Well my Unfaithful, as they say – the plot thickens…
How apropos a statement, considering we have learned that not one, but three women have come forward claiming to have overheard incriminating statements made by Casey Anthony – while they too were in jail (Is there is no honor among thieves!).
Let us refer to these women as Rats and the evidence they would provide as Droppings.
Interestingly, little discussion has really been given to the legal and practical impact the Rat Droppings provide. But on closer examination, I think you will find that these Rats are a double edged sword for the prosecution.
The Facts
While incarcerated in jail, three Rats claim to have overheard or obtained incriminating statements made by Casey Anthony. These Rats are:
- Robyn Adams (Rat 1)
- Maya Derkovic (Rat 2)
- Cecelia Benhaida (Rat 3)
But most interestingly, the letters and statements were facilitated by an Orange County Corrections Officer – Shannon Hernandez (the Rat Herder).
The Law
As some of you may know, the Sixth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from interrogating a defendant after his or her indictment without counsel being present. See Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964). Consequently, statements “deliberately elicited” from a defendant after an Indictment has been handed down are rendered inadmissible and cannot be used against the defendant at trial.
But what many of you might not have known is that this rule is applied in much less obvious situations – and may be satisfied by less direct types of questioning.
One of these situations is the use of the jailhouse snitch – more commonly known as a “Rat.” See Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 290 (Fla. 1997) (Police can’t use paid informants to elicit incriminating statements, police can’t place radio transmitter on co-defendant.).
The Passive versus Active Analysis
Nonetheless, this rule does have its limits and focuses not on whether the statements were simply made to an inmate who had something to gain by obtaining them (i.e. a Rat), but on whether Law Enforcements actively encouraged the Rat to obtain the statements or actively assisted the Rat in obtaining the statements. See Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985) (A violation of a defendant’s right to counsel turns on whether the confession was obtained through the active efforts of law enforcement or whether it came to them passively.)
The Real Legal Question: Is the Rat Herder a Duck?
This brings us to the real legal question in this case: Will the Rat Herder, Orange County Correctional Officer Shannon Hernandez, be considered a state-agent for purposes of determining Active involvement on the part of law enforcement.
As a defense attorney, the answer to me is obvious – if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck – it is a duck.
But the State will obviously argue that although a duck, she is not part of the State’s flock of ducks. Rather the State will argue that Correction Officer Hernandez was a rogue duck acting without state sanction or authority solely for personal purposes.
On this particular issue there does not seem to be any case directly on point, but if recent United States Supreme Court jurisprudence is any indicator, Judge Strickland would focus his analysis on whether suppressing the rat droppings would prevent future abuse or similar “rogue” actions by law enforcement officers in other cases. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (U.S. Supreme Court opinion stating that when the exclusionary rule is to be applied, it should be applied as a sanction against law enforcement officers to prevent a future abuse by law enforcement officers.)
Quack, Quack, Quack…
Ultimately, I believe that if Judge Strickland is of the opinion that suppressing the evidence will prevent corrections officers from violating jail policies and engaging in questionable behavior in future high-profile cases (something Orange County has had a lot of lately), then I believe he will find this Duck is a State Duck.
Also, it is worth noting that we do not know the true relationship of Robyn Adams and Maya Derkovic (ironically, both of whom were arrested because they too were setup by other rats). And if anyone believes for a second that Maya Derkovic did not interpret Detective Brian Cross statement of “I bet you can get the truth out of her” as an implied directive, then you might want to read United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980) (Police conduct met the “deliberately elicited” standard where law enforcement officers contacted a paid informant in jail with the defendant and advised the informant to be alert to any statements made by federal prisoners, but not to initiate any conversations or question the defendant regarding his offense.)
A Brief Interlude…
I have taken a lot of flak lately for my criticism of Yuri Melich, the lead investigator in this case. (I mean , what detective doesn’t actively BLOG about an ongoing murder investigation – See WFTV: Detective Told To Stop Blogging About Case.)
Most recently I faulted him for reporting that Robyn Adams claimed Casey Anthony admitted to using Chloroform. This is in contrast to FDLE’s interview where Robyn Adams denied that Casey Anthony admitted using chloroform – rather they report Casey Anthony admitted to “knocking out” Caylee so she could put her to sleep.
So what I suspect happened is Detective Melich engaged in a little leading questioning, something like this.
- Q: Did Casey Anthony ever mention something that would be consistent with using Chloroform to sedate Caylee.
- A: Yes.
- Q: Can you explain?
- A: Casey said she used to “knock out” Caylee, whatever that means.
- Q: Aha!
As you can see from this example, the questioning implies the answer – the very definition of a leading question.
So even though Robyn Adams never specifically stated that Casey Anthony used Chloroform, the implication that Melich lets linger is that Adams did say that.
Dangerous examples of this type of editorializing can just as easily be found in the media covering this case.
Take WFTV for example, they were in such a hurry to “break” the jailhouse letter story that they posted a false headline on their website (likely because of Melich’s misleading report), but then miraculously the headline changes once they ACTUALLY read the letters and saw there was no mention.
- WFTV – Jail Letters: Casey Says She Used Chloroform On Caylee
- WFTV – Inmate: Chloroform Was Used To Put Caylee To Sleep
Think of how prejudicial this is to a person getting a fair trial, when a news agency reports false headlines about a person facing the death penalty?
Had Melich actually clarified this issue with Robyn Adams, it might never have been thrown into the media firestorm that Casey admitted to chloroform – thus allowing WFTV to further taint the potential jury pool.
A Final Note About Melich.
You may remember back when he stuck Casey Anthony in the medical ward with the specific intent that her reactions to news reports that a body was found in the woods near her home be videotaped – this is likely just as inadmissible as the Rat droppings that he is currently excited about.
