He is looking for a schmuck to pin this on so that he can put a child killer back on the streets to kill again should she so desire. Everything points to Casey. And even if you can raise reasonable doubt with this false accusation, how would you explain him getting Caylee from Casey, killing her, putting her in the trunk of Casey’s car (for which he has no keys acccording to Casey only Jesse Grund ever had a key other than her) and getting her out of the trunk without Casey knowing. And when casey was telling people something died in her car why didn’t she find Caylee while searching for the smell? People need to quit thinking so narrow mindedly and get with reality.
JUDGE KAREN MILLS FRANCIS, HOST, “JUDGE KAREN SHOW”: Well, you know, I`ve been pretty hard on Mr. Baez throughout this whole process. I was a criminal defense attorney for 13 years before I was a judge. I looked at his motion. It`s called a motion in limine. In Florida, a motion in limine is to exclude evidence but his motion is asking the court to allow evidence. There is no such motion in Florida.
Additionally, he`s asking the court to allow evidence of what`s known as prior bad acts. In Florida, it`s called the Williams rule. That`s a prosecution motion. The prosecution can bring in evidence of the defendant`s prior bad acts to show motive, intent, lack of mistake.
I have never heard of a defense attorney filing a Williams rule motion to show prior bad acts of a witness. But let`s say for the sake of argument it`s a legitimate motion. Under the Williams rule, he has to be able to show that there`s sufficient elements in the prior bad acts that fit with the elements in this case, and I don`t think he has that here.
A guilty person would not call LE as much as Kronk did..sorta like Casey Anthony.JMO.I do wish my question was addressed at some point since last evening but I can understand why RH may not want to answer it.Its called a tough question with no good answer but at least with him avoiding to answer it I get the drift that I am correct about itbeing done backwards.Of course they jumped the gun with the filing backwards or at least amending the date part when a new page was added to the motion however jumping on the plane to do the media blitz was more important to try and taint the jury pool here in Fl..Caylee will get justice in the end.I thank God for the State being in her corner.They are not out douiing the media thing that the defense team is as they are a class act.JMO again.
VOTE
http://www.wesh.com/surveypopup/caseyanthony/21669097/detail.html?p=caseyanthony
Ho-hum . . . Mr. Hornsby (YAWN…). I’ve read your very, very, very long tirade (YAWN…) and all it tells me is that you (YAWN…) are either incredibly jealous of Mr. Sheaffer or you (Yawn…) are trying to stir up a little #&^$%. Either way (Yawn…) I find you to be quite tiresome and am happy to see (Yawn…) that almost everyone disagrees with you (Yawn…). I also find you to be quite untalented and boring in your communication. I have no idea what your background is but can only guess that you and Baez both had difficulty in passing the Bar. Sorry. But it shows (Yawn…).
Whatever it is that you are up to (YAWN…) will soon be apparent to all. Trust.
As a lay person there is something about the motion that I do not understand. I did go to your references (Black’s etc) and read what was written there. With very few exceptions it referenced mainly excluding evidence, however, there was a line or two about including evidence. I did not find ‘In Limine for Florida’ specifically. One thing that was mentioned in every article is that this type of motion(?) is intended to have a ruling without the knowledge of the jurors…As this motion and it’s content as well as the ‘evidence’ has been made very public is it not predjudicial? Although the jurors have not been assigned the duty yet, the predjudicial information has been released nation wide with news conferences no less. I thought the reason for ‘In Limine’ is to have a ruling on the admissability of evidence etc. in a non-predfudicial way as to not confuse the issues before the court. With Florida having a Sunshine Law is this information supposed to be public domain?
A memo signed and dated on the 18th stating that Kronk lied in a depo taken on the 19th is evidence that the defense in this case has no problem lying to the Court, they should be santioned for that.
Joe blow and Gahoundawg..
I have been waiting to hear the answer on that one too.. How could one state they we’re not telling the truth, the day before they tell the truth? LOL
Richard is it common practice for Defense Atty’s to state a witness wasn’t honest in their Depo, prior to them giving it??
