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.
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
Interesting you bring up Det. Brian Cross.
In addition to his involvement with Maya, there’s another issue with him in Casey Anthony’s case.
First, from early docs.
JULY 29TH, 2008
At approximately 1313 hrs I arrived at 950 Bennett Rd. and I submitted to Wuesthoff laboratories via FedEx the following piece of evidence:
* Sealed box containing metal can with a piece of stained spare tire cover. (Art #2, Item # H-51977) FedEx Tracking number #8619041267.
Try tracking it.
http://fedex.com/Tracking
#8619041267
Not found
No information for the following shipments/FedEx Office orders has been received by our system yet. Please try again later
Then
AUGUST 4TH, 2008
Detective Brian Cross from the Homicide Unit arrived at the forensics office and transferred to me a sealed box containing metal can with a piece of stained spare tire cover. (Art #2, Item # H-51977).
This piece of evidence was previously submitted to Wuesthoff but never processed by them.
Looks like it was never really shipped to them to begin with.
What was Brian Cross doing with it for 5 days? Or, who really had it and what were THEY doing with it?
With that find, it made Brian Cross interesting in this case, so I looked into him further.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Orange County Sheriff’s Office deprives man of liberty, Orlando Police storm troopers terrorize family at Christmas
This is the story of Trason Brooks and his friend, Chris Brussow, who suffered mightily at the hands of Beate Faanes(1), with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and the Orlando Police Department as willing accomplices. Beate Faanes, besides having a silly name, is described as being absolutely gorgeous (I don’t see it, myself. She’s not unattractive, but there must be something extra that she projects in person if she is to be described as unusually beautiful). She is 25 years old, 5’9″ tall, has an athletic figure, blonde hair, blue eyes — a real attention-getter among those of us who happen to be male.(2)
Faanes had a boyfriend by the name of Trason Brooks. They dated on and off over a period of 18 months, but Brooks broke off the relationship for good. Apparently, she was looking for marriage and he wasn’t.(3) After two months of having no contact at all with Faanes, he was surprised to find himself being taken into custody by the Orange County sheriff’s Office and “charged with attempted first-degree murder and aggravated stalking” — of Beate Faanes.(4)
The Sheriff’s Office said that Faanes had been attacked (she had the injuries to prove it) and she had fingered Brooks as the attacker — that was enough probable cause, they thought, to arrest Brooks.(5) Now, to those of you who think that sheriff’s deputies and police officers always act only in their capacity as peace officers, you might think that arresting Brooks was the right thing to do. However, it will become clear to you that in this case, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office (OCSO), and later the Orlando Police Department, behaved in this scenario much more like common thugs and storm troopers than like peace officers. In fact, if you apply the Sauce for the Goose Rule, their actions were no less than criminal, but more on that later.
You see, Brooks has solid alibis for two of the three attacks that Faanes had alleged. “He told Orange County investigators as much, but ‘they didn’t care. They relied on her word 100 percent,’ he said. The sheriff’s office attitude, he said: ‘You beat this girl, she has the marks, she has no witnesses, but you’re guilty.’”(6) And it gets worse.
According to OCSO records, Faanes had “attempted suicide in January 2004 over a break-up with another boyfriend. And, investigative records state, she admitted lying to Brooks about having aborted his baby in an attempt to gain his love — in fact, she was never pregnant.”(7) Despite this character evidence, and despite the fact that Faanes had no witnesses whereas Brooks had several, Detective Brian Cross, the lead sheriff’s detective, maintained that she was still credible. “At the time, based on the evidence at hand, he said the most likely apparent danger would be to not arrest Brooks and risk having Faanes later turn up dead. So Brooks, a 28-year-old golf instructor and aspiring real estate salesman, went to jail with no bond.”(8) In my opinion, this makes Brian Cross guilty of willful negligence in not investigating Brooks’ alibis. Personally, I think he should be brought up on criminal charges, as I would be for false imprisonment. The thugs down at the OCSO, who didn’t even consider that Faanes might be lying, dutifully put Brooks in a maximum-security lockup where he stayed for the next 93 days.(9)
Now enter Brooks’ good friend, Chris Brussow. Brooks had not, in fact attacked Faanes, and Brussow knew it. How did he know it? Because Brooks was with Brussow one of the nights that Faanes (and the malefactors down at the OCSO), allege that he attacked her. As any good friend (or good citizen) would do, Brussow went before a judge to testify as to what he knew so that, hopefully, his friend would be released from jail.(10)
Unfortunately, his testimony would end up having the opposite of its intended effect. You see, Faanes was in the courtroom when Brussow gave his testimony, and, like magic, she suddenly had been attacked by Brussow as well. Nearly two months after his testimony, Faanes “came forward with a new allegation: that Brussow came to her apartment and attacked her, punching her face and cutting her side. . . There were new bruises and a cut, so this time it was Brussow being carted off to jail. “No matter what I said to anybody, they laughed at me,” he recalled. “‘Sure you’re innocent.’ ‘Sure you didn’t do it.’”(11) As you can see, the arresting officers are behaving a lot more like thugs than like peace officers.