You see, the Sixth Amendment (and the Fifth Amendment) protect you from being compelled to give testimonial evidence, not just statements. And Casey Anthony’s reaction to news reports (if even relevant to showing a consciousness of guilt, as opposed to a distraught mother) is considered a testimonial act under the law. And just like testimonial statements, testimonial acts are inadmissible when obtained by law enforcement in violation of the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. See US v. Green, 272 F. 3d 748 (U.S. 5th Cir. 2001).
The Ultimate Irony of Ironies
I would like to leave my unfaithful with this little tidbit to chew on, the Rat Droppings could be the best thing to happen to Casey Anthony since Andrea Lyons. Why you ask, good question.
You see, up until this point, Casey Anthony was the only person who could establish an “Accidental Theory” that Caylee was sedated. so Casey could go out and party. but when she returned Caylee had died in her sleep. Upon discovering this, Casey Anthony. not knowing what to do, freaks out, does her best to cover it up (Ugly Coping), and ultimately concocts the Zanny the Nanny story.
The reason – up to this point – was that only Casey Anthony could establish the Accidental Theory, as there was nobody else who would testify to knowing that Casey would sedate Caylee in any way (Xanax or Chloroform).
But now, if the State were to try and introduce the Rat Droppings as incriminating evidence, the defense would be able to use the Rat Droppings as evidence supporting the Accidental Theory WITHOUT Casey Anthony having to testify to the predicate facts.
From there, it would not take to much of a wordsmith to weave a compelling closing argument that the State’s theory is more compatible with a young mother who may have acted negligently in sedating her child so she could go out, but that she never intended to kill her daughter. And her post death actions are consistent with Ugly Coping – not a consciousness of guilty.
Finally, before all the haters jump up and down – I am not saying this approach is airtight, only that under the right circumstances it could work.
Correction and Deletion Note: It was brought to my attention that the State had in fact charged Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, which I had either forgotten or overlooked. As a result I have removed two paragraphs discussing the effect of not charging a criminally negligent based crime – which the state in fact did. Thank you to the reader who pointed this out to me.
I may blog about this in more detail in the future – but I make no promises.
107 responses to “Of Rats and Women”
Humble pie and Damage Control! Good For you. 🙂
it’s a pity you resort to name calling because your words have merit without the childishness. The problem is the petty name calling takes away from that merit and leave intellegent minds, lie my own, to wonder if you have a mouthful of sour grapes making you appear bitter.
Who did I call names? Calling jailhouse informants Rats is hardly name calling when coming from a criminal defense lawyer.
I know that Dect. Melich has his groupies, but personally I’m not sure that blogging about a current case is appropriate. In fact, I think it was most inappropriate. Likewise, whoever directed that Casey be taken to the infirmary to watch TV could have violated her right to not testify against herself. The chloroform? Well, I didn’t see it in the transcripts of interviews, just the Detective’s summary.
A bit early to put up my “Tootsies” though.
It is refreshing to hear a legal opinion rather than subjective opinions. No one but God knows what really happened in this case. There is a chance we may never know, depending on how it is handled in court.
The legal conversation is much easier to handle than to think about the horrible outcome of the act itself.
You have so much wisdom to offer. While you slam out your drivel making others look bad…and trying to make yourself look good….because you think you have all the answers, why is it that you also have no kind words for anyone who may read your crap?
Richard, You and WFTV are wrong about Melich posting about the case.
He did post on Websleuths while he was out of commission with his broken leg, there was a special thread for him with well wishes and kind words.
He only dropped in a few times to thank everyone, and it was CRYSTAL CLEAR that there would be NO mention of the Caylee case. Nobody ever mentioned the case, Yuri never mentioned the case. You are spreading malicious gossip and it’s making you look petty and jealous.
Jealous? That he posted on a blog?
LOL, no silly, jealous because he’s better looking than you are!
Good Afternoon Mr. Hornsby,
I like reading your post, very informative from an legal aspect. I dont like the name calling that you do. I would think that an respectable attorney like yourself could refain from that, I would guess….
I ask….why not do a post about “Baez braking laws/rules”? Why was energy on some so called rats, or your one of those lawyers thats a lil crooked as well, like bringing in contraband….pens, drugs, cell phones, weapons…
Because most no that whatever is going on in the outside world pretty much goes on in jail… And how does the inmates get these items…officers, & lawyers..
Breaking the law, breaking the law.
Let me pose a question to you. Who was not only in a better position to take action against Baez (assuming it is warranted) but has known for at least three months longer than me? Yuri Melich. As a matter of fact, as a sworn law enforcement officer he could have had an arrest warrant issued for Baez three months ago IF he thought there was probable cause to make an arrest. The only problem is there is not.
So don’t fault me for not doing something Inspector Melich did not do.
I’m not faulting you. Just sick of the circus…I dont know much about the laws, but maybe since this is an open case, Melich is still doing his investigation. IDK Or maybe the jail have to take action…who knows, not me. But doing this post to prove that these girls are liars…..SO WHAT, nothing like Casey lies and it doesnt excuse the fact that Casey killed her daughter. If the State call these girls knowing that they lie, then maybe thats a gamble their willing to take..
I read your post because I love how you explain the law, you make it simple. But please do me a favor?, ….and you may be doing this not only for me but for whole lot of others.. But if your gonna help the defense, then use you expertise to teach Mr BOzo…I mean Baez how a real defense attorney presents himself in the court room. Explain the law to him like you would for the people here in cyberland! Proof read his motions for him..lol
Come on Mr. Hornsby, you know he’s a big JOKE!!! 😉
With everything thats a side show…What about Caylee?
I have an idea… Get all the WS bloggers that was working on the mission to prove the inmates to be liars, to prove that Casey is really Zanny!!
excuse the typos…ty
It happens.
Mr. Hornsby: If a ‘rat’ snitched to LE about a fellow inmate, and the info that he ‘snitched’ would exonerate a client of yours – say your client was charged with a crime but the snitch had info that it someone else actually did it would you use that info or refuse to use it because you feel it was not obtained legally?
First, I never said I wouldn’t use Robyn Adams testimony, I just think that she, Maya, and Benhaida are liars.