Richard…Thanks in Advance for answering for many here..
Will it hinder or help the defense in that they have filed motion to exclude kc’s prior bad acts, but include Mr. Kronks?
Joe blow,
I just read the motion in it’s entirety, and I fail to see where the Defense states he is lying in advance. What I do see is that they have questioned all of his comments regarding the facts to date, as of the 18th when the motion was signed. It is my opinion that if MR Krocks story changed at the Deposition from what they have learned and bee told prior to the 18th that they will address that issue later.
But, in Baez’s motion that I just read, they are talking about any and all past history and up until the 18th of November.
http://primewriter.com/news-1246-headlines/?p=1051
Cathy~
sorry in above I meant.. Mr Kronk
Loves2shop, the defenses ability to see into the future shows up in the memo, top of page 31. The memo can be found on wftv.
thanks OMG.. I’ll go look.. : )
OMG !!! OMG!!!lmoa They did !!!!! Oh man now that is funny, what we’re they thinking ????
Richard, Please answer the question for so many of us..
Is it common practice for the Defense to state the Witness is lying in their Depo to the court, prior to the Depo taking place ??
Thanks in Advance Richard ~
OMG ..
Thank You.. that actually made my day… !~ LOL
Joe I think Richard will answer you soon..
@joe blow
Well, that is very interesting. I had not noticed the conflict in the dates before you pointed it out.
By looking at the formatting of the documents – I suspect they had prepared the motion and signed it prior to the deposition.
However, after the deposition they probably found a computer and typed in the impeachment section at the end to further bolster their position against Mr. Kronk. That would also explain why the deposition is referenced in the very last page.
This theory is further bolstered by the lack of any citations to impeachment case law in the section you refer to. This suggests that it was done last minute, based on the answers they received – which necessitated the insertion.
And since impeachment law is so basic, the omission of citations is not really necessary.
Regardless, the date is not an issue that would cause the motion to be stricken.
Or, they could have simply gotten the date wrong when they signed.
Regardless, the
@Richard Hornsby
Do you really think the date was wrong they typed?Thats a real strange thing I would think as they knew the date of the depo and the date they needed to fly for the media blitz they did.If they added after the fact of faxing this to the State Attorney’s office on the 18th they could have sent an amended page changing the date on the motion.However they didn’t so they assumed no one would notice this date or hope it wouldn’t be,well its in black and white and it shows what the defense is trying to do to an innocent man.Have you checked on their star witnesses and their records yet?Real interesting some of them.Thank you for finally addressing this question but I still see the motion as getting thrown out.
Mr. Hornsby, I’m all for freedom of speech and expression, but why all the anger towards Mr. S? In your attempt to sound informed you have stooped to name calling which comes across as personal and childish, not informative. And it’s distractive; are you really trying to inform the public, or do you have an axe to grind? Also, you claim that “google never lies” AND quote a Wikipedia definition as fact. Though I appreciate all the legal links you have provided I’m stymied by the Wikipedia reference. Are you aware that ANYONE can edit Wikipedia? You didn’t go into Wikipedia, write up a definition and then quote yourself? I can’t imagine someone as intelligent as you doing something like that, but the Wiki reference does chip away at credibility.
Well, you now have either way more than two readers, or two readers who are commenting under a lot of different names…lol!
I want to commend your “Defense of the Defense.”
Way too many people, for way too long, have not been able to think outside the box on this case. And I think there are lots of “areas outside the box” to be considered on this one!
Those screaming this motion was done to “taint the jury pool” sure felt differently about tainting the jury pool when it was Nancy G, Greta, Jane VM, Rev G, Jesse G, Lenny P, Mr. Morgan and many others all offering their armchair “wisdom .” I guess that “tainting” was ok, huh? Funny how the shoe never fits on the other foot!
I look forward to more of your thoughtful analysis of this case, as you seem to be one of the few attorneys NOT on the defense team who aren’t bashing Baez and crew.
