Well, its been a while since my last meaningful blog post. I was actually enjoying my retirement from the circus that is Casey Anthony and Foghorn Leghorn. But the volume of inquiries as to whether Zenaida Gonzalez’s case has any merit and whether Judge Munyon should dismiss the case has pushed me to reply.
My position is that the case has no merit and it should be dismissed. The primary reason I believe it has no merit is that Zenaida Gonzalez has failed to show that she is the actual person that Casey Anthony referred to; meaning that she is actually “Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez.”
The other reason I believe the case should be dismissed is that Casey Anthony, or any witness or defendant in a criminal investigation, is entitled to Absolute Immunity from civil law suits for any statements made during a criminal investigation.
Just Another Keyser Söze
A key element of a defamation claim is that the person suing for defamation, was actually the person being defamed.
So in the defamation case, Zenaida Gonzalez must prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that she was the person Casey Anthony was referring to when Casey claimed “Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez” kidnapped Caylee.
“Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about the question in issue.
In this case, it seems highly unlikely that Zenaida Gonzalez could prove, without hesitation, that Casey Anthony was speaking of her, and not some fictional person, when she told law enforcement that “Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez” was the person who kidnapped her child. Moreover, when pressed, Casey Anthony never described any person who remotely resembled Zenaida Gonzalez.
Which leaves us with the only piece of connecting information, which is that Casey Anthony apparently visited Sawgrass Apartments, the same apartment complex that Zenaida Gonzalez had visited previously.
But this begs the question, even if Casey Anthony did see Zenaida Gonzalez’s name, she did not use that name and instead used the specific name Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez. And without any other concrete information to link Casey to Zenaida Gonzalez, it seems clear that Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez is just another Keyser Söze.
The greatest trick the She-Devil ever pulled was convincing the jury she was Not Guilty.
Absolute Immunity versus Qualified Immunity
But even if Casey Anthony was actually claiming that Zenaida Gonzalez is the one who kidnapped Caylee, it is my belief that she is still entitled to dismissal of the case based upon the doctrine of Absolute Immunity.
This is because Casey Anthony’s statements were made to investigators during an ongoing criminal investigation; not to initiate a new investigation. And statements made to investigators during an ongoing criminal investigation are privileged and a person cannot be sued for their statements to law enforcement officers during an ongoing criminal investigation – no matter how scandalous or false they are.
Doctrine of Absolute Immunity
The doctrine states “absolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior … so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding.” Moreover, “The falsity or maliciousness of the alleged statements is irrelevant to this analysis.” Delmonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
“Absolute immunity extends to the parties, judges, witnesses, and counsel involved and related to the legal proceedings. Participants in legal proceedings must be free from the fear of later civil liability as to anything said or written during litigation so as not to chill the actions of the participants in the immediate claim.” Id.
Doctrine of Qualified Immunity
However, I am not sure Judge Munyon will revisit the issue of whether Casey Anthony is entitled to Absolute Immunity because the prior judge, Judge Rodriguez, ruled that Casey Anthony was only entitled to qualified immunity, which is a question for the jury to decide, not a judge.
The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that “statements made by a private individual to an investigating officer or a prosecutor prior to the filing of a criminal charges are privileged only if it is proven the statements are false and made with actual malice.” Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992).
But there are No Damages?
A final issue that has been brought up is whether Zenaida Gonzalez’s case will be dismissed if she is unable to prove actual monetary damages.
The answer is no; even if a person cannot prove actual money damages due to defamatory statements, they are still entitled to have the jury make a determination of whether they are entitled to nominal damages. See Myers v. Russo, 3 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Extra Credit
One other thing that might interest some of you, is how Jose Baez’s opening statement can be used against Casey Anthony in her civil trial.
The answer is that since Jose Baez was Casey Anthony’s “agent” and he gave very specific statements that could only have come from Casey Anthony, and not from inferences based on other witnesses statements, the opening statement is admissible against Casey Anthony, as if she has uttered it herself, as an “Admission by a Party Opponent.”
The leading case on this issue is United States v. McKeon, 738 F. 2d 26 (US 2nd Cir. 1984), which held that a criminal defendant’s attorney’s opening in one trial could be introduced against the same defendant in the retrial if the defendant adopted a defense that was incompatible with the original opening. This same rule has been applied to prosecutor’s opening statements. And has been applied to using criminal opening statements in subsequently related civil law suits. (See The Use of an Admission by Party-Opponent to Hoist A Prosecutor By His Own Words.)
The underlying principle behind this rule is that no party ought be able to evade the truth by changing their statements merely because it may suit their theory of the case it stands at that time.
28 responses to “Who is Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez?”