Second, a defendant can introduce evidence obtained by a snitch if it would establish a defense to a case – regardless of whether it was legally obtained. The exclusionary rule only applies to the prosecution.
So while I understand your point, it is inapplicable to a defendant. So my answer is yes.
and you’d probably say, “thanks for the info, Rat,” LOL.
Richard, you are wrong about Yuri Melich. I won’t repeat why, because Givesahoot has it covered above. But at least you came back to your own site to get the egg on your face. WS is a site for the victims. We do not dis Law Enforcement there. What you do on your site is your business….but I will tell you that your immaturity is showing, dear.
Mitzi, I know you take this case and other cases personally, so I am not trying to be snide when I point this out. The tagline when you visit WebSleuths.com is “Crime Sleuthing Community” and to me, it is just as much a crime when a cop violates the constitution, as it is when a civilian violates a law.
The ends can never justify the means.
Boy, RH you have some real issues. I am not sure that your ego can let you be aware of it, but you just continue to slam people, i.e. Schaeffer, Belich, Melich just to name a few. You must really have a burr under your saddle to make you so negative.
Have you ever noticed that I only slam people who have slammed other people? You hate Casey and Love Melich, so it bothers you when I am not bashing Casey or her attorneys.
I hate neither and love neither, I just call it like I see it. Prove me wrong – if you can…
It’s the height of gauche to spit where you eat if you catch my drift. And once again you are weakening the credibility of your arguments with hyperbole and misdirection.
As has been reported, YM did not blog about the case, so that allegation is specious at best.
More importantly, where is proof of your claim that it was Yuri who “stuck KC in the medical ward”? That’s a pretty serious accusation (according to you). My sources tell me that YM was likely at the remains site all day and didn’t have the time to come up with such a convoluted plan. Can you provide your sources? A link to a conspiracy theory site perhaps? I find it particularly offensive that you asked WS members to transcribe audio files for you so you could bolster your allegations that somehow Yuri is guilty of some kind of professional malfeasance. I wonder where, on the spectrum of cyber-defamation precedents that are being minted daily at both the state and federal level, that would end up?
Allegations such as this and your “this is how the conversation with Melich and Robyn might have happened” are extremely likely to be perceived by the public (or a potential jury pool) as an attempt by an officer of the court to fabricate incriminating evidence, (worst-case scenario), and at the very least a blatant attempt to ingratiate yourself to the defense team. You might get by with more diatribe if you weren’t a member of the bar.
While picking apart the allegations of another jailbird may seem useful to the defense team at this point, they have nothing to do with what KC says in her own words and should not be used as a thinly disguised attempt to impugn the work LE has done on this or any other case.
I am sure you are a talented attorney and have a bright career ahead of you; I hope you seriously reconsider representing yourself so much in the public arena and think to hire a professional PR person going forward. Because the substance of your site is starting to look and sound similar to those of people who indiscriminately and recklessly upload things to their Facebook profiles and seem surprised when it backfires on them professionally.
Saying that the ends do not justify the means in your reply above looks disingenuous if you cannot authenticate your claims of an LEO violating a law.
You Go Girl. Said with much more intelligent presentation than I could ever do. I doubt he will get the point. Egotistical creatures hardly ever do.
@cecybeans Why don’t you disprove me. I don’t have time to track down all of the reports agains, but this blog site summarizes my contention just nicely. http://kreuzer33.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/casey-anthonys-reaction-to-remains-captured-on-video/
Also, save your sanctimonious criticism for WebSleuths. You really seem disconnected from reality.
Also, why don’t you go through ALL of my comments at WebSleuths. You will see I have been critical of Melich from day 1.
I really don’t see why it is okay for you to be critical in your ridiculous comments at WebSleuths, but I am not allowed to post my own opinion on MY own blog.
I am not a detective releasing a report that I KNOW will be cited on Nancy Grace as gospel. Please get a grip.
I’m not trying to disprove she was filmed at OSCO. At this juncture it’s immaterial; the whole thing likely won’t even be introduced as evidence. Your link says absolutely nothing about Yuri, does not address my points, and I have no idea of its relevance other than in some general crying-foul-on-inmate- Anthony’s-behalf kind of way; (and frankly, it wouldn’t be my job to find the pertinence for you because you are using some kind of Sun-Tzu tactic of not deigning to provide sources for your own arguments but sending others off to research them).
I have read all your comments at Websleuths, my argument has nothing to do with when you decided to not like Melich, so I’m not sure why you bring that up. (I may be “disconnected from reality” but not from basic principles of logic.)
My criticism is no more sanctimonious than yours and I throw a lot less snarky invective a lot less quickly than you do; you are quick to anger. In fact, the faster you get vituperative, the closer people are to the target I’d bet. And you might want catch up on cyber defamation laws, particularly some of the stuff that’s come down in your state lately – you can be responsible as a blogger and a host.
And finally, I do not contest your right to post your own opinion on your own blog. Your comments also appeared on WebSleuths although they have been edited now, I’m assuming because they violate several rules and also the general spirit of the forum, which is less sympathetic to the defendant than to the victim generally. I am assuming that you are allowing me to post my opinion on your blog because you welcome criticism and are professional enough to argue using concepts and not simply personal insults. But since my criticism seems to be causing you personal discomfort, I’ll gladly leave. I still appreciate the right to have expressed it though.
lol
The general spirit of the forum is this……
Agree with the masses or be gone with you!
Will all of you shut up with threats of CYBER LAWS!
FOR GODS SAKES CECYBEANS….Richard is a lawyer.
To be critical of Melich {YURI FAN CLUB PRESIDENT}
is not in violation of anything.
Being critical is not the issue.
Accusing YM of fabricating evidence is libelous.
I think Yuri should give Morgan&Morgan a call. This BS with Hornsby maligning Yuri’s good name has gone far enough.
bawahaaaaaaaaaaa
Omg you people are nuts!