Baez had a great win last Monday, and finished up the week with national tv appearances at the request of the likes of JVM! LOL!
I think maybe, just maybe, the State has “misunderestimated” him.
Personally, I think many people have “misoverestimated” Mr. Sheaffer…lol!
Richard, so what your saying in laymen’s terms is.. The Defense can state someone is not going to be telling the court the truth, prior to them speaking?
TIA
@Just a Mom
My Google never lies reference was tongue in cheek.
In any event, here is Florida Appellate Decision where the prosecutor filed a Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence. State of Florida v. Oliver: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10333363433088374991
Also, please click on this link which will show you a search on Google Scholar (A collection of reported appellate cases throughout the country); There are over 289 references to Motion in Limine to Admit. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Motion+in+Limine+to+Admit%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2002&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
And remember, Mr. Sheaffer crucified Baez for using the title “Motion in Limine.” So either Sheaffer is wrong or 289 other litigants are wrong – including one Florida prosecutor.
@Happy Thanksgiving!
Those screaming this motion was done to “taint the jury pool” sure felt differently about tainting the jury pool when it was Nancy G, Greta, Jane VM, Rev G, Jesse G, Lenny P, Mr. Morgan and many others all offering their armchair “wisdom .” I guess that “tainting” was ok, huh? Funny how the shoe never fits on the other foot!
______
The people you name are not motioning the court. They are simply talking heads, offering commentary, and opinion. There isn’t a notary stamp on it, it hasn’t been filed in Orange County, and Judge Strickland will never rule on their opinions.
The intent, to me, is different when it comes from the mouth, or keyboard of the defense attorney.
@loves2shop
No – I said that I think they drafted the motion and signed it with the intention of delivering it after the deposition – but then he denied major things, so they went and typed up an addendum and inserted at the end.
But didn’t Mr. Evans state on Mr Kronks behalf that questions relating to Mr Kronks personal life were never asked? If that is the case, how can they claim he denied major things. I guess we’ll understand when the depo is made public record.
with regard to the date, I get what your saying as it relates to the date on the motion. But, the date on the certificate of service is also the 18th. How does Mr. Baez certify to the court that he served the state on the 18th?
“In other news in the case, Kronk’s lawyer told WESH 2 that Kronk’s character has been “assassinated.”
David Evans said he and Kronk are still considering options how to respond.
In new court papers filed last week, Casey Anthony’s defense said that information they’ve uncovered indicates the man who discovered Caylee’s remains should have been investigated as a “suspect” in her death.
Much of the information is based on statements from Kronk’s ex-wives and estranged family members.
He strongly denies having anything to do with Caylee Anthony other than finding her body.
Evans said they may wait until after Judge Stan Strickland rules on whether any of the information presented by Anthony’s defense is relevant and should be introduced in her murder trial.”
http://www.wesh.com/news/21699113/detail.html
Richard..
How much money does the Baez law firm charge per hour, if you know and it’s not some secret (shouldn’t be)…… and how many hours, in your estimation, have they spent on this case?
Don’t forget the 6 hours daily for 6 weeks in between jail stints…
And over six thousand dollars in court costs for copies of documents and such
Also , the depo was not complete at the time the motion and memo were filed, it would seem to me, that the media blitz schedule was more important than getting this right. . Something is wrong with this imo,
Also don’t forgot the costs of expert witnesses, depositions, private investigators, independant laboratories, etc.
Just a Mom, EXACTLY!!! I’m all for freedom of speech too, but why all the anger towards Mr. Sheaffer? You sounded very childish. You have lost ALL CREDIBILITY with me and you are burning bridges at an awful rate. I guess now that you’re friends with Baez you think you can throw sticks and stones? Well let’s all remember what happened to Geraldo’s career not that long ago. And if you’re doing it for the money? Well, good luck with all that! Heh heh heh. Hope you don’t have too much of your career left ahead of you.
Happy Thanksgiving? Is that you Cindy? Or is it your wife George?