I was curious about the idea of negligence. Like if someone throws a rock into a crowd of people and hits someone – they are on the hook for damages, right? They would be held accountable even if they didn’t specifically know the person they hit, or even mean to hit them. Isn’t it the same thing with Casey’s lies? Thanks for your help.
Thank you for this article Mr Hornsby.
It seems to me that with the Dr P show, M and M get National attention. I don’t think kc really has any money, nor do I think the M and M are hoping she does. This latest move to fame may pay big dividends for M and M. A couple of weeks ago, M and M said they were ready. The defense asked for and extension but was denied. Instantly the Judge approves M and M request for extension. Does the Judge want the saga to continue? Or is she out to resolve the issue and move on?
Seems to me your boy Jose Baez mae his own “latest move to fame” as a “talking head” on the Jane Velez-Mitchel show which I am sure he is hoping may “pay big dividends” and to continue to get himself national attention. If not M&M it would have just been another attorney. So, let’s just get it straight…All these attorneys surrounding this case are looking for, or have already found fame, for their involvment.
I posted a link to your article over at Orlando Sentinel and they removed it.
Richard, do you think that the Judge will wait until next Jan to dismiss the case?
No, if she is going to dismiss it; she will do it now.
Thank you and I hope that means Friday. I would like to see it move on to the Tes trial. I am not sure if Roy Kronk and Tim Miller are going to get plastic surgery or a make over via Dr Phil though.
My question is:Why wouldn’t Atty Morgan request for Alternate Service thru Publication,seeing he’s having difficulty getting her served?Would you have done this, if you were representing Zenaida? Or is J.Munyon insisting that it be an “In Hand Service”?
Very interesting article. The Doctine of Absolute Immunity is absolutely astonishing. I’m interpreting this to mean that anyone can lie with impunity to anyone at anytime unless they’re under oath. And since an attorney is not under oath in a courtroom, they can lie there also.
As you know, Amanda Knox was convicted in the Italian courts of lying about her boss being the perpetrator of the crime during interegation (both criminal and civil liability) and she and her parents are currently in legal trouble for publicly lying about the actions of the police during their interrogation of Amanda.
This seems like two nations on the opposite ends of the defamation scale, and I like Italy’s approach much better. Lying should never be given carte blanche in a society. Ridiculous.
Problem is, who would have an authority on the truth? Certainly not the State.
Ande certainly not the run-of-the-mill accused murderer’s who ALWAYS lie to avoid being punished, by saying they didn’t do it, or lie and accuse someone else.
I have come to the conclusion that notthatsmart is notverynice !
Or that smart.
Pot meet kettle!
Thank you for taking the time to explain the law to us interested in the case based on its merits, or lack there of. I believe it is of great service to your community.
Oh, just one question. You said “A final issue that has been brought up is whether Zenaida Gonzalez’s case will be dismissed if she is unable to prove actual monetary damages”
I have read the plaintiff ZG’s complaints and she alleges certain damages (loss of home, employment, etc) Doesn’t she have to show she actually suffered those losses?
The defamation did not occur between the defendant & LE. The defendant was shown a photo lineup, & the defendant wasn’t able to (or didn’t want to coz she couldn’t) pick ZFG out. The defamation occurred afterward. The defendant was visited in jail (on video, as you know) by her mother. Her mother asked her if she was shown a photo lineup by LEOs; defendant indicated to the negative (which was a lie). Defendant continued her “kidnapping by ZFG” stance, & her mother told her she was going to do an interview with mainstream media on TV, which was broadcast locally, nationally, & was available internationally on TV & through the internet. Her mother asked the defendant if there was a message she’d like to give ZFG through her. The defendant didn’t “exonerate” ZFG of “kidnapping Caylee” at any point in time….instead, the defendant perpetuated the myth of the kidnapping @ the hands of ZFG, & said “tell ZFG that I’ve forgiven her, & to bring Caylee back.” THAT was recorded on jail visitation video. The defendant’s mother took that message directly to media, including the (lie) that “LE didn’t show the defendant a photo lineup of the kidnapper, ZFG”, & defamed ZFG as an agent of the defendant. THAT is the defamation. ALL of the defamation is on videotape. jmho
Thank you for explaining this to us. Now I will be less disappointed if this case is dismissed. I think my hopes for this case was that the damage could be found and another person could be added to the list of people she damaged. My second hope was that if the civil trial happened, she would have to admit to evidence that would prove to us (and the criminal jury) what she did to Caylee. The half-baked stories that Baez told during his opening and closing statements (note: no evidence, just his baseless accusations) should never have been allowed to take place.