How many Webslobs{as I call them} had or have Yuri on speed dial?
Ever notice many of The States theories were in fact posted on WEBSLOBS first?
Let’s talk about Webslobs CHAT?
Why did Lenny search Little Econ?
You are correct WEBSLOBS had him on speed dial and chat and brought all theories to him.
CECYBEAN
You fear Casey is innocent of Murder1 and why is that?
Why does it bother you so?
I am not afraid Casey is innocent of Murder1 (are you RH’s ventriloquist dummy/alter ego/valet? Please tell him he may be an attorney but I don’t see him as who’s run with any cyber defamation cases; I’m not sure what his specialty is at this point, but I’ll make book on the fact it’s not that area of tort law. It’s one thing to criticize someone on a public forum; it’s another to insinuate they are guilty of criminal conduct. Also tell him that amongst the great plethora of attorneys in this country, there are quite a few that are careless enough to think that a JD gives ubiquitous knowledge of all laws and immunity from making any oversights.)
I could care less about the precise charges. Accidental death or premeditation – felony manslaughter and Murder 1 both get the same sentencing choices – DP or LWOP. I am not a DP fan, and personally I think some of the mitigating factors will allow a jury to decide LWOP. So the rose is a rose by any other name, imo. This girl will be behind bars and unable to wreak any more havoc on people than she already has.
Also to insinuate that people on “Webslobs” are not intelligent enough to project or predict what theories the State would have is not the kind of kindergarten reasoning I would expect from a person who can obviously write in complete sentences. This case is not rocket science – it’s just got a lot of choices due to the radioactive level of prevarication that surrounds the defendant and her hand-picked court.
jeez CECYBEAN
Why such big words just to tell me to shutup!
lol
So many thoughts…
First, I take issue with you talking out of both sides of your mouth in re. the ‘Rats’.
You have made it abundantly clear that you feel NOTHING is to be trusted that comes out of the mouth of a jailhouse snitch. In your commentary (under the sub-title ‘A Brief Interlude…’ ), you carefully state that you “SUSPECT” Yuri Melich asked leading questions and give an hypothetical example of WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. Two sentences later, you state, “So even though Robyn Adams NEVER specifically stated that Casey Anthony used chloroform, the implication that Melich lets linger is that Adams did say that.” You’re playing both sides against the middle. Evidenced by your willingness to believe the ‘rat’ when it suits your agenda.
Richard, you don’t KNOW what Robyn Adams specifically said to Melich. Your hypothetical is every bit as inflammatory toward Melich, as what you accuse Melich of doing. Hello pot, meet kettle. It was an unsworn interview. I personally believe that she might very well have told him that. However, in her sworn testimony with FDLE 2 weeks later, she would only refer to it as “stuff” and “antihistamines or something”. Who says she didn’t decide to back off and not specifically refer to it as chloroform? Robyn Adams herself admits that she has only told 75-80% of what she knows.
I have listened to over 100 of the RA wav files you posted. So, I know a little bit about the uncensored Robyn Adams. I don’t trust her motives or agenda any more than I trust yours.
Richard, you are a smart man and a good attorney, however, you have made some extremely serious accusations against Melich. And you can’t back it up with anything other than what you THINK MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED?
@beach said ” have listened to over 100 of the RA wav files you posted. So, I know a little bit about the uncensored Robyn Adams. I don’t trust her motives or agenda any more than I trust yours.”
And the irony is you know more about the uncensored Robyn Adams AND don’t trust her motives PRECISELY because you did more investigative work than Yuri Melich – that should scare you.
Richard, Melich conducted an investigative interview. Nothing more, nothing less. I have not seen it stated anywhere that the SA plans on calling her at trial. Why would he waste such valuable time (800+ calls!) if they don’t plan on calling her as a witness? I don’t think they need her and yes, I’ll give it to you that she comes with some potentially explosive baggage.
@beach How does Detective Melich know what the State Attorney will or will not call Robyn Adams.
And why waste such valuable time on 800+ calls, because it is his job to do so BEFORE he releases a report espousing how credible a witness she is – IT IS HIS JOB.
I don’t think that any of them know if they plan on calling her as a witness. For goodness sake, they’ve got over a year to decide! What’s the hurry? lol 😉 Something tells me that LDB and Ashton are not gonna open that hornet’s nest, but what do I know? *shrug*
I didn’t see where Melich did any vouching for Robyn Adams credibility. I read where the author of the FDLE report found her to be truthful, but heh…I guess he didn’t have enough time between typing up his summary and submitting it to listen to 800+ calls (each of which are about 15 min!). They only had 30 days between the time they discovered that Robyn Adams even existed in re. KC to turn over the evidence to Bozo…er, Baez and Co.
Richard, we could debate this forever. Just want to say, fwiw, I think you are a smart man, one helluva good defense attorney and I have mad respect for you. Even if I don’t like all your methods. 😉
Bravo Bravo!!!!
My Bravo Bravo was for beach. As for proving Melich has been badmouthing others, I can’t think of an instance or I would quote it. As for Bill Schaeffer, I’m not recalling he used your name particularly and I know Belich hasn’t. As for loving Melich and hating Casey. You are putting words in my mouth. I neither love or hate them. It is simply an event unfolding and I ride with the emotions.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Yes, that’s kinda like a tsk tsk – and an Oh My.
So if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck – it’s a duck, eh? But who is the duck?
I’d agree about ducks – but let me explain. You see, I’m a big picture kind of a gal, I think in concepts – I absorb the details but could never just rattle them off like you do your legal stats, which I admire by the way. Details help me put the framework in, if you will. Now I read your column three times – carefully to be sure I was “hearing” what I was heard. But yup, it was loud and clear. Too loud.
My professional life is based on justify, simplify and clarify. And what I hear coming out loud ‘n clear is that you are the duck.