What did Sheaffer ever do to you, Hornsby? Do you realize what this is doing to your career? Yes. I agree there suellen.
Sir, if you could respond to the questions I have addressed, it would be most appreciated.
Thank you
Attorneys can battle quite viciously in court, and on other forums, but quite often are friends outside of these areas. Often they will hail their counterparts merits.
I don’t think a difference in the manner in which an attorney is going to handle a case or motion has destroyed a career.
Personally I think kc is guilty, but it’s going to boil down to who has the bigger tool box, and what’s in it.
I could understand the dates being off a day if this was her last appeal and she was going to be executed at 12:01, but where was the exigence of getting this out? Oh, that’s right, the following week was media’s november sweeps!
Mr Hornsby,
I wanted to comment on your earlier statement regarding the duct tapes significance.
Most of us “red necks” refer to duct tape as 100 mile per hour tape. When nascar drivers wreck, they place duct tape strategically on the dents to improve aerodynamics, because it will hold up to the speed of the car and not fall off.
I find nothing in that statement which would impeach Mr Kronk.
My son’s costume was the “tin man” and we wrapped duct tape in place to hold the costume on, and put it together.
Does my history of using duct tape on a child, and the fact that I call it 100 mile per hour tape indicate that I too should be a suspect?
Thank you
@punch If you had found Caylee’s body and had previously kidnapped someone using duct tape – yes, it would make you a possible suspect to the defense.
Duck Tapes corp offices are in Ohio. The duct tape was distributed nationally.
Did the ex state it was “Henkel” with the black oval tape?
All questions are good questions
Yes I agree & I thought about how to express the sentiment last night. Bill Sheaffer has ‘it’ by the truckloads. Charisma, class, intelligence, photogenic, communication whatever ‘it is’ some have it others never will & the green eyed monster eats them alive.
@ms judged
Personally I believe the motions will be desided based on how Judge Strickland interprets the case law. Most attorneys file motions with case law supporting their interpretation of the case law. Their counterparts respond with case law backing their interpretation.
Even though Mr Hornsby has not responded to my questions, Judge Strickland must deside the intent of the higher courts in his rulings.
Should at the end of the trial the defense attorneys disagree with Judge Stricklands rulings, they may appeal to the higher courts for clarification of the intent.
Sorry, continued…
reversal of the ruling, and a new trial
RE: the Memo dated and signed “prior” to the depo taking place. The Defense states: The witness is not being truthful, in their Depo.
Well.. Wouldn’t that mean the Defense assumed the witness would state falsely in advance.
Isn’t that an erroneous assumption on the part of the Defense, to do so prior to the Deposition actually taking place?
Does it make the memo and motion .. void ( assuming in advance to the right and wrong of a witness statement of facts).
To do the above, well it’s like having “Smoke before the Fire” on the part of the Defense Team?
imo
@joe blow
It’s funny. I was wondering how they wrote this 32 PAGE motion AFTER they deposed Kronk, got it to the court and went on the East Coast media tour. So it makes absolute sense that they wrote it on the 18th. The day before.
RE: Duct tape was manufactured Henkel in Ohio at the time of the crime.
You could buy the Duct tape at your local hardware stores, and it was available at a lot of regular retailers, such as grocery stores, and local drug stores through out Florida.
Since the crime, The company sold it’s portion of Duct Brand Products to a Company named Shurtape. They are located in North Carolina.
baez filed new motions,
Searcher Joe Jordan claims he searched the area on Sept. 1, 2008 with five or six others, including a dog handler named Danny Ibison and another dog handler from the Panama City Sheriff’s Office, court documents show.
Another woman, Laura Buchanan, of Mendham, N.J., said that on Sept. 3, 2008 she searched “near the privacy fence and worked my way towards and then beyond the spot where the body was found,” according to a sworn statement.
Both Buchanan and Jordan said there was no indication a dead or decaying body was in the area when they searched.
Mr Hornsby can you tell me who will be the lead attorney for the murder trial? Baez doesn’t have enough experience!
After the storms in mid and late aug…. the area her body was found in was under 2-3 feet of water. so now they want us to believe that the searchers could smell underwater.
Mr. Hornsby. Do not attempt to correspond with me via my personal email again. Nor, address me by the “given name” I use on FaceBook. (Great, so you can sleuth! We know how you love goggle & Wiki!)
If you’ve something to say to me, please, be professional (which I understand IS different from being [un]ethical), and do so through this comment section of your blog. That’s the point, right?
How unprofessional for you to contact those who comment here through their email accounts, which they used to register here, in an attempt to intimidate, and dissuade them from disagreeing with you and your tactics.
How many others have you contacted using the email addys provided here to register?
Poor behavior and very inappropriate. *tsk tsk*
If you wish to reply, do so on this blog. Do NOT email me again!
This is very low on the part of this attorney and or associates of his.I will check mine too as its an invasion of privacy or an attempt for Caylee supporters to be silenced..what a disgrace to this blog..defense lawyer indeed..
@ms judged What did he want?
shyloh here,
http://www.wesh.com/news/21699113/detail.html
@mymommademedoit
@joe blow
He was VERY upset, as he stated I said he was ‘unethical,’ which I did not (although, I did imply it). *snort*
He addressed me by my (real life) first name – after seeking me out on FaceBook, using the email account w/ which I registered here.
This “child” is “walkin’ on shaky ground,” and I have put him on notice (publicly), that he is NOT to attempt to contact me through my email account.
I call him a “child,” because in his frustration, he took the wrong route in addressing my comments ……… that’s childish!!
shyloh,sometimes you cross my way too! 😆
@ms judged
i am so sorry!
@ms judged
I do hope when he apologizes you will accept and agree to move on.
@mikka
Thanks ………… 🙂
I’m not the least concerned, just pizzed (but not surprised) that this “sidewalk lawyer” (kinda like a shade tree mechanic, lol) would stoop to such tactics.
It’s all good. I just wanted him to be aware that the “burr under his saddle” ain’t going away!
well if I make my chiden go places they don’t want to go, I guess you could call it kidnapping.
I often make them get in the car. They have no choice.
Mr Hornsby, my nephew was just sentenced to 12 years for 1st degree attempted murder.. I know the motions filed, what was good, what was bad.
I wish the kid did not see the light of day.
Eventually they went with a bench trial because all the reverse williams and everything else failed. Luckily.
His second charge, unfortunately went better… charged with 1st degree murder, and all he got was 2 years mob action.
motions depend on the judge, and case law.. mostly intent by the higher court
and may I add, the jurisdiction, SA, bigger the jurisdiction, the harder the time. Hence the request for change of venue..
first charge was in cook county, second charge in dupage. Venue DOES have importance.
And mr Hornsby in case you wish to say it was the attorneys fault, same attorneys just settled a multi milliom dollar settlement for a wrongful death, malpractice suit for my family.
They are EXCELLENT trial attorneys.
Richard,
You stated above that based on recent defense comments, you think Jose Baez is angling to get a plea fro the State .. ( snip)
What are the defense comments that lead you to think he is leaning towards a plea deal?
Curious
TIA
Mr.Hornsby and/or associates of his please never email me.You can address me right here on this blog.It is wrong to search out anyone as that is inproper for any reason at all.Caylee supporters are her voice for justice.still waiting for an answer to another vies I addressed concerning the motion.
@joe blow
I made a mistake and put in the wrong name my mistake Mr. Hornsby.Can you answer this part?
mr,hornsby,what you think about the new “witnesses” from the defense?? the 2 man who was there in september 08 and saw no remains!
joe blow~~Richard already answered the question re the dates in the Motion in Limine. He didn’t think the date would matter. I wonder if Judge Strickland will think it matters so, hopefully, someone will bring it to his attention.
this is a different question I saw regarding the order of the pages of the motionthe page 31 which discusses the depo on the 19th and signed on the last page as the 18th.
joe blow~~ what you ask is exactly what I am trying to find out. They mention Kronk’s deposition had inconsistences on Nov 19th and it was signed sealed and delivered on Nov 18th. I thought Richard was referring to the above when he answered, several comments back so I stand corrected.
A date makes a great deal of difference. How about income tax deadlines? When a law is enacted on a certain date, that date is important.
Dates are very important and the honorable Judge Strickland will notice it too.I hope he throws it out for this reason and because its all wrong.I am heading to bed and good night to all that want justice for Caylee.
Did I misunderstand? I thought I read that when a crime (kidnapping) was brought before the courts and found not to have enough evidence to proceed with the charges then it was not admissable as prior bad acts….I understood that if the courts found there was not enough evidence to proceed then it didn’t happen in the eyes of the law? Also I mentioned earlier, and did not get an answer, isn’t ‘In Limine’ designed to only introduce non-predjudicial evidence and so should not be made public until it is ruled upon?
Mr. Hornsby,
Very briefly, I think this is what bothered me most about your piece:
“someone like Mr. Sheaffer – an attorney who reeks of elitism – ”
What do you mean by that, Mr. Hornsby?
Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
Good morning Caylee sopporters.I have seen the records of these defense witnesses that talk bad about Kronk And they are not upstanding citizens in their own lives..no one is perfect and not even Lyons after hearing the seminar and what she says about people.She deserves what she gets and we reap what we sow.
What do you think of Mr. Sheaffer’s newest blog on Andrea Lyons? I LOVE it and she deserved everything he said, IMO.
texasgirl,i saw NEVER in my life,a lawyer talk nasty like her,its disgusting!
@texasgirl
LOL – Looks like he removed it, wonder why? Could it have been because of my latest blog post: http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/11/24/omg-bill-you-did-not-do-what-i-think-you-did/
Looks like Bill can’t keep up the charade forever…
[…] two Orlando attorneys. In a rebuttal of sorts, Richard Kronk wrote a post on his blog. Titled, In Defense of the Casey Anthony Defense, he stated that, “The very conviction with which Mr. Sheaffer blasts the Anthony Defense on […]
Richard Hornsby said:
“So with the legality of Reverse Williams rule evidence established, the admissibility of Ms. Kerley’s claims boils down to this question:”
“If Roy Kronk was on trial for Caylee Anthony’s murder, would evidence that he has used strikingly similar duct tape to subdue a women be admissible against him as similar fact evidence?”
end quote
—————————————————————————————————————–
I cant believe I missed this ridiculous argument on first reading your rant.
IF Roy kKronk was on trial for Caylee’s murder…………..lol Are you serious….IF
Hello…Roy Kronk IS NOT on trial for Caylee’s murder. Casey Anthony was endicted by a grand jury for that crime. And as far as I am aware the brand of duct tape he is being ALLEDGEDLY associated with is not “strikingly similar” to the RARE Henkel, fire resistant industrial grade, limited edition and now discontinued brand found on Caylee’s remains and on George’s gas can AND on a “missing” Caylee poster.
Furthermore the motion in limine offers no link between Mr Kronk and Caylee Anthony period. Are you actually claiming the Judge should consider hypotheticals as well. This is kinda like your “no smoke without fire” comment which has to be the most outrageous statement a so called defence lawyer could ever utter. Shouldn’t your mantra be “Innocent until proven guilty”
You are really stretching credulity now Sir.
Mr. H-
I’ve read your WS posts, and I wonder why you answer the questions posed to you there more in depth than here?
I think you gave exellent in sight over there. I enjoyed reading those posts
[…] see, I received a a lot of heat for my criticism of he who I shall not mention by name anymore, but I was most surprised by the opinions of other […]
Mr. Hornsby:
Glad to see your blog site is back up. Where are the new posts, I check back here to read? Hoping to hear/read some of your insight on today’s court room
antics. Baez got schooled….hmmmmm.
they gona kill casey she can”t win this kinda trial people are sensitive about killing babies. she should just take a plea that does not include the death peanalty.