By the way, I miss the Caylee Warriors. Together we tried to bring justice. I wish every abused or worse, child could get the attention Caylee did.
What about casey giving a description of THE zenaida’s car and her childrens names? (IMO she got that from the visit card at sawgrass apts) we know caseys imagination is bigger than texas so maybe the -fernandez- is just like her “not that jefferey michael hopkins. i think she likes to make herself and those around her (if she’s USING them) look/sound more important than they are, just like having a “nanny” (usually associated with a wealthier class than the scamthony’s)
You say “The primary reason I believe it has no merit is that Zenaida Gonzalez has failed to show that she is the actual person that Casey Anthony referred to; meaning that she is actually “Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez.” well than nobody can ever prove she is who Casey was talking about b/c “Casey’s” Zenaida was a FICTIONAL character!!!! But I bet other ZFG’s didn’t have the crap that happened to Zenaida happen to them. So her life was messed up all b/c of scum Casey!
While that is unfortunate, Ms. Gonzalez not only brought much of the attention to herself she has profited off of her involvement in this case (not that I blame her).
However, she is suing Casey Anthony for intentionally defaming her and intentionally causing her emotional distress. In order to prove that Casey Anthony intentionally committed some act against her, she must prove Casey even knew who she was in the first place.
Good article Mr. Hornsby. I missed your analysis(your wit) and hope you provide insight on other cases as well.
“…witness or defendant in a criminal investigation, is entitled to Absolute Immunity from civil law suits for any statements made during a criminal investigation.”
I know this is the law but…In the “Casey Anthony Circus”, throwing out names and accusations about Roy Kronk or George Anthony without backing it up with “proof” is a bunch of BS. An attorney and their client throwing out lies to muddy the water and defame innocent parites without any retribution is just wrong. Every single person accused of murder makes excuses (lies) and tries to point the finger at someone else.
At least prosecutors back up their accusation with some kind of proof, that gets their case to court, but the defense attorneys and their client get to “accuse” with nothing to back up an accusation and are immune for those “statements”/accusations that defame an innocent party? I call BS. There is something wrong with that. Very wrong. Just think. If they were held accountable, yes, by facing a possible lawsuit from a defamed person, let’s see what the accused murderer can come up with besides “Nope, I didn’t do it”.
I agree. I read that tortuous case that’s cited in the article and a couple other links (it can go on for a week, I’m sure). It’s basically a case about a company that was accused of hiring prostitutes to lure/keep clients. The absolute immunity is supposed to be for “the public interest of disclosure”, rather than the more realistic “we don’t want to have attorneys be civiliy liable for any reason” conclusion. In my cynical layperson’s opinion, of course.
Linda/”NYER”……you should be more careful with your accusations and your CONSTANTLY calling Casey a murderer, amongst other things. Don’t you know you can’t stalk people (especially non-public figures) through the internet? You seem to think Casey reads all you spew, so given that fact, you must be trying to harass and intimidate her? I have read so much of your garbage all over the place and first refused to address such ignorance, however, I must now say, I believe you are on a list I am glad I am not on. You seem to have some stake in this case while you seem to accuse everyone else of the same.
ZG/the green eyed M&M’s and TES are trying to live off the “fame” the media PLACED on a young, NOT GUILTY/INNOCENT mother. In both of these frivolous cases, Case Law will allow the Judge to use discretion and you don’t seem to comprehend that. There isn’t one big “book of law” as you seem to think. ZG is nothing more that a glommer of fame that does not exist for her. Her “lawyers” should be ashamed fro bastardizing the system they way they have.
Precedent is now being set for internet language/behavior. Did you hear about a recent NJ case? Intimidation? Bias? May not fit perfectly into to the Anthony debacle, but it’s close. I can’t help reminding anyone who will remember Mr. Mason’s words after the innocent verdict::::”keep your lawyer close”. His recent interview warned of a Federal investigation into people like YOU!
Oh, yes…….my sentiments apply to several on this private blog. “Caylee warriors”……ridiculous. Hate mongers are more like it.
The greatest trick the She-Devil ever pulled was convincing the jury she was Not Guilty.
Yes, Richard, I agree.
“I can’t help reminding anyone who will remember Mr. Mason’s words after the innocent verdict::::”keep your lawyer close”. His recent interview warned of a Federal investigation into people like YOU!”.
MR???!!! Mason? Would that be the old fool wearing the white suit made out of feathers? I’m picturing him now. Old Leghorn Foghorn just yelling at the top of his lungs, “I say, I mean, I say!!!!”. Then of course throw in a shot of old Foghorn, with his white feathers ruffled, giving the Eye-talion salute to the press. Real class! His wife must be proud.