Because you are walking and talking like a duck who has been professionally embarrassed and burnt by a number of snitches who’ve made your criminal defense career difficult. And by the sounds of it – the same goes for Melich. And you think it’s payback time. Unfortunately this rant has the same feel as your rant against Schaeffer. So are ya gonna fess up and tell us just exactly which rat or rats turned your life into eternal rat sour grapes and geez I hate Melich, because it’s pretty clear you’re carrying a pretty heavy chip on your shoulder. AND, without going into what I think about what you’ve said because others have said it before me – I will say I am profoundly disappointed in this display of unprofessionalism. Get a grip! You have the capacity to be a great lawyer one day – but these childish rants where you gleefully point out where you “think”your “grudges” have stumbled is just plain silly. And one day hopefully sooner than later you will look back and say – oh Cr**, did I really make such an A** of myself?
Tee Hee, actually I have won every case in which a snitch has testified at trial against my client. Not once have I been burned.
And if you have read my blog posts elsewhere, you would see that my problem with snitches is that they are extremely unreliable, perpetuate the criminal cycle, and more frequently than not entrap people who would otherwise have no inclination to commit a crime.
I’ll get a grip if you get your facts straight.
Hey there, was my only mention of facts to say that I am impressed with how you rattle off legal stats? So are you telling me I haven’t got that fact right?
I’m talking about your delivery of your information – because the manner in which you have delivered it implies you are just a sittin there sulking about being made a buffoon somewhere somehow. I just wonder why this rant comes off as smelling like cheap cologne that makes me wrinkle up my nose and say eeuuuwww!
You’re a smart guy – and I’m more impressed with your second paragraph in your reply than the entire diatribe of your blog. Just saying.
Why not do a little local pro bono work for Nadia Bloom’s family?
I’m sure they’d appreciate help in forcing KFN to take down http://www.nadiabloom.com, which the family did not authorize and does not want left up. Dennis registered it Sunday, April 11, 2010. Day 3 and the up and stole the use of this beautiful little girl’s name. Note that the email goes to:
info@nadiabloom.com. Not LE.
And if’n you think that the Millsteads and their absurd facsimile of a missing persons organization would do a better job of investigating a missing child case without fabricating evidence in one hand, while collecting donations in the other, well then I’ll just have to stop hoping to see things from a balanced, unbiased perspective when I visit here.
Release your inner shark on the KFN vultures, Dick. Show us your soft, cuddly side and help out truly fearful, hurting parents who are guilty of nothing.
Why are people so up in arms over comments Richard has made about Yuri Melich? I would think that Richard, as a local Orlando attorney, would have insights and insider knowledge, including about YM, that none of us, not in a similar position, on the blogs do.
From the link Richard provided: “Sources told the Orlando Sentinel that deputies asked that Orange County Jail corrections officers tell Casey Anthony that the remains of a small child were found near her home and that her reaction be videotaped and closely observed.”
I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they did indeed ‘arrange’ a little something so that Casey’s reaction could be gauged and that as lead investigator, little occurs that isn’t at Melich’s behest. At the very least, it’s certainly not out of the realm of possibility and to characterize it as “a convoluted plan,” (cecybeans) from the perspective of law enforcement, seems a little naive.
In the end, why all the hull-a-ba-loo over this? Are people really so fearful that this case will go down the tubes if ‘snitches’ are discredited and investigators aren’t always seen to be as pure as the falling snow?
“From the link Richard provided: “Sources told the Orlando Sentinel that deputies asked that Orange County Jail corrections officers tell Casey Anthony that the remains of a small child were found near her home and that her reaction be videotaped and closely observed.”
Reply:
There is nothing wrong with this. It’s done all the time.
Actually, that was the point of my blog – there is something wrong with it. The purpose of moving her somewhere to see the news is to see how she physically reacts, which is a “testimonial act” and you cannot move a represented defendant anywhere for the purpose of obtaining testimony without the defendant’s informed consent (i.e. Miranda warnings).
You should note that the guard in question is named *Sylvia* Hernandez. “Shannon” was the made-up name given her by Casey and/or Robyn when they knew only her first initial. The correct reference to this person would be Sylvia Hernandez or Sylvia “Shannon” Hernandez.
Well just refer to her collectively as the Rat Herder to keep it simple 🙂
Availability of Tracking Information: Tracking information is available for 90 days after delivery for FedEx Express, FedEx Express Freight, FedEx Ground, FedEx SmartPost, and FedEx Custom Critical. FedEx Freight shipment information is available for two years after delivery.
It was not shipped freight, and the shipment was made more that 90 days ago.
JWG has a point.
I have said all along on other blogs, the best defense for Casey is “an accidental death theory”. And now is an eye opener even for you (RH) as a known defense lawyer.
IMO, How in the world is her defense team going to cover up all the evidence that points to casey unless they admit her guilt….
And even though people have said that Casey will never confess to killing her daughter, confessing and blaming it as an accident is a little different then admitting to all the blame. Plus, the facts are out and I doubt any juror would honestly believe the nanny story. Its best for her to admit it and take her chances on it being an accident and covering it up afterwards….
Actually it was pointed out to me that she was also charged with Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child (I can’t believe I never realized that after all of this time).
With that being the case, even if she adopts the Accidental Theory she will still be guilty of committing Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child and is looking at thirty years in prison.
To me, the case now looks a whole lot simpler for the State to get a conviction for Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child (I really can’t believe I missed it – doh!).
Your own quote:
“Actually it was pointed out to me that she was also charged with Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child (I can’t believe I never realized that after all of this time).
With that being the case, even if she adopts the Accidental Theory she will still be guilty of committing Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child and is looking at thirty years in prison.
To me, the case now looks a whole lot simpler for the State to get a conviction for Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child (I really can’t believe I missed it – doh!).”
My reply:
Well, see this just proves that you, yourself, don’t know as much about this case as you’ve previously claimed. You did, indeed, rile a lot of people at WS up by accusing YM of misconduct.
At least I’ll give you credit now for admitting your own lack of knowledge of all aspects of this case.
much respect for this post of yours, Richard. Let those of us who have not overlooked something toss the first stone.
On September 30, 2009, the defense filed a motion to dismiss counts one and two (the murder charge and aggravated child abuse charge) but did not ask the court to dismiss count three (aggravated manslaughter of a child).
Grand Jury Count 3. Aggravated manslaughter of a child
Casey Marie Anthony, between June 15 and July 16, 2008, did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statutes 782.07(3) and 827.03(3), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide to Caylee Marie Anthony with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain Caylee Marie Anthony’s physical and mental health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect Caylee Marie Anthony from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person, and in doing so caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.
Florida Statute 782.07(3)
3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Florida Statute 827.03(3) “Neglect of a child” means:
827.03(3)(a):
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.
(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
***
My thought at the time (and still is) that the defense left the aggravated manslaughter charge in place because this section of a relevant statute . . .
“A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person”
. . . leaves room for a ‘someone else killed Caylee’ defense theory.
Wow, Richard, just Wow! Whoever would have thought there would be this much controversy over your request for help. Good luck to you.
Mr. Hornsby,
Excellent article as always!! Your perception is always spot-on.
However i digress as i would like to point out to those who add their comments. For those of you who like to slam Mr. Hornsby about his PERSONAL views may i remind you that this is HIS BLOG. if you dont like it then dont read it!!! I for one value his opinion which comes from his own legal knowledge and his keen intellect.
In essence, i do not feel that Mr. Hornsby can not take care of himselp and or stand-up for what HE believes in; i just find it innapropriate to interject “your” dislikes about his presonal judgements.
Bman – IMO is IMO! LOL! You have judged his work as excellent and I have judged it as inappropriate for a person of his stature in our criminal system.
What’s the difference? An opinion is an opinion.
Y’know – sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. Trust me – RH does not hesitate to give me his opinion of my opinions over at WS – ever!
Mr Hornsby – Thank you for shaaring your thoughts with us regarding the women of cell block L. You are obviously a man of integrity and from what I have observed, have not favored either side when sharing you observations about this case.
A few posts back, you referred readers to “Wise Words from a Criminal Defense Attorney” (I hope everyone who visits here read it), and at the beginning of this post, once again attempted to focus attention on the importance of the rights guaranteed to ALL of us in the US Constituation. And still there are those who are willing to accept a violation of those rights, if it means the conviction of a defendant that appears to be guilty. What a shame. It is afterall the same document that allows us to discuss this case on forums and Blogs, and express our opinions about how it is being handled without fear of being locked up, that you keep reminding us to think about. And I’ve “seen” a lot of boasting about their right to free speach on these Blogs.
Thanks for doing what you do – Both as a Criminal Defesne Attorney and here on your Blog.
I’m getting a good chuckle out of the people who are scolding Mr. Hornsby for name calling, and yet, during their sanctimonious corrections, themselves are calling Mr. Baez and KC names. Incredible.
Oh I think sanctimonious is a little rough an adjective to describe people who can be highly critical of two individuals (one is a convicted felon, charged with murder who cannot even find a reliable character witness among family members – the other has not managed to generate any positive press about himself, cannot write an intelligent brief and is unable to account for how over a quarter million dollars was spent other than as public relations efforts for his own career) and compare that to the kind of name calling RH has engaged in regarding a law enforcement officer (who, by the way has not offered any proof that said individual has managed to mess up professionally if at all in any kind of similar league to the two above-mentioned mopes). I see this as comparing fresh-picked oranges with rotten moldy apples. Mr. Hornsby has too bright a future to indulge himself in such juvenile, syllogistic rhetoric.
To add to cecybeans comments, not to mention that Melich is unable to reply to RH’s comments as he is restricted from public comment in his position as a law enforcement officer. So it’s a bullying process when the accused can’t offer a defense, is it not?
Your choice of names/labels is offensive. Disgusting. IMO.
Calling jailhouse informants Rats is offensive? I wonder if you would feel that way should any of these women had come forward with exculpatory information for Casey Anthony?
Good Evening Richard:
Undoubtedly, an excellent hypothetical question.
One small caveat, there is the hierarchy a/k/a pecking order in jail that ALL acclimate, correct?
Per an earlier post you said, “someone pointed out the Aggravated Manslaughter”.[under age of 12] IIRC Florida Law implemented this while Casey was incarcerated the first time? ~ please correct me if I am wrong.
implemented “addendum”
Mr. Hornsby is apparently appalled there is no honor amongst murderers and thieves housed at OCSO. And he seems to think that Ms Casey is some poor cute little suburban innocent who has been thrust into a jail populated by bad guys with which she has nothing in common. It seems to me that Casey has finally sunk to her own element. She loses no time in her letters “ratting” out her own family for crimes of abuse. And she is no stranger to committing crimes, by her own family’s admission, not to mention a FL court.
These are the type of people that Casey’s choices have put her into proximity with – her own choices. Not reporting the crime (the capital one), obstructing an investigation, never lifting a finger to help find her baby who we discover was tossed away in a garbage bag and left to rot for months, not taking a purported plea from the state that Mr. Hornsby mentioned in an earlier post. Is it anyone’s fault but hers that she is still lounging around in there eating cheetos and making shady friends who are likely going to rat on her? Do we think she is going to be sharing a jail with saints?
Of course these guys are likely rats. So is she. And if Mr. Hornsby is saying All Rats Are Scum, then he has certainly called Inmate Anthony the same. If anyone who testifies that has something to gain automatically has no credibility, then most of the defense experts will meet that criteria. Too simplistic an argument to stick.
Cecybean, what planet are you from?
lol
Planet
Just fry the girl and be done with it.
Cecybean does not believe in true truth or justice,just the vigilanty type!
Poor Heckler – obviously you have no idea where my philosophical or political leanings point. I’ve been a card-carrying bleeding heart since before you were in diapers mostly likely.
I also know how to correctly spell vigilante, realize that “true truth” is redundant and will say that you have yet to prove that the concept of “justice” is even related to your many spurious remarks (“maybe teenage angst is a closer description). I guess when you can’t argue with logic or facts you can simply name-call and that gets you off the hook. Perhaps you should get involved in politics and stay away from crime boards – playground mentality works well in that arena these days.
I’d say you are most likely from Earth too, but that doesn’t mean your thoughts and words are connected to any kind of rational thinking or reality. And I’m seriously wondering if you are old enough to even post without parental supervision. Or perhaps notifying a parole officer.
Thumbs Up. cecybeans.
CECYBEANS
You are very odd!
Really!
CECYBEANS
You are very odd!
Really!
cecybean, you’re giving me a headache. Do you want to make any sort of worthwhile point or is this an exercise in how often you have to send readers to the dictionary?
I know lots of ‘big words’ too, but they won’t help a wit in putting forth an opinion that is thought provoking.
Why are you so angry?
BB12
You have read your own blog….Right?
How in the world do you type such crap daily and dare chastize Richard?
Oh wait my bad….You have something in common with the prison rats.
lol
Has Skye called you lately BB12?
Any calls to Zenaida lately?
Good morning, Richard, what do you think about the reports of Robyn trying to sell the letters to People Magazine?
SHOCKING!, not.
Agreed. I wasn’t surprised in the least that she tried to sell them, but I WAS shocked that no media outlet took the bait. Checkbook ‘journalism’ has been particularly rampant in this case.
Richard Hornsby,
I think your goal in life is to be a politician. During campaigning politicians dig for the dirtiest trash on their opponents and make sure that everyone and thier dog knows about it (<—-remind you of anyone you know?) instead of telling the voters what they WILL accomplish while in office. Futher more in my opinion politicians just want to know WHO is going to grease their palms a little, line their pockets and make their bank accounts grow by leaps and bounds. I cannot stand politicians as I think there are NO HONEST ones anywhere on this earth.
As for you Hornsby…You are no different. You love to sling crap about people who cannot defend themselves because of the positions they hold in their careers or maybe just because they have a moral compass.
I hate the way you talk down to people. If your snarky remarks are an attempt at humor you have failed miserably. In my opinion you come off as a pompous b-hole.
You asking cecybeans (Not Cecybean) what planet she came from? Really? Really Hornsby? What the heck grade are YOU in? First or second?
I respect cecybeans and think she has great opinions and most importantly she does care about justice for Caylee Marie Anthony.
If it dosen't report its child missing EVER. If it drives around in a damn car that smells like there's been a dead body in it and if it drags LE all over hells half acre telling lie after lie along the way then it is a murdering mother Casey Marie Anthony. I don't care how many rats, cockroachs or bottom feeders come and go with all the circumstantial evidence the state has Casey will find herself in general population when she is given a life sentence.
WLTK – thank your for your kindness. Unfortunately I think you are right about the political career. Especially these days when sandlot Rovian tactics seem to play well. My dad was honest as the day is long and he was in politics for a while; but he kept it humble because he didn’t want to get to the level where compromise could be inevitable. But sadly, he was likely an exception.
I’m not sure where RH belongs. He has a fine mind and I’ve read some well-articulated thoughts he’s penned, but I think a lot of what he writes is his mind and his ego arguing. I sure know which one I hope wins, and I’m sure many future clients and colleagues do too.
cecybeans:
Law is Politics and Politics is Law! First and foremost, you articulate your position quite well, seem educated, passionate about topics for discussion on Justice. With that said I do not wish to engage and/or challenge the debate re: blogger difference of opinion[s].
Not all Legals have political aspirations, of course that does not mean they won’t pursue office. Wanted to interject another school of thought, having worked with many legals as a consultant, whatever aspirations Hornsby pursues, he knows his blog has garnered attention…good or bad. ” Feast or Famine” would be a term
legals are very familiar. You plan for the months when business is slow, conversely opportunity. Hopefully, I did not insult you, as that is not the intent.
Basically, we all appreciate legal perspective, it depends on the delivery and the person.
Second grade, I graduated from common sense to logical thinking some time ago 🙂
Oh…I don’t know, Richard. I think your snarky remarks are quite clever and them make me laugh.
I’m just sayin’.
I think you need to add some smiles. If I were you, I’d start my collection with the “beating the dead horse’ emoticon. 😉
Seriously people, enough flaming this blog.
Mr. Hornsby, Great article, as always, insightful & entertaining. I appreciate that you “bring your legal expertise” to the table. Listening to bloggers argue back & forth is a HUGE WASTE! Boring to those of us that don’t wish to participate in the “Cat fights!”
If you don’t like it, move on, don’t whine & distract those of us that appreciate the thoughts of RH & those focused on the case.
I like it 😉
Detectives Yuri Melich and Eric Edwards both visited Robyn Adams at the Tallahassee Federal Prison on January 27, 2010 for her initial interview. Melich wrote in his report that Robyn agreed to speak with the detectives but would not go on record in a sworn recorded statement.
It’s possible – as you speculate – that Yuri Melich asked leading questions and then read too much into her answers, but it’s also possible that Robyn, knowing the interview was neither sworn nor recorded, implied or stated more in that first interview than she was willing to say in the sworn, recorded FDLE interview on February 12, 2010.
Very possible, probably more so.
I meant to add that I would like to know what Detective Edwards has to say about Robyn’s first interview relative to the chloroform issue.
Richard, I’ve been trying to decipher Robyn Adam’s “code talk” with her father where they both reference “safety valve” and “substantial assistance”. They are 2 separate things and both could potentially help her receive a lighter sentence. In re. the “safety valve”, her attorney states she, “doesn’t hold much faith because of the gun issue”. The conversation then shifts to “substantial assistance”. Actually, maybe it is not “code talk” at all. I just can’t figure out what they are talking about, specifically.
Unfortunately, the Safety Valve is not code talk but actual references to Federal procedures that allow for a person to obtain a reduced sentence.
First time offenders often seek to obtain the “Safety Valve.” There is also what is called a 5K motion and a Rule 35 motion, which I think she was pining for.
Thank you! I’ll now throw my secret decoder ring back into the cereal box. 😀
Mr. Hornsby, since you are likely familiar with the jail, perhaps you could answer a question. Is it possible these two inmates could have one on one conversation, to this extent, as well as passing all these letters with no one besides one guard having any idea what was taking place? Aren’t their cameras? Isn’t there a supervisor that would likely pass through occasionally, or another guard? Aren’t county jails usually covered pretty well with video surveillance, especially in an area they need to protect inmates like this?
Mr. Hornsby,
Thanks for the very interesting and informative legal analysis of the implications of this whole mess. I personally (from my lay-person viewpoint) had viewed the letters as more of a God-send to the defense rather than some weapon for the prosecution.
To me the letters, if introduced into the trial, show a number of things that could work toward a defensive strategy of accidental death:
1. She’s mad as a bicycle in a non-insane kind of way;
2. She’s emotionally equivalent to a 12 year old;
3. She lives in a world of her own delusions and is constantly projecting those delusions forward to outrageous and unattainable fantasies.
You put all those together and you get the perfect storm for introducing an immature, incompetent, partying mother who uses drugs, etc. to put her child down so she can do whatever pops into her immature, narcissistic head – which leads to an accidental death – and because of her out-of-touch-with-reality and psychologically unstable nature she panics, goes into “ugly coping”, and her “I can just lie and cover up what happened” mode.
Now, the question becomes – is the defense going to be able to ever talk “Casey the Eraser Killer” into admitting an accidental death. This is where it gets interesting – I don’t think they can! And history has numerous cases with the same type of Eraser profile where the defendant, in their “world of psychopathy” has viewed “going to life sentence for being falsely accused” is better than admitting they could have ever have actually done something wrong – even when it means a lesser sentence!
Sorry for rambling on such…but the implications and whether Casey’s psychopathy can actually allow what her defense has been given to assist in lessening her sentence is a very intriguing part of this latest development.
There is no such thing as “ugly coping”. It’s certainly not a psychological term nor validated in any type of psych literature; it was made up to defend the indefensible. Why are people discussing or accepting this ridiculous term at all as if it had validity?
The perp is not “mad”, IMO. She is a psychopath. Psychopaths are not insane- their “non- insane way” is simply, that they know right from wrong. It’s not a mystery.
Lots of people project, and have fantasies. The perp’s are just symptomatic of the innerworkings of a psychopath. She is not delusional. She is not out of touch with reality; she just chooses to ignore it for a fancier narrative. Neither is her personality “unstable”; it is consistent all round with being a psychopath.
The refusal to admit responsibility is also part and parcel of psychopathy. That kind of hubris will never admit to anything especially when a big game is afoot. LE will never “break” her. She is never going to cop to an accidental death. I agree with you there.
The perp is overweeningly arrogant and self-centred and lacks empathy. That is the source of everything else. I don’t see the letters as a god send at all. They just highlight her pathological lying, need for excitement, narcissism, and lack of grief at her daughter’s death.
I totally agree with you Val….Casey, IMO will never admit to killing Caylee, even if her death was accidental.
Accidental death, maybe.
How about the computer searches in March?
What about all the unanswered calls to Cindy from Casey on June 16? Why didn’t Cindy take those calls? A fight the night before?
Richard,
So what is your input on the newest news???
“Casey Anthony defense team is asking that the judge in the murder case against her be disqualified because he has developed a “personal relationship” with a blogger who does not like Anthony.”
I also just heard about the Defense Team has filed a motion for Judge Strickland to be disqualified from the case. Somehow, I just think it is another Defense scheme. I don’t know if it was actually JB’s idea, I just can’t believe he would be that smart to think of something like that, but than I can see him do anything to take the spot light off of his antic’s and this case, to stall, or just throw another wrench in to do another twist and turn. I think Judge Strickland is a fair Judge, and I can’t see him doing anything illegal or against the System. The only thing I can possibly see, is that Judge Strickland has just been alittle easy on the Defense, and letting them have all this extra time for this and that, and not being prepared as we have seen so often. I can’t help but feel the Defense Team is so slimmy, and filing a motion just before the Clerks office was closing, you can see how they operate. Some may think they are clever at doing these last minute motions, or filing soo many at a time, but it shows me that they are spending all their time thinking of how to stall things, and accuse others – that is one reason why they aren’t prepared when they go to court. First of all they haven’t done their homework, and surely they know what the court expects. But the Defense doesn’t keep account records when it is to their benefit that it’s money in their pocket. So they spend their time trying to do whatever it takes to lie or deceive whoever or whatever they can to cause more problems. I must admit one thing. Casey and her Attorneys are a good match. Would love to hear your comments on what the Defense is or has done.
Marinada Dave is an idiot.
He’s so full of himself.
He just could not contain himself and brag about what the judge told him.
Well guess what?
That’s only Dave’s story.
Marinada Dave has also suggested a person who sat next to him in court of being a child molester.
He posted a picture of a real child molester, with the name of that person under it.
I have the link.
Of Course Dave deleted it.
But it’s all over the internet.
Dave needs to crawl under a rock and never see the day light again.
Richard,
I can buy the “accident” defense……until I get to the FACT 3 pieces of duct tape were placed across Caylee’s nose and mouth. …….that was no accident IMO
Richard,
Is it commonplace for an attorney to actually name the investigator when they file a motion?
Why did the defense file a motion to disqualify the judge? I know you’ve voiced that it’s a suicide move (literally) and I agree. However, can you please list the reasons (having been before Strickland) why you might file such a motion. Amusing they’re NOT making a bad move, what is the defense team thinking?
Would love for you to blog about the new death penalty motions filed!
Horndog – Where art thou?
needing my bLAWg fix, Richard 🙂
congrats on batting 1,000 in re. your predictions in re. the Anthony case.