Unlike his friend, Brussow was able to get bond after four days in jail.(12) His freedom, however, would not last. “On Christmas Day, Faanes told police Brussow again attacked her, this time with a knife, almost slitting her neck.”(13) So, like the dutiful little malefactors they apparently are, without doing any background research into the situation, the thugs of the Orlando Police Department “stormed Brussow’s condo within hours with a warrant for attempted murder.”(14) These Orlando police storm troopers brazenly interrupted Christmas, with weapons at the ready, shouting, “‘get face down, face down,’ probably seven officers at least one dog. We’re [Brussow & his family] all on the ground in handcuffs. It’s very disheartening to look up see my mom in handcuffs,’ [Brussow] said. ‘All I could think about is this girl who’s done this to me. I’m obviously terrified because now I’m going back to jail again.’”(15)
In my opinion, these actions of the Orlando Police Department amount to criminal negligence, and I think that everyone who participated in this operation should be arrested and charged criminally under the laws of the State of Florida with assault and battery. Now, how can I say that? After all, these police officers were just doing their jobs, right? We don’t want to deter them from catching criminals do we? Well, no, they weren’t doing their jobs, and I want to keep them focused on catching criminals, which is not what happened here. You see, “[w]hile out on bond on house arrest, Brussow was attached to an ankle bracelet that tracked his every move. And it proved he was home on Christmas when Faanes claimed he attacked her miles away.”(16) If the malefactors over at the OPD had bothered to look into the matter instead of immediately dispatching storm troopers, they would have known that Brussow was innocent of the charges. But, no, instead of doing what we pay them to do, these thugs thought it would be fun to go bust up someone’s Christmas gathering. It disgusts me even thinking about it.
Also, by this time, “Brooks’ lawyers produced a dozen alibi witnesses and dental records proving he was in Jackson County when Fannes claimed he last attacked her in Orange County, 300 miles away. Finally, a prosecutor asked Orlando police to seek the truth Brooks and Brussow had been claiming all along. . . Both are consulting lawyers about possibly suing Faanes and law enforcement agencies for not diligently checking out her claims before arresting them. But for now they’re just glad they’re not in jail or prison.”(17)
Brooks and Brussow should, in my opinion, be allowed to seek file criminal charges against the law enforcement agencies involved in this matter. In the case of Brian Cross and the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, it was a case of willful negligence that led to the unjustified incarceration of Trason Brooks. In the case of the Orlando Police Department, it was gross negligence that led them to send storm troopers to terrorize the family of Chris Brussow at Christmas. In the face of such negligence, it shouldn’t be a case of merely ‘oops, sorry’ and payment of money damages, there should also be some jail time — at least 93 days dished out to some so-called law enforcement personnel here.
You have a sheriff’s office that refused to corroborate that Brooks was, indeed, Faanes’ attacker, you have sheriff’s deputies who taunted Brussow and judged him guilty with absolutely no objective evidence, and you have a Police Department willing to storm a family gathering no-questions-asked when they can find out whether they should simply by picking up the telephone. I’m sorry if you think law enforcement personnel deserve special treatment — I do too, but not in a case like this where it is clear that there has been willful and gross negligence; not just an honest mistake. In cases like this, the Sauce for the Goose Rule(18) should be applied. In other words, if law enforcement personnel engage in behavior that I would be arrested for and charged with a crime, then they also should be arrested and so charged.
Again, before I get hate-mail from law enforcement people and their families, let me reiterate that it is my strong belief that to carry out his legal duties, a peace officer must be granted a little leeway for honest mistakes committed while carrying out those duties. But the key word is honest. When a member of a law enforcement agency engages in willful or gross negligence, he should be brought up on criminal charges — which is exactly what he would insist on if you or I had committed similar negligence. If punishment for this sort of malfeasance were standard practice, our police and sheriff’s deputies would be much more responsible in the performance of their duties, and people like Brooks and Brussow would not have to suffer in the manner that they have.
As for Beate Faanes, I hope she goes to prison for a long time. She has been arrested and is currently being charged with perjury and filing false reports. But who is the bigger malefactor, here? Faanes? Or the law enforcement agencies that made it possible to do what she did? Americans like me have had enough of this kind of thing and it needs to stop. Now.
———Orange County Sheriff’s Office (407-254-7000)
———Orlando Police Department (407-246-2470)
http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_archive.html
I’m not in Central FL, so you may know way more about this case than I, but Det. Brian Cross does not seem like a “serve and protect kind of guy.